Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 31, 2009, 11:00:11 AM
-
You can have an opinion, just so long as it's the same opinion. ::)
Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2009
Hawaii Democrats reprimand senator over civil-union e-mail
Party irked over senator's e-mail against civil-unions bill
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer
State Democrats agreed yesterday to uphold a reprimand against state Sen. Mike Gabbard, finding the senator actively worked against a civil-unions bill last session and undermined the party's platform in favor of equality and civil rights.
O'ahu Democrats voted in July to reprimand Gabbard, a prominent opponent of same-sex marriage in the 1990s, for sending an e-mail to a party activist that said he would encourage his colleagues in the Senate to oppose civil unions.
Gabbard, who said he was representing the will of his constituents, appealed to the party's state central committee. The committee narrowly voted to uphold the reprimand after a private meeting at the Musicians' Association of Hawai'i union hall.
"It was a rigorous process. It was a very tough issue, and this was the result," said Brian Schatz, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawai'i, who voted against a reprimand.
Gabbard, D-19th (Kapolei, Makakilo, Waikele), said the fairest way to resolve such disagreements is at the ballot box.
"I think the fairest thing to do is to simply encourage people to get involved in the process, and let the democratic process play itself out," he said. "Whether it's civil unions or any other issue — or any elected official for that matter — ultimately any reprimand should happen at the ballot box every election cycle."
Democrats said it is rare to discipline an elected official for actions involving a public-policy issue that's before the state Legislature. In 1999, the party's state central committee approved a resolution critical of state senators who voted against the confirmations of state Attorney General Margery Bronster and budget director Earl Anzai.
A reprimand is the least severe punishment available to the party. The senator could have faced censure or expulsion.
Debi Hartmann, the chair of O'ahu Democrats, said Gabbard distinguished himself from other Democrats who opposed civil unions by the e-mail promising to actively organize against the bill.
The O'ahu Democrats' rules committee had recommended dismissing the complaint against Gabbard, but O'ahu Democrats rejected the recommendation and opted for a reprimand.
"He said in the e-mail that he would actively work to encourage his colleagues to do something," said Hartmann, who opposed same-sex marriage in the 1990s but backed civil unions at the Legislature last session. "That's very different than a member of the Legislature voting on an issue because his constituents feel a particular way."
Mun-Won Chang, a small-business owner who lives in 'Ewa Beach, said she was against the reprimand because it could make Gabbard a hero to opponents of civil unions. She said Democrats should instead focus on getting the bill passed next session.
"We are the party of inclusion, that's what President Obama ran on, so we need to include everyone," she said. "If that's what his view is, let it be his view. And if he's representing his constituents, who are we to say 'No, you can't vote that way'?"
Several party activists, still disappointed by Gabbard's visible role against same-sex marriage in the 1990s, were upset when Gabbard switched from the Hawai'i Republican Party in 2007 and was embraced by leading Democrats. Gabbard said at the time that he did not agree with the party on all issues and specifically cited civil unions and abortion rights.
Gabbard, chairman of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, has mostly worked on issues such as renewable energy and environmental protection in the Senate. Other than speaking out against civil unions, the senator has not been publicly vocal about social issues.
The party's platform plank on civil rights and equal rights supports "equal access to fundamental rights including but not limited to marriage, privacy, and a woman's right to choose."
The civil-unions bill that passed the state House last session would give same-sex partners who enter into civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples under state law. Domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages performed in other states would be recognized as civil unions in Hawai'i.
The bill was amended in the Senate to allow both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions.
The bill stalled in the Senate but remains alive for the next session that starts in January.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090830/NEWS01/908300350/Hawaii+Democrats+reprimand+senator+over+civil-union+e-mail
-
yawn.
political parties are private clubs. you're free to join one or not. as a private club, they can set their own rules. If an elected official, one who used party resources to get elected, does not follow the requests of party leadership, the party leadership can choose to sanction him. if he doesn't like it, he is free to quit the party.
-
yawn.
political parties are private clubs. you're free to join one or not. as a private club, they can set their own rules. If an elected official, one who used party resources to get elected, does not follow the requests of party leadership, the party leadership can choose to sanction him. if he doesn't like it, he is free to quit the party.
I think this is crazy. This is supposed to be the party of tolerance. The big tent. ::) What a farce.
What's even more outrageous about this is Democrats knew Gabbard's history when they recruited him to switch parties AFTER he was elected. He's the most vocal and recognizable pro-traditional marriage proponent in the state. How shocking that he actually opposed the civil union/homosexual marriage bill after becoming a "Democrat." ::)
-
Older stories:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133812.0
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=342427.0
-
The liberal response to opposing viewpoints: silence them. ::)
Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published July 27, 2010
FoxNews.com
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./Keeton640_397x224.jpg)
Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since last year, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.
A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.
"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the 43-page lawsuit reads.
Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.
"The faculty identifies Miss Keeton's views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations," the lawsuit reads.
The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton's "disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are cases of identity confusion.
If Keeton fails to complete the plan, including additional reading and the writing of papers describing the impact on her beliefs, she will be expelled from the Counselor Education Program, the lawsuit claims.
Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the "result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces," according to the suit.
"She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created," the lawsuit reads. "Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle,' not a 'state of being.'"
In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students' moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.
"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."
David French, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit against Augusta State University on Keeton's behalf, said no university has the right to force a citizen to change their beliefs on any topic.
"The university has told Jennifer Keeton that if she doesn't change her beliefs, she can't stay in the program," he told FoxNews.com. "She won't even have a chance to counsel any students; she won't have a chance to get a counseling degree; she'll be expelled."
Keeton, who is not available for interviews according to French, believes that people have "moral choices" regarding their sexuality, he said.
"A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion," French said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/
-
Most far left libs hate free speech.
-
I hope she got that stuff in writing (like email or something), but I don't think the profs would be that dumb. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.
-
Chicago School Refuses to Host Rove, Welcomes Obama Appointee
By Stephen Clark
Published July 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Loyola University Chicago has refused to host Karl Rove (r) but is welcoming Obama appointee Eboo Patel (l). (IFYC/AP)
A private university in Chicago that refuses to host former senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, arguing that welcoming a "political" speaker ahead of the midterm elections could threaten its tax-exempt status, has added an Obama administration appointee to address the student body.
Loyola University Chicago is hosting Eboo Patel, an Obama appointee to the White House interfaith council, next month, calling into question the school's rationale for rejecting Rove's appearance.
"The news that Eboo Patel, an appointee of the Obama administration, will be allowed to speak at Loyola University Chicago, while Karl Rove was essentially barred, is further proof that the (university) administration either has zero understanding of tax law or is unabashedly biased," said Evan Gassman, a spokesman for Young America's Foundation, a conservative outreach group that was sponsoring the Rove speech.
University spokesman Steve Christensen told FoxNews.com that the topic of Patel's speech does not have a political motive, which would violate current speaker policy.
"Our university considers its on-campus speakers on a case-by-case basis, and very carefully," he said. "Dr. Patel's speech on Aug. 27 will focus on the importance of interfaith leadership and transformative education, two topics that are directly associated with the university's mission. This is a very different lecture than what was proposed by our College Republicans, who informed the university in their proposal that they are inviting Karl Rove 'to speak in October 2010 to speak about the upcoming elections and their impact on public policy.'"
The university previously argued that the timing of Rove's appearance for the upcoming school year could imperil its 501(c )(3) tax status.
"The timing of this event is problematic given the campaign cycle," Kimberly A. Moore, director of student affairs and Greek affairs, told students in an e-mail. "Loyola has to maintain impartiality in order to protect our tax-exempt status."
Adam Kissel of the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told FoxNews.com that the school appears to be applying a "double standard."
"We often see rules applied strangely as a proxy for the real issue that a particular administrator or the whole institution doesn't want the lecture to happen and a pretext is developed to keep the speaker off of campus," Kissel said. "We see that time after time."
Rove, a Fox News contributor who gained prominence as the architect of former President George W. Bush's successful campaign strategies in 2000 and 2004, is not working on any campaign this season.
The school has offered to host Rove after the midterm election on Nov. 2, but the conservative group said Rove would not be able to speak then because of his busy schedule.
Conservative students point out that the school has hosted partisan speakers on election years before. In September 2004, the school hosted Howard Dean, who ran for president that year. A couple of weeks after his speech, political activist Ralph Nader, who also ran for president that year, spoke on campus -- a speech that was advertised as a campaign event in which donations were solicited.
Patel, whom Obama appointed last year to his advisory council of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, will discuss interfaith leadership and transformative education, according to the school's provost who is sponsoring the speech. Patel was named by Harvard's Kennedy School Review as one of five future policy leaders to watch.
"It is very disconcerting to see Loyola not live up to the standards of academic freedom that they frequently preach about," said Sean Vera, the student who tried to bring Rove to the campus.
"I never expected Loyola would prevent the free exchange of ideas and they would do so in such a partisan manner," he said.
But the university said times have changed.
"In recent years, the IRS has become increasingly more scrutinizing over not-for-profit universities and their tax-exempt status as it relates to political or potentially political speakers invited to come on campus," Christensen said. "With that in mind, our university has become more cautious in its decision-making."
Kissel, of FIRE, called that a "false argument."
"It does not threaten the school's 501(c )(3) status to permit a student group to bring even a politician to campus while the politician is in office," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/chicago-school-refuses-host-rove-welcomes-obama-appointee/
-
NPR Ends Analyst’s Contract After Comments on Muslims (Juan Williams)
New York Times ^ | October 20, 2010
________________________ ________________________ ________________
NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel. NPR said in a statement that it gave Mr. Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night. The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.
He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.
NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
The public radio organization said it thanked him for many years of service. Mr. Williams did not immediately respond on Wednesday night to an e-mail seeking comment...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
________________________ ________________________ ________
More tolerance, open mindedness, and respect for different views from the far left. ::) ::)
-
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be. ::) This fool is a bad as Michael Newdow (sp?).
-
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be. ::) This fool is a bad as Michael Newdow (sp?).
I see no evidence of paranoia or extremism
someone who sees paranoia and extremism where none exists is most likely the one who is paranoid
-
Amazing how rude and ignorant some paranoid anti-religious extremists can be.
Heck, I know some pro-religious types who believe a higher power condemns them for little things like masturbating before bed - as he's always watching.
talk about paranoid...
-
Usually when there are disorderly conduct charges you know it's all bogus.
How extremist of him, to dare to voice his opinion in public and complain about a violation of the Constitution. And he did so while stating his name and in a peaceful way.
If anything I think his 1st Amendment Rights were violated, or maybe the praying zealots want to ban public speech.
-
I see no evidence of paranoia or extremism
someone who sees paranoia and extremism where none exists is most likely the one who is paranoid
Does that mean that you admit that you are paranoid and delusional as well, or is this epiphany another one of those liberalisms that applies to everyone else except you?
-
Does that mean that you admit that you are paranoid and delusional as well, or is this epiphany another one of those liberalisms that applies to everyone else except you?
your statement makes no sense
I see no evidence of anyone "out to get me" unlike some other posters on this board who think people or groups of people are out to get them
-
Usually when there are disorderly conduct charges you know it's all bogus.
How extremist of him, to dare to voice his opinion in public and complain about a violation of the Constitution. And he did so while stating his name and in a peaceful way.
If anything I think his 1st Amendment Rights were violated, or maybe the praying zealots want to ban public speech.
That wasn't peaceful. It was an unnecessary, disrespectful, political stunt. He could have said the same thing outside of the chambers, which is what everyone else does when they want to make a political statement. No one should be allowed to disrupt proceedings like that. It may not be a crime, but they can certainly kick his butt out.
That guy is a fool. He spends his time searching for any expression of Christianity on public property and cries about it. He has been involved in countless disputes over that kind of stuff. He was probably one of the persons complaining about state legislators having a fish symbol on their office doors. ::) An example of a dumb atheist (and there are plenty of smart ones).
-
your statement makes no sense
I see no evidence of anyone "out to get me" unlike some other posters on this board who think people or groups of people are out to get them
What does that have to do with your ironically hypocritical statement about individuals who see extremism everywhere?
-
What does that have to do with your ironically hypocritical statement about individuals who see extremism everywhere?
feel free to explain my alleged hypocrisy
I never said anyone was out to get me and the only one who seems paranoid on this thread is a certain bible thumper who thinks people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights are somehow out to get him (or people like him)
-
I never addressed whether anyone was out to get anyone. I just thought that your statement was hypocritical and ironic because more than almost anyone else on this board, you accuse others of being extremists because they disagree with you and have what can only be described as a delusional and paranoid worldview.
-
I never addressed whether anyone was out to get anyone. I just thought that your statement was hypocritical and ironic because more than almost anyone else on this board, you accuse others of being extremists because they disagree with you and have what can only be described as a delusional and paranoid worldview.
I don't recall accusing anyone of being an extremist for disagreeing with me ?
If I do it so often, as you suggest, why don't you show me an example or two of what you're talking about
-
And as I often respond, I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure someone else could dig up multiple threads that illustrate my point.
Your pro Islam/ anti christian, pro gay marriage, pro socialist postings will reveal many examples.
-
And as I often respond, I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure someone else could dig up multiple threads that illustrate my point.
Your pro Islam/ anti christian, pro gay marriage, pro socialist postings will reveal many examples.
give me an example from memory then
I don't recall calling anyone an extremist and especially for just disagreeing with me
I usually don't even resort to name calling until someone starts doing it to me
-
I just gave you several from memory. I don't remember the names of the exact threads. I recall you once called 333 an extremist for disagreeing with the African genital washing program in the Stimulus Bill.
-
I just gave you several from memory. I don't remember the names of the exact threads. I recall you once called 333 an extremist for disagreeing with the African genital washing program in the Stimulus Bill.
no you didn't - you gave not one example of me calling anyone an extremist for disagreeing with me.
further more - I'm not pro-Isam (no idea where you got that from), I'm not anti-christian (just keep out of government), I'm not a socialist and although I'm not against gay marriage (it's a civil rights issue) I've never called anyone and extremist or anything close to it for disagreeing with me on that issue (or any that I can recall).
I see you still can't stop thinking about genitals
If you think I called him an extremist on that thread then you can easily locate that thread and find an example
-
I could. But I wont.
We both know the truth.
-
I could. But I wont.
We both know the truth.
I know the truth - not sure about you
here's the thread - it took 2 seconds to find it
I haven't even bothered to look at it because I know I'm right
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=348652.0
-
When people like straw call me an extremist, I know I am clearly on the right track.
-
When people like straw call me an extremist, I know I am clearly on the right track.
show me where I've called you an extremist
I've called you an idiot, moron, etc..
but I've never called you an extremist and certainly not merely disagreeing with me
have I ?
-
I've been called so many names by now I lost track, but whether you call me an extremist, idiot, moron, or whatever, I still consider it a sign and indication of my being far closer to the right and correct side of an issue than not.
-
I've been called so many names by now I lost track, but whether you call me an extremist, idiot, moron, or whatever, I still consider it a sign and indication of my being far closer to the right and correct side of an issue than not.
how many times have you called other people a moron, idiot etc..
we all give each other shit but I've never called you an extremist or even a moron for simply disagreeing with me
show me an example
shit - I always start every conversation with everyone (even Whorewell and Bum) with a clean slate ....every time
-
i think straw man has said that nancy pelosi is not far left...
that gives you an idea of where he lands on the political spectrum
-
i think straw man has said that nancy pelosi is not far left...
that gives you an idea of where he lands on the political spectrum
where are Sanders and Kucinich in relation to Pelosi ?
-
where are Sanders and Kucinich in relation to Pelosi ?
lol simply b/c there are ppl out there further left doesnt mean she isnt far left
is pelosi far left in your opinion straw?
-
Kookcinich is a joke.
-
lol simply b/c there are ppl out there further left doesnt mean she isnt far left
is pelosi far left in your opinion straw?
no
-
no
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum
-
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum
Yes, he falls somewhere between "moron" and "idiot".
-
Yes, he falls somewhere between "moron" and "idiot".
I assume that is to the left of Moran
:D
-
LOL again this gives you guys a very good idea of where strawman lands on the political spectrum
she is the Dem leader in the House so if she is Far Left then so is the Democratic Party
-
she is the Dem leader in the House so if she is Far Left then so is the Democratic Party
LOL goodness gracious your rationalzations sometimes are just knee slapping funny bro
first a number of the left didnt want her as the minority leader
second a number of the moderate democrats lost in the slaughter that was the 2010 mid term elections...
the ppl from districts with far left leanings such as pelosi's...got re-elected b/c their far left beliefs align with their constituents...
the others from moderate districts didnt agree with the far left agenda pushed by pelosi et al and guess where they are now?
thats right voted out...
so who is left in the democratic party in congress right now?
hmmm well if alot of the moderates got booted and the far lefts re-elected...
-
LOL goodness gracious your rationalzations sometimes are just knee slapping funny bro
first a number of the left didnt want her as the minority leader
second a number of the moderate democrats lost in the slaughter that was the 2010 mid term elections...
the ppl from districts with far left leanings such as pelosi's...got re-elected b/c their far left beliefs align with their constituents...
the others from moderate districts didnt agree with the far left agenda pushed by pelosi et al and guess where they are now?
thats right voted out...
so who is left in the democratic party in congress right now?
hmmm well if alot of the moderates got booted and the far lefts re-elected...
I've said Pelosi is not far left and gave you some examples of people who could be conisidered far left
I then said if you've going to call Pelosi far left then you might as well calls the Democratic Party (at least in the house) far left as she is their chosen leader and you seem to be making that same argument in your post above
-
I've said Pelosi is not far left and gave you some examples of people who could be conisidered far left
I then said if you've going to call Pelosi far left then you might as well calls the Democratic Party (at least in the house) far left as she is their chosen leader and you seem to be making that same argument in your post above
LOL the ppl in congress are not the democratic party...they are only part of it and as i explained further left for the most part now than before the elections...
again your rationalizations sometimes are knee slapping funny bro...
-
University to Change Policy Defining Religious Discrimination as Oppression by Christians
By Todd Starnes
Published February 16, 2011
FoxNews.com
The University of California at Davis has backed away from a policy that defined religious discrimination as Christians oppressing non-Christians after more than two dozen Christian students filed a formal complaint.
The definition was listed in a document called, “The Principles of Community.” It defined “Religious/Spiritual Discrimination” as “The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”
“This is radical political correctness run amok,” said David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative advocacy group wrote a letter on behalf of more than 25 students who objected to the policy and wanted it revised.
He said it’s absurd to single out Christians as oppressors and non-Christians as the only oppressed people on campus.
Raheem Reed, an associate executive vice chancellor at UC-Davis, said he received the letter and removed the definition Wednesday afternoon.
“I certainly can see how a Christian student reading that definition might feel and that’s why it was immediately disabled and taken down,” Reed told Fox News Radio. “This is not how we define religious discrimination.”
However, one student said they complained to administrators last November about the policy and nothing was done. “Christians deserve the same protections against religious discrimination as any other students on a public university campus,” French told Fox News Radio. “The idea that a university would discriminate against Christians is a very old story, unfortunately, and one that we see played out every day.”
One student, who asked not to be identified, said university officials asked her to reaffirm “The Principles of Community” last semester. She refused to do so when she realized that Christians were not protected under the policy.
“To have a non-discrimination policy that excludes the Christian faith is a cause for action,” she said. “In higher academia, one would hope that a diversity of ideas and beliefs would be appreciated. But my experience has been that this has not always been the case. There is a real fear of academic bias against the Christian faith.”
Reed said he regrets that Christian students might feel intimidated. “We want everyone to feel safe, welcomed and supportive,” he said.
“Not only are we taking it down, but now we’re going to look at what kind of affirmative steps we can take to reassure those members of our campus community who may have felt somewhat threatened or intimidated by it.”
French said all of the students who complained are fearful of backlash if their identities became known. “This was amazing to actually enshrine in your non-discrimination statement – discrimination against Christians,” he said.
“This is a symbol of the seeming impunity in which universities violate the law to establish a radical, secular-left agenda.” Alan Brownstein, a law professor at UC-Davis, said the campus has a generally open and tolerant view of religion.
“It’s a university campus,” he said. “There is robust debate and people will disagree on just about everything.” Brownstein, who is a nationally known constitutional scholar, said any legal challenges to the policy would depend on whether or not it’s a binding document.
“Clearly, if you had an enforceable regulatory policy that said, ‘we will discipline Christians who oppress non-Christians, but we will not impose the same kind of disciplinary sanctions on non-Christians who engage in the same kind of harassing behavior against Christians,’ that would be unacceptable and subject to legal challenge.”
Reed said “The Principles of Community” is not a policy. “They are, in fact, aspirational principles we have – to try to make sure we are promoting diversity and trying to build a more inclusive campus community,” he said.
Regardless, Brownstein said it might have been more appropriate to use less-specific language in the policy. “It’s always preferable to be as general as you can when you describe these kinds of unacceptable behaviors,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/16/university-says-change-definition-christians-oppressors/
-
-
BB - check out my post in samsons thread what bama admn is doing to the Boston Herald.
-
Florida Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Posts on Personal Facebook Page
By Todd Starnes
Published August 19, 2011
FoxNews.com
A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.
Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.
“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”
Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.
Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”
But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.
Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.
The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.
The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.
“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”
According to the school system, what Buell wrote on his private account was disturbing. They were especially concerned that gay students at the school might be frightened or intimidated walking into his classroom. Patton also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private.
“He has (more than) 700 friends,” he said. “How private is that – really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm – it’s not private.”
Buell’s attorney strongly disagreed and accused the school system of violating his First Amendment rights.
“The school district is being anti-straight, anti-First Amendment and anti-personal liberty,” said Horatio Mihet, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “The idea that public servants have to whole-heartedly endorse homosexual marriage is repugnant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Mihet told Fox News Radio.
“All he did was speak out on an issue of national importance and because his comments did not fit a particular mold, he is now being investigated and could possibly lose his job. What have we come to?”
Buell said he does not know the individual who filed the complaint, but the past week has caused his family “heartache.”
“To try and say you could lose your job over speaking about something in the venue that I did in the manner that I did is not just a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “It’s a violent reaction to one person making a complaint.”
But Patton said the school system has an obligation to take the comments seriously. He said Buell will not be allowed back in the classroom “until we do all the interviews and do a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings.”
To accomplish that, he said people have been sending the school system screenshots of Buell’s Facebook page.
“Just because you think it’s private, other people are viewing it,” Patton said, noting that the teacher’s Facebook page also contained numerous Bible passages.
Mihet said he was livid.
“These are not fringe ideas that Mr. Buell espoused on his personal Facebook page,” he told Fox News Radio. “They are mainstream textbook opposition to homosexual unions – and now he’s been deemed unfit to teach children because he opposes gay marriage? My goodness.” Buell believes the school system is trying to send a message to Christian teachers.
“There is an intimidation factor if you are a Christian or if you make a statement against it (gay marriage) you are a bigot, a homophobe, you’re a creep, you’re intolerant,” he said. “We should have the right to express our opinions and talk about things.”
But some legal experts believe that school teachers could be held to a different standard when it comes to using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
“This teacher is right on the cusp of going over the line,” said Miami attorney Justin Leto. “If he is ‘friends’ with his students on Facebook, then I think he should not be surprised by the school’s actions. However, if he has a private page and restricts student access, then he should be free to say what he wishes.”
Leto said teachers should have the right to make statements about their own personal beliefs without fear of retribution from their employer. “This assumes that the comments are not hateful, racist or malicious,” he said.
“It’s a little bit more complicated with a school teacher,” said Brad Jacob, a law professor at Regent University. “The first question you have to ask, did this context communicate that the teacher was speaking on behalf of the government?”
But what about on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter? “School teachers generally have free speech rights, and the government may not censor the private speech on public school teachers,” he said.
However, if Buell had communicated his opinion on gay marriage in the classroom, Jacob said the teacher would have been on shaky legal ground. “If he communicated those views in the classroom, I think the state could have grounds to punish or fire him,” he said.
Reaction in Central Florida has been mixed.
Brett Winters, a former Mount Dora student, told the Orlando Sentinel he was disappointed about Buell’s comments. “This type of hateful language is dangerous not only to gay students, but also to anti-gay students,” Winters told the newspaper.
Michael Slaymaker, president of the Orlando Youth Alliance, told the newspaper that gay students might feel uncomfortable in Buell’s class.
“I would hope a teacher would be there to help them and not hurt them,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.
Meanwhile, hundreds of people have joined at least two Facebook groups calling for the school system to reinstate the popular teacher. “He’s developed a reputation as being one of the most caring teachers in the school,” Mihet said.
Buell said the most disappointing part of the investigation is that he may not be in his classroom on Monday – the first day of the school year.
“This is the place where you will receive the most respect out of any place you’ll be all day. I love my kids. I take my job very seriously.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-anti-gay-marriage-post-on-personal-facebook/
-
Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes
Published September 22, 2011
FoxNews.com
An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.
Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.
“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”
And that’s what got him in trouble.
Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”
“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”
Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.
Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:
“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”
After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.
“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”
Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.
“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”
Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.
“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”
Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”
“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.
The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.
“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.
Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.
“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”
“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”
Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.
He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.
“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”
Click here to read more on this story from Fox News Radio.
Click here to read more on this story from MyFoxDFW.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/
-
Bum
except for the story about Rove on the first page (and a private university not wanting him to talk is not an example of censorship) all of your examples of so called "censorship" have to do with certain christian persons opinion about gays, gay marriage, etc....
ignoring the fact that no one is stopping any of these people from writing and publishing their beliefs and even speaking them virtually anywhere they want, why are all your examples about christians and their beliefs about gay people?
Do you believe that "Libs" are persecuting your fellow Christians?
-
Bum
except for the story about Rove on the first page (and a private university not wanting him to talk is not an example of censorship) all of your examples of so called "censorship" have to do with certain christian persons opinion about gays, gay marriage, etc....
ignoring the fact that no one is stopping any of these people from writing and publishing their beliefs and even speaking them virtually anywhere they want, why are all your examples about christians and their beliefs about gay people?
Do you believe that "Libs" are persecuting your fellow Christians?
Straw= Thinks that Christianity opposes homo's like him because Noah's arc doesn't advocate the pairing of same sex animals.
-
Graduate Student Says She Was Dismissed From Program Due to Beliefs Toward Homosexuality
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published October 05, 2011
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/396/223/Julea%20W.jpg)
In July, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit of Julea Ward, seen here, against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.
An attorney for a graduate student claiming she was wrongfully dismissed from her counseling job at a Michigan college because she refused to work with gay and bisexual clients argued in federal court Tuesday that his client was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs -- while the school insists her actions violated school policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati heard arguments in the case involving Julea Ward, a Detroit-area public school teacher. In July 2010, a federal judge dismissed Ward's lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.
Following Tuesday's hearing, Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he believes the Appeals Court will overturn the ruling because it violated Ward’s First Amendment rights.
"Ultimately, the university has a really tough battle here," Tedesco told FoxNews.com. "The bottom line to us is that this is very clear violation of her First Amendment rights in a couple of different contexts."
Tedesco argued that Ward's rights were violated when she was required to enter a remediation program to change her beliefs toward homosexuality. He said EMU officials violated the U.S. Constitution when they refused to accommodate Ward's sincerely held beliefs by not allowing her to refer her client to another qualified candidate.
"Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Julea's religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them," Tedesco said in a statement. He said there is no timetable for the appellate court's decision.
According to ADF attorneys, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship shortly after she enrolled in the counseling program in January 2009. Realizing she could not affirm the client's relationship without violating her own religious beliefs, Ward then asked a supervisor for assistance. After being advised to reassign the potential client, EMU officials informed Ward she would need to undergo a "remediation" program in order to stay in the counseling program, the attorneys claim.
Ward was later dismissed from the program, and EMU officials denied her appeal.
"Julea followed accepted professional practice and the advice of her supervising professor when she referred the potential client to someone who had no conscience issue with the subject to be discussed," Tedesco's statement continued. "She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. Julea was punished for acting professionally and ethically in this situation."
In a statement to FoxNews.com, university officials said they are confident the July 2010 ruling will be upheld.
"This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," read a statement issued by Walter Kraft, vice president for communications at EMU. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly-respected and nationally-accredited counseling program ... This case is important to Eastern Michigan, it also is important to universities across the country, as well as to the several universities in Michigan that have filed briefs in support of our position in this case."
In February, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting EMU.
"Students seeking counseling must be able to trust that they will receive the help they need, free from discrimination," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement.
"Counselors are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but they do not have a right to discriminate as part of their professional training at a public university."
Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, said public school counselors should not be "able to close the door" to homosexual students looking for guidance.
In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward's lawsuit in July, citing the university's rational basis for adopting the American Counseling Association's code of ethics.
"Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values," Steeh wrote. "In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05/appeals-court-to-hear-case-graduate-student-dismissed-for-refusing-to-work-with/?test=latestnews
-
yet another example of non-censorship
Bum - you should correct the title of this thread to "Paranoid Religious Kooks feel persecuted over their bigotry against gay people"
-
Liberals just can't get over the fact that conservatives rule talk radio.
FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves
By Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, Special to CNN
updated 10:05 AM EDT, Mon March 12, 2012
(CNN) -- Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:
-- Female Cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."
-- "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
-- The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."
-- [Said to an African-American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.
Jane Fonda
Limbaugh doesn't just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames -- and the bigger the lie, the more effective -- inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, "femi-Nazi," doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.
Robin Morgan
At least this most recent incident has turned a spotlight back on the vile, damaging statements Limbaugh has been promulgating for years. His sponsors are dropping him; his stations have begun to follow suit. VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a statement by female vets, including Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, demanding that the American Forces Network drop Limbaugh from its programming.
Gloria Steinem
They state, "Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other -- women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect."
That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments.
If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"
Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.
The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.
It's time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it's up to us.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/
-
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them
-
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them
And you let the Communist Occupier in Chief do your thinking - what is your point?
-
In the least surprising news of the day . . . .
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Online, liberals far less tolerant than normal people
IBD Editorials ^ | March 13, 2012 | ANDREW MALCOM
Posted on March 13, 2012 8:22:49 PM EDT by Kaslin
Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.
In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy -- such as, say, uniting diverse Americans -- liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)
The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Free speech is a one way street.
-
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com
Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."
Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.
To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."
The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.
"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.
"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable."
Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.
Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."
Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."
Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."
At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.
Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/
-
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com
Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."
Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.
To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."
The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.
"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.
"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable."
Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.
Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."
Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."
Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."
At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.
Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/
how is this censorship
I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too
-
how is this censorship
I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.
Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?
I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?
-
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.
says who?
by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well
btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)
Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?
no
I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?
feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman
-
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her? Isn't their right to hire who ever they want? And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?
Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?
-
Makes me wonder if an institution that had overwhelmingly conservative staff decided not hire a extreme liberal professor if the outcry would be the same?
Or should it be?
-
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her? Isn't their right to hire who ever they want? And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?
Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want. A taxpayer funded school, not so much.
But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent. It's a liberal hallmark.
-
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want. A taxpayer funded school, not so much.
But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissentIt's a liberal hallmark. .
It's a conservative hallmark to whine about non-existent censorship
how is she being silenced ?
she can speak, blog, publish etc.. and can probably get a job at a 100 different schools
she is not entitled to a job at any particular school regardless of whether that school receives any public assistance or not
should the school be forced to hire David Duke as well because his particular political beliefs are not represented?
-
says who?
by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well
btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)
no
feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.
you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?
does fox news receive public subsidies?
define censor straw...
-
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.
you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?
does fox news receive public subsidies?
define censor straw...
this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings
again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university
-
this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings
again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university
LOL I didnt know that their were imams and rabbis applying for jobs at churchs
find any definition of censor that doesnt...jack ass
-
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want. A taxpayer funded school, not so much.
But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent. It's a liberal hallmark.
Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else? I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant. It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization.
-
Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else? I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant. It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization.
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal. It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints.
Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions. They cut them off. Try and shut them up. It's a very predictable reaction.
The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.
-
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal. It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints.
Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions. They cut them off. Try and shut them up. It's a very predictable reaction.
The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.
leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda. They are the least tolerant of anyone.
-
leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda. They are the least tolerant of anyone.
I agree. Not true of all of them, but certainly true of a lot.
-
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal. It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints.
Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions. They cut them off. Try and shut them up. It's a very predictable reaction.
The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?
If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?
-
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?
If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?
Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience?
-
Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience?
Huh?
Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.
-
Huh?
Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.
Conservatives don't have the captive audience that leftists and communists do like the school system, the msm, the colleges, academia, etc.
-
Conservatives don't have the captive audience that leftists and communists do like the school system, the msm, the colleges, academia, etc.
Oh so the military isn't a captive audience?
How many people are in military including defense contractors, industry, consulting etc?
-
Oh so the military isn't a captive audience?
How many people are in military including defense contractors, industry, consulting etc?
Most people by that age have already made up their minds. he leftist communists who write the text books, occupy the teachers unions, who occupy the msm, etc spread their liberal communist crap and false bullshit from far earlier age.
-
churches use state money.. hell, they pay zero taxes. and they sure as shit hire people that fit their ideological beliefs. Wear your Slayer shirt in, see if they hire ya.
-
Most people by that age have already made up their minds. he leftist communists who write the text books, occupy the teachers unions, who occupy the msm, etc spread their liberal communist crap and false bullshit from far earlier age.
Yeah 18-25 year olds never change their mind as they grow older. And the conservative rhetoric and demonization of liberals in the military have no effect. ::)
-
churches use state money.. hell, they pay zero taxes. and they sure as shit hire people that fit their ideological beliefs. Wear your Slayer shirt in, see if they hire ya.
Many congregations are leftist to. Try to get money. I wear my slayer shirts in TJE bronx and pro gin shirts wherever I gp.
my favorite shirt says loudly that only slaves oppose the the. 2nd amwndmenf. I wear it all TJE time.
Communism like the modern day liberal ideology needs to be defeated. Modern day librals equal commies.
-
LOL I didnt know that their were imams and rabbis applying for jobs at churchs
find any definition of censor that doesnt...jack ass
sorry can't find any definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job
feel free to provide one or I'll assume the point has been made
-
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?
If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?
Are you talking about taxpayer funded organizations? If so, I don't think that happens.
If you're talking about private organizations, then yes I'm sure it happens.
-
Are you talking about taxpayer funded organizations? If so, I don't think that happens.
If you're talking about private organizations, then yes I'm sure it happens.
The military isn't a tax payer funded organization?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right what happened in that article, my point is, it happens in reverse too and the military as a prime example.
-
sorry can't find any definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job
feel free to provide one or I'll assume the point has been made
Nice straw man, youre living up to your name quite nicely.
censorverb
cen·soredcen·sor·ing\ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
do you think they examined his background and stances and didnt give him the job b/c of them?
if so is that not suppressing his opinion?
-
Nice straw man, youre living up to your name quite nicely.
censorverb
cen·soredcen·sor·ing\ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
do you think they examined his background and stances and didnt give him the job b/c of them?
if so is that not suppressing his opinion?
your name is becoming synonymous with not knowing when to quit when you're wrong
this woman is employed by the University of Iowa where she is free to express her opinions all day long so her only complaint is she feels entitled to a different job
http://www.law.uiowa.edu/directory/staff/teresa-wagner.php
there is no definition of censorship that includes entitlement to a specific job at a specific employer
if she wants a job as a law professor she is free to apply to every collge of law on the planet but nothing entitles her to a job at any particular university
finally...and pay close attention to this point - her lawsuit is based on a claim of discrimination and not censorship
-
The military isn't a tax payer funded organization?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right what happened in that article, my point is, it happens in reverse too and the military as a prime example.
The military is taxpayer funded, and yes they censor stuff all the time, but they're a different animal.
-
The military is taxpayer funded, and yes they censor stuff all the time, but they're a different animal.
Do you deny a conservative bias in the military?
-
Do you deny a conservative bias in the military?
In terms of hiring, promotion, and firing, yeah I deny that. I think the majority of the rank and file are conservative, but that doesn't = a conservative bias when it comes to how the services are run.
-
In terms of hiring, promotion, and firing, yeah I deny that. I think the majority of the rank and file are conservative, but that doesn't = a conservative bias when it comes to how the services are run.
That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say. Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible. In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias.
-
That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say. Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible. In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias.
As in most areas of life where adults reside. Once one becomes an adult and still displays leftist ideas - ridicule and mocking should be expected.
-
As in most areas of life where adults reside. Once one becomes an adult and still displays leftist ideas - ridicule and mocking should be expected.
Followed by jail time if it continues.
-
Followed by jail time if it continues.
no way!!!! The best evidence of the failure of liberalism are liberals themselves! The more they speak, the more they spread their mamby pamby crap, the more the general public realizes who freaking nuts most leftists are.
-
no way!!!! The best evidence of the failure of liberalism are liberals themselves! The more they speak, the more they spread their mamby pamby crap, the more the general public realizes who freaking nuts most leftists are.
then put them in glass cages on the sides of streets and sidewalks
-
That's about the most untrue statement I have heard you say. Liberals are completely demonized in the military and if you are a outward liberal getting high level promotions above Captian is difficult if not impossible. In the lower ranks, you get labeled and have to deal with all kinds of bias.
I disagree. I know a number of liberals in the military, including high ranking officers. They are a minority IMO, but they are not demonized. A Soldier's political ideology doesn't really factor into promotions (or supervision, etc.).
Maybe HH has a different view, but that's what I've seen.
-
I disagree. I know a number of liberals in the military, including high ranking officers. They are a minority IMO, but they are not demonized. A Soldier's political ideology doesn't really factor into promotions (or supervision, etc.).
Maybe HH has a different view, but that's what I've seen.
Still disagree (based on very close dealings over the years), and especially since higher level promotions are not purely merit based. And to say "they" are not demonized might be true in front of them, however, liberals in general are demonized as a matter of culture in the military. Remember i am not talking about E-1-5 here.
-
Still disagree (based on very close dealings over the years), and especially since higher level promotions are not purely merit based. And to say "they" are not demonized might be true in front of them, however, liberals in general are demonized as a matter of culture in the military. Remember i am not talking about E-1-5 here.
If you're talking about enlisted promotions from E-6 through E-9, those are done by promotion boards that meet hundreds or thousands of miles away, where I don't think it's even possible for the board to know what the person's political preferences might be. There is no room in the selection process for them to consider that kind of stuff.
Regarding promotions from Major through Colonel, it's the same process: a board that doesn't even meet the individual up for promotion makes a decision based on officer evaluation reports, education, performance, physical fitness, etc.
I think general officer promotions could get "political," but by and large everything else doesn't involve discrimination based on political philosophy.
-
So reviews by superiors aren't taken into account at all?
-
So reviews by superiors aren't taken into account at all?
That's what officer evaluation reports are. Enlisted have the same, except they're called noncommissioned officer evaluation reports.
-
That's what officer evaluation reports are. Enlisted have the same, except they're called noncommissioned officer evaluation reports.
and those don't make a difference?
-
and those don't make a difference?
They make a huge difference.
-
They make a huge difference.
So back to my point about political bias in the military:
- Conservative bias influences promotions
My supporting facts to my point:
- The military is dominated by conservatives (just as possibly the university system is by liberals)
- Liberals are demonized and ridiculed in the military in it's culture and in subtle ways
Your supporting facts to my point:
Reviews by superiors make a huge difference in promotions
Main argument relating to thread:
The same unfair type censorship (political discrimination) via promotions happens in reverse in other tax funded organizations such as the military, why aren't you complaining about it?
relating questions:
Whats the size difference in people of Teaching/Administration staff in state universities versus e-5 to e-9 and O-1 to 4 star generals in the 4 branches of service?
-
So back to my point about political bias in the military:
- Conservative bias influences promotions
My supporting facts to my point:
- The military is dominated by conservatives (just as possibly the university system is by liberals)
- Liberals are demonized and ridiculed in the military in it's culture and in subtle ways
Your supporting facts to my point:
Reviews by superiors make a huge difference in promotions
Main argument relating to thread:
The same unfair type censorship (political discrimination) via promotions happens in reverse in other tax funded organizations such as the military, why aren't you complaining about it?
relating questions:
Whats the size difference in people of Teaching/Administration staff in state universities versus e-5 to e-9 and O-1 to 4 star generals in the 4 branches of service?
Overall, I don't think this is a good comparison. The academic environment is all about "the marketplace of ideas." Expression, opinion, dissent, etc. are encouraged. At least in theory. The military is the polar opposite. There is all kinds of censorship. You have a chain of command. You don't disrespect your superiors, or risk going to jail. If you're active duty, you don't make disparaging comments about the president. There are strict rules regarding engaging in political activities. It's really night and day.
I have no complaints about censorship in the military because it's what people signed up for when they joined. That's not true of universities.
Regarding demonization, I never saw that when I served. I've been around active duty service members for years and haven't seen it. One of my closest friends is a liberal and he's a rising star in the Army. He's getting promoted to major this year.
I don't know what the size difference is between senior officers and enlisted, and university professors.
-
Overall, I don't think this is a good comparison. The academic environment is all about "the marketplace of ideas." Expression, opinion, dissent, etc. are encouraged. At least in theory. The military is the polar opposite. There is all kinds of censorship. You have a chain of command. You don't disrespect your superiors, or risk going to jail. If you're active duty, you don't make disparaging comments about the president. There are strict rules regarding engaging in political activities. It's really night and day.
I have no complaints about censorship in the military because it's what people signed up for when they joined. That's not true of universities.
Regarding demonization, I never saw that when I served. I've been around active duty service members for years and haven't seen it. One of my closest friends is a liberal and he's a rising star in the Army. He's getting promoted to major this year.
I don't know what the size difference is between senior officers and enlisted, and university professors.
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves. Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews. I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.
-
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves. Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews. I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.
Well I guess I live in fantasy land. :) I have a hard time believing conservative bias in the military prevents liberals from getting promoted. I'll talk to my friend about it.
-
Well you do live in Hawaii ;D
-
Well you do live in Hawaii ;D
Yes I do. ;D
-
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves. Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews. I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.
And 90 percent of the msm is staffed by libs. Dontsee you upset over that?
-
And 90 percent of the msm is staffed by libs. Dontsee you upset over that?
Try and keep up. ;) :)
-
What does loco call Canada? America's retarded little brother? Even they engage in liberal censorship.
School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes
A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.
Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”
“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”
Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”
“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”
Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.
“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”
But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.
“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”
Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.
“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”
Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.
“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”
School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html
-
What does loco call Canada? America's retarded little brother? Even they engage in liberal censorship.
School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes
A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.
Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”
“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”
Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”
“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”
Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.
“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”
But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.
“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”
Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.
“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”
Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.
“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”
School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html
typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief
-
typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief
I am an atheist and think he should be able to wear whatever shirt he wishes without suspension. That is just ridiculous.
-
:)
typical tone deaf fundie who can't understand that his shirt is implicitly disrespectful of anyone who doesn't share his religious belief
Your a friggin commie panzie ass.
-
I am an atheist and think he should be able to wear whatever shirt he wishes without suspension. That is just ridiculous.
personally I couldn't give a rats ass either but I'm sure same fundie who started this thread would have a problem if a kid was walking around with a shirt dissing christians or christian beliefs
also, the school has a right to restrict students actions if they feel those actions would potentially cause problems
this kid can wear any shirt he wants when he is not in school
-
:)Your a friggin commie panzie ass.
kind of funny you calling me a pansy considering how you wilted when suddenly faced with one of the thugs you rant about on a daily basis
-
personally I couldn't give a rats ass either but I'm sure same fundie who started this thread would have a problem if a kid was walking around with a shirt dissing christians or christian beliefs
also, the school has a right to restrict students actions if they feel those actions would potentially cause problems
this kid can wear any shirt he wants when he is not in school
What kind of problem would that shirt potentially cause and who would cause the problem? Can you give me a hypothetical?
-
What kind of problem would that shirt potentially cause and who would cause the problem? Can you give me a hypothetical?
you really can't figure it out?
how about anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief (and I'm not talking about atheists)
you don't think the school administrators have a right to object to language that could be easily interpretted as inflammatory
I'm sure you're aware that there are many things you can do outside of school that you can't do in school and restrictions on how you dress are ubiquitous
-
you really can't figure it out?
how about anyone who doesn't share that particular religious belief (and I'm not talking about atheists)
you don't think the school administrators have a right to object to language that could be easily interpretted as inflammatory
I'm sure you're aware that there are many things you can do outside of school that you can't do in school and restrictions on how you dress are ubiquitous
I really can`t figure out how that shirt would offend anybody. ???
-
I really can`t figure out how that shirt would offend anybody. ???
X2
Don't hold your breath waiting for an example of how it could offend someone though.
-
X2
Don't hold your breath waiting for an example of how it could offend someone though.
I already gave an example
you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian
I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that
I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots
I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems
-
I already gave an example
you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian
I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that
I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots
I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems
Why should we care if anyone is offended or not?
-
Why should we care if anyone is offended or not?
you shouldn't but if you ran a school then you might
it's not like people of different religious beliefs ever get offended at perceived insults and get potentially violent
certainly never happened in the history of the human race as far as I can recall
-
you shouldn't but if you ran a school then you might
it's not like people of different religious beliefs ever get offended at perceived insults and get potentially violent
certainly never happened in the history of the human race as far as I can recall
The more that happens, the more people will realize how absurd religion is. Let it happen. Furthermore, I hope they are offended. That simply means they feel inadequate because their beliefs are indefensible nonsense.
-
The more that happens, the more people will realize how absurd religion is. Let it happen. Furthermore, I hope they are offended. That simply means they feel inadequate because their beliefs are indefensible nonsense.
I have no problem with any of that but I can understand why a school administrator would not want to make their school the place for such an event
forget about the religious context for a moment and think about the setting
-
I already gave an example
you're right though, no one should be offended if someone is wearing a tshirt saying you're wasting your life unless you're a christian
I can't see how jews, muslims, hindu's would potentially be offended by that
I'm sure Christians wouldn't be offended to see someone wearing a shirt saying Jesus sucks and Christians are idiots
I can't imagine perceived insults to someone's religious beliefs causing any problems
Knock of the childish stupidity. The shirt said nothing of the sort and hurled no insults at anyone. ::)
You can't provide an example because there's nothing offensive about it.
And that's why you have to devolve to childish nonsense.
-
Knock of the childish stupidity. The shirt said nothing of the sort and hurled no insults at anyone. ::)
You can't provide an example because there's nothing offensive about it.
And that's why you have to devolve to childish nonsense.
I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus
I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that
I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students
who gives a shit
it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that
-
I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus
I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by that
I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students
who gives a shit
it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that
Bout time you started talking some sense.
-
What does loco call Canada? America's retarded little brother? Even they engage in liberal censorship.
School Says “Jesus” Shirt is Hate Speech
May 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes
A Canadian high school student was suspended for a week because wore a t-shirt promoting his Christian beliefs and he was told if he wears it again – he could be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Nova Scotia, was punished for wearing a shirt that read, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” The shirt is a reference to a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.
Swinimer told Fox News that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”
“I’ve been told by my principal that it is hate talk and is disrespectful to other people’s religions,” Swinimer said. “She said it (the shirt) cannot be in school because people would get offended.”
Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told The Canadian Press that the wording on the shirt is “problematic.”
“If I have an expression that says, ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she told the newspaper. “If the shirt were to say, ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”
Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.
“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”
The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.
“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”
But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.
“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”
Swinimer attends Jesus the Good Shepherd Church, a Pentecostal congregation in Nova Scotia. Pastor Varrick Day told Fox News he is proud of his young parishioner.
“I’m very proud he’s standing up,” Day said. “I think he’s being bullied by the staff at the school and by the school board.”
Day called the suspension outrageous and said he hoped it would awaken other Christians across the nation.
“It’s not about the t-shirt,” he said. “This is what our forefathers fought and died for – this freedom of speech and religion.”
School officials told Swinimer that if he returned to school wearing the shirt, he would be suspended for the remainder of the school year.
“I plan to wear that t-shirt Monday, he said. “Not because I want to be disrespectful, not because I want to defy anybody, but because I believe this is the right thing to do.”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-jesus-shirt-is-hate-speech.html
School is right, title of article is wrong, boy misinterpreted why he should not wear the shirt, superintendent is right, etc
-
I agree, no one should be offended because someone wears a t-shirt saying your life is a waste if you don't believe in Jesus
Right
I also can't imagine why a school adminstrator would care some of it's students offended or it might potentially cause problems between students
it's not like it's their job to worry about stuff like that
Wrong, It is their job to worry about stuff like that. Lots of constitutional cases in the past over stuff like that. Remember the bong hits for Jesus case?
-
Right
Wrong, It is their job to worry about stuff like that. Lots of constitutional cases in the past over stuff like that. Remember the bong hits for Jesus case?
I was being sarcastic
I personally have no problem with the tshirt and also no problem if an administrator has an issue with it and tells him he can't wear it at school
btw - this was in Canada so I doubt US Supreme court decisions matter much to them
-
I was being sarcastic
I personally have no problem with the tshirt and also no problem if an administrator has an issue with it and tells him he can't wear it at school
btw - this was in Canada so I doubt US Supreme court decisions matter much to them
ah, didn't even see that. Good point. I just assumed it was given the title of this thread, fox news, etc.
My bad.
-
I have a few close friends in the military and working in the defense industry at high levels who cited many examples of conservative bias and liberal demonization and they are for the most part conservatives themselves. Much of it subtle and much of it in casual conversation and some of it the "old boys club" mentality that seeps into things like reviews. I agree that there is no place for dissension in our military and really don't have too much of a problem of it being dominated by conservatives, however, to say there isn't an existing bias that makes it harder for outward liberal is fantasy.
Talked to my buddy about this subject. He said he doesn't really see any liberal demonization. He doesn't think liberals get discriminated when it comes to promotions. Only way it could happen with senior NCOs and with officers is if the person rating the Soldier has some kind of bias. Still, would be hard to justify a poor evaluation if the Soldier is performing well.
-
School is right, title of article is wrong, boy misinterpreted why he should not wear the shirt, superintendent is right, etc
How is the title wrong? He said the principal told him the shirt was "hate talk." "Hate talk" = "hate speech."
-
Talked to my buddy about this subject. He said he doesn't really see any liberal demonization. He doesn't think liberals get discriminated when it comes to promotions. Only way it could happen with senior NCOs and with officers is if the person rating the Soldier has some kind of bias. Still, would be hard to justify a poor evaluation if the Soldier is performing well.
Talked to 3 others myself, 2 thought like you.
Eitherway I do agree about liberal bias in e schools case.
-
Fred Armisen currently does his best Barack Obama on SNL
The Daily Caller has obtained a scrapped sketch critical of President Barack Obama that was intended for airing at the opening of last night’s “Saturday Night Live” on NBC.
In the skit, President Obama addresses Americans soon after the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden — and he makes sure to remind viewers that all credit for the raid on the terrorist leader’s compound belongs to him.
“I hope you had a safe and joyous first anniversary of his killing,” the president, portrayed by Fred Armisen, begins.
“Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be at home this year, as I had to fly to Afghanistan, to remind President Karzai that, exactly one year ago, we killed Osama bin Laden, and that the decision to do so was a gutsy one,” the president continues. “And was mine.”
The president then outlines what gifts are appropriate on the anniversaries of “Killing Osama bin Laden Day,” and reminds his audience that “heavy drinking, and Killing Osama bin Laden Day, are never a good combination.”
The full text of the skit, which was authored by comedian Jim Downey, is viewable below. It is not clear why the skit was scrapped.
The real President Obama has faced harsh criticism in recent weeks for allegedly politicizing bin Laden’s death by taking too much credit for the operation that killed him.
Instead of the skit, NBC opted instead to air a parody of Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends.” That skit, which also featured Armisen, mocked Fox News personalities by portraying them as clueless partisans.
“Shame on President Barack Obama, who is running a campaign ad that argues that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to launch the raid,” said Taran Killam, who portrayed Fox personality Steve Doocy.
“I can name one person who wouldn’t have launched that raid: Barack Obama!” Bobby Moynihan, playing Fox host Brian Kilmeade, interjected.
Follow Gregg on Twitter
Obama Address Cold Open – May 6, 2012
-
I just watched the video. If that's considered "hate speech," then there's going to be a whole of censorship going on. Click the link to see the video.
Not Tricked This Time: YouTube Pulls Video Critical of Gay Rights Extremists
By Matthew Sheffield | May 18, 2012
In a victory for gay rights extremists, YouTube has agreed to remove a video critical of Canadian laws concerning homosexuality from its website, even though the video discusses policy issues and does not use any derogatory language about gays and does not advocate violence against them.
The video created May 16 by preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean to accompany his weekly column published by WorldNet Daily and other news outlets, exposes facts about the hatred and oppression directed at conservative Christians and opponents of gay marriage in Canada by the radical Left toward people of faith, those who hold to traditional marriage. The video also details a solemn warning to American’s to get vocal on the issue or prepare for the cultural overhaul under way in Canada.
Among the shocking examples of how gay rights extremists are using hate speech laws to silence conservatives is a ruling by a Canadian official that Christian parents who home-school their children can not teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.
Within 2 hours, the video was taken offline by YouTube after it was flagged by a discriminatory individual for “hate speech.”
The video now appears in its original version on MRCTV.
While conservatives are often victimized by the Left's abuse of automated “flag spam” filters, in this case it appears that YouTube personnel were directly involved in removing the video. This is the text of the email YouTube sent to Bradlee informing him of YouTube's decision to remove the video:
The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled: Homosexual Marriage (WARNING!) Look to Canada – (BdeanSonsofLiberty). For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.
Nothing in Bradlee's video violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. Here is the video, you can watch it yourself:
Those guidelines include this statement:
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).”
Bradlee's video did not attack or demean gays – it addressed serious policy questions raised by actual events and political decisions in Canada. By taking Bradlee's video offline, YouTube has shown its commitment to “defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view” isn't all that strong when it comes to defending the right of people opposed to gay marriage.
No matter what you think of gay marriage, people who think it's wrong have just as much of a right to oppose it as the Occupiers to do be against banks or the Iraq war. You don't have to be against gay marriage to think the removal of Bradlee's clip was wrong. Tolerance ought to run both ways.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/18/not-tricked-time-youtube-pulls-video-critical-gay-rights-extremis
-
I just watched the video. If that's considered "hate speech," then there's going to be a whole of censorship going on. Click the link to see the video.
Not Tricked This Time: YouTube Pulls Video Critical of Gay Rights Extremists
By Matthew Sheffield | May 18, 2012
In a victory for gay rights extremists, YouTube has agreed to remove a video critical of Canadian laws concerning homosexuality from its website, even though the video discusses policy issues and does not use any derogatory language about gays and does not advocate violence against them.
The video created May 16 by preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean to accompany his weekly column published by WorldNet Daily and other news outlets, exposes facts about the hatred and oppression directed at conservative Christians and opponents of gay marriage in Canada by the radical Left toward people of faith, those who hold to traditional marriage. The video also details a solemn warning to American’s to get vocal on the issue or prepare for the cultural overhaul under way in Canada.
Among the shocking examples of how gay rights extremists are using hate speech laws to silence conservatives is a ruling by a Canadian official that Christian parents who home-school their children can not teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.
Within 2 hours, the video was taken offline by YouTube after it was flagged by a discriminatory individual for “hate speech.”
The video now appears in its original version on MRCTV.
While conservatives are often victimized by the Left's abuse of automated “flag spam” filters, in this case it appears that YouTube personnel were directly involved in removing the video. This is the text of the email YouTube sent to Bradlee informing him of YouTube's decision to remove the video:
The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled: Homosexual Marriage (WARNING!) Look to Canada – (BdeanSonsofLiberty). For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center.
Nothing in Bradlee's video violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. Here is the video, you can watch it yourself:
Those guidelines include this statement:
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).”
Bradlee's video did not attack or demean gays – it addressed serious policy questions raised by actual events and political decisions in Canada. By taking Bradlee's video offline, YouTube has shown its commitment to “defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view” isn't all that strong when it comes to defending the right of people opposed to gay marriage.
No matter what you think of gay marriage, people who think it's wrong have just as much of a right to oppose it as the Occupiers to do be against banks or the Iraq war. You don't have to be against gay marriage to think the removal of Bradlee's clip was wrong. Tolerance ought to run both ways.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/05/18/not-tricked-time-youtube-pulls-video-critical-gay-rights-extremis
I have had videos of mine flagged. It sucks but Youtube is well within their rights to do so.
-
I have had videos of mine flagged. It sucks but Youtube is well within their rights to do so.
Who said they didn't? They're a private entity and can do whatever the heck they want. That's not the point.
-
Who said they didn't? They're a private entity and can do whatever the heck they want. That's not the point.
So quit your bitching.
-
So quit your bitching.
Ah shut the heck up. I'll post whatever I want. :-*
And if you don't like it, don't read it.
-
Ah shut the heck up. I'll post whatever I want. :-*
And if you don't like it, don't read it.
I was just funning, but my point still stands. Youtube can remove whatever they want so I don`t understand any "outrage" associated with that story. I notice that most of the Old Dixie songs are getting flagged as racist when there is nothing racist about them.
-
I was just funning, but my point still stands. Youtube can remove whatever they want so I don`t understand any "outrage" associated with that story. I notice that most of the Old Dixie songs are getting flagged as racist when there is nothing racist about them.
It's about the fact they deem speech that opposes the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage on religious grounds as "hateful." That kind of viewpoint will eventually make it's way into our books.
-
It's about the fact they deem speech that opposes the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage on religious grounds as "hateful." That kind of viewpoint will eventually make it's way into our books.
I still don`t understand why people consider the various Confederate Flags as "hateful" either. I have never seen it in a textbook, but that is popular sentiment, especially among most blacks.
-
I still don`t understand why people consider the various Confederate Flags as "hateful" either. I have never seen it in a textbook, but that is popular sentiment, especially among most blacks.
you really can't figure that out
you're smart enough to understand symbolism
come on man
-
you really can't figure that out
you're smart enough to understand symbolism
come on man
Many blacks fought under that flag willingly. Also, the Largest Slave Holder in NC at one time was John Carruthers Stanley, a Black man in New Bern, NC.
-
Many blacks fought under that flag willingly. Also, the Largest Slave Holder in NC at one time was a Black man in New Bern, NC.
and how do those two examples change what both many whites and most black feel when they see the confederate flag
You know enough about the horror of the civil war, slavery, etc... to fully understand why the Confederate flag would be considered by many to be a symbol of hate, repression, and violence (and not only against blacks)
-
and how do those two examples change what both many whites and most black feel when they see the confederate flag
You know enough about the horror of the civil war, slavery, etc... to fully understand why the Confederate flag would be considered by many to be a symbol of hate, repression, and violence (and not only against blacks)
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate. Someone who does not know history whatsoever.
-
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate. Someone who does not know history whatsoever.
two can play at that game
only an ignorant person would not see it as symbol of hate
only a really dishonest person would pretend not to understand why it is symbol of hate
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama
Dear god are you libs a bunch of twats.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama
Dear god are you libs a bunch of twats.
A liberal teacher trying to silence opposing viewpoints? No way. ::) This is a true liberal hallmark: silence dissent.
-
Only an ignorant person would consider it as a symbol of hate. Someone who does not know history whatsoever.
Stupid, stupid post.
You've really outdone yourself with this one.
-
NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn asks NYU to evict Chick-fil-A
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published August 01, 2012
FoxNews.com
A powerful New York politician claims she was just speaking as a private citizen when she tried to run Chick-fil-A out of town, but she used her official letterhead and even invoked her position as City Council speaker to apply pressure on the embattled chicken chain.
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has mayoral aspirations, sent a letter to New York University president John Sexton on Saturday asking the school to immediately end their contract with the fast food restaurant. The Atlanta-based company's sole New York City outlet is in the school's food court.
"I write as the Speaker of the NYC Council, and on behalf of my family. NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity. We do not believe in denigrating others. We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families,” the letter begins.
"Let me be clear ‐‐ I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views," Quinn, an open lesbian who recently married her longtime partner, also wrote in the letter. "We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that."
'If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.'
- NYC Council member Peter Vallone
“As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick‐fil‐A establishment that exists on your campus,” the speaker added.
The letter has drawn the ire from others on the council.
“She can write to someone as a council member, but if she states that she is writing as the Speaker it can only be on behalf of the entire council. She has to have the majority vote of the council, and I don’t recall voting on this matter,” City Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens) told FoxNews.com. “A stance on gay marriage is in no way a forum to prevent someone form running a business in a community.
“If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.”
A spokesperson for Quinn told FoxNews.com in a written statement that, while officials in other cities have said they would block Chick-fil-A through land-use means, Quinn was just expressing her own views.
“Christine Quinn was simply voicing her own opinion; she fully understands that Mr. Cathy has the right to say and donate to anything he wants. But she has the right to use her voice just as much as he does,” Quinn’s spokesperson added.
The speaker elaborated on her stance and seemingly backpedaled while speaking with reporters at an event in midtown Manhattan on Tuesday.
“I support businesses that are open and inclusive -- that reflect the viewpoint of New York City, the most in diverse city in the world. That said, businesses that follow our laws have a right to open here,” said Quinn during the announcement of the city starting a career center for veterans. “We are asking Mr. Cathy to reconsider, open up his mind and really overcome his homophobia and stop investing his money in efforts to limit the rights of LGBT Americans. I’m raising my voice -- which can be loud at times -- but I’m never going to misuse this office in any way at all.”
Whether the school will take Quinn's advice remains to be seen. In 2011, NYU’s Student Senators Council considered a resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus but ultimately ruled that, “to ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression,” and did not seek a resolution from the full University Senate.
But John Beckman, a spokesman for NYU, tells FoxNews.com in a written statement that given the recent news, the matter will be revisited by school officials.
“The University Administration will ask the University Senate to take up the issue of Chick-fil-A’s status on campus again when it reconvenes this fall to make a recommendation on how to proceed,” he said.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week that he would not follow the lead of his counterparts in Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, who all said Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities. Bloomberg said it was “inappropriate” for any government to decide if a business can or cannot operate in a city because of someone's political views.
Quinn also had posted a petition on Change.org last week that demands Cathy apologize for his remarks. Another petition on the website was created by an NYU student and gathered 15,000 signatures of students also demanding that the chicken chain be removed from the campus.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/01/nyc-council-speaker-christine-quinn-asks-nyu-to-evict-chick-fil/
-
doesn't someone actually have to be censored before calling it censorship ?
-
doesn't someone actually have to be censored before calling it censorship ?
Thankfully there are those out there who stand up to these leftist tyrants who hate free speech for that not to happen.
Liberal = Intolerant, bigoted, close minded, brown shirts
-
Thankfully there are those out there who stand up to these leftist tyrants who hate free speech for that not to happen.
Liberal = Intolerant, bigoted, close minded, brown shirts
who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants
he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...
I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)
you're the lawyer so I assume you know this stuff
-
who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants
he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...
I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)
you're the lawyer so I assume you know this stuff
Correct - but what set this off was Rhambo and Menino more than anything else trying to ban the business within city limits.
-
Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
The Washington Times ^ | August 1, 2012 | Emily Esfahani Smith
Posted on Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:03:10 PM by Cincinatus' Wife
......................Ps ychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”
This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”
One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”
More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”
Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, cautions that the finding reflects only what respondents said they would do — not necessarily what they actually would do in real life.................... ..
....Harvey Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, argues that the anti-conservative bias is real and pronounced. He says conservatism is “just not a respectable position to hold” in the academy, where Republicans are caricatured as Fox News enthusiasts who listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
White House asks YouTube to review anti-Islam film
Published September 14, 2012
FoxNews.com
The White House has asked YouTube to review the online video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa.
The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.
"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.
Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.
"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/
-
Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review
Published September 14, 2012
FoxNews.com
Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.
The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.
The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.
"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
The company determined that the video was within guidelines.
“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.
. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/?intcmp=trending
-
Great commentary. More disturbing attempted censorship by our president.
Obama vs. Fox News -- behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization
By Kirsten Powers
Published January 29, 2013
FoxNews.com
There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.
In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington's partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,"If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him.
The president seems more comfortable talking to "real journalists" such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama's reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, "The Kid Who Made Obama President." You can't make this stuff up.
This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.
Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.
They have left Chris Wallace’s "Fox News Sunday" out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news."
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren't calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.
Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox's opinion programming would get under President Obama's skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans. But it's not okay -- or presidential -- to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity.
During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”
In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.
Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.” Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn't a news operation?
A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.
It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.
We defend freedom of the press because of the principle, not because we like everything the press does. For example, I defend MSNBC’s right to run liberal programming to their hearts content.
Monitoring the media is actually a good thing; the media should be held accountable, including Fox News. When MMFA began I was supportive of their endeavor and even used some of their research. They seemed a counterbalance to conservative media monitoring organizations.
But now the mask is off. They make no bones about their intentions, and it's not a fair media. It is clear now that the idea of freedom of the press actually offends Media Matters. In their memo, they complain about “an expansive view of legal precedent protecting the freedom of the press, and the progressive movement's own commitment to the First Amendment” as an impediment to be overcome or changed. They say they are “consider[ing] pushing prominent progressives to stop appearing on Fox News.” For those who defy the order, they threaten to start daily publishing the names of Democrats who appear in order to shame them. If that doesn’t work, presumably they will just shave our heads and march us down Constitution Avenue.
When Anita Dunn was informing America – as a senior government official – which news organizations were “legitimate,” she conveniently deemed CNN, which rarely challenges the White House, as a “real” network. Presumably she believes MSNBC is “legitimate” also, despite their undisguised disgust of the GOP and hagiography of the president, not to mention more opinion programming than any cable outlet.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume she thinks CBS is “legitimate” after they just ran what amounted to a 2016 ad for Hillary Clinton on "60 Minutes." CBS is the same place that has a political director who also writes for one of the most liberal outlets in the country, Slate. Who also just wrote in that publication that the president should “pulverize” the GOP. Imagine a political director at CBS hired away from the Weekly Standard who then wrote an article about "pulverizing" Democrats. I know, I lost you at the part where CBS hired a political director from a conservative outlet.
Last week Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings – who is a liberal and said recently that “most journalists I know are liberal” – discussed his time covering Obama on the campaign trail. Among the things he witnessed was a reporter trying to interview Obama using a sock puppet.
He told MSNBCs Martin Bashir, “That’s the presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day. When they are near him, they lose their mind sometimes. They start behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon.”
Hastings admitted that the presence of Obama made him go gooey too. "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.”
I guess this is what the White House and their friends at Media Matters call the “legitimate” media.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/29/obama-vs-fox-news-behind-white-house-strategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization/
-
I agree with the article.
In this country, you should never EVER be treated as a second class citizen if you are trying to inform the public.
In my mind, even web blogs are valid news... It is up to us to determine whether or not the information is valid or accurate.
Well....I see cans of worms opening on this one, lol.
-
Expressing a faith-based belief in support of traditional marriage and heterosexuality can get you fired, or labeled a bigot, or both. He better watch his mouth.
ESPN Apologizes for Commentator's Christian Worldview on Homosexuality
by Ben Shapiro
29 Apr 2013
While the left lectures Americans about the historic breakthrough made by NBA free agent Jason Collins in announcing his sexuality and calls for well-deserved tolerance, they are on full-out attack against ESPN commentator Chris Broussard for expressing his Christian views. And now ESPN has been forced to apologize.
It all started when Broussard appeared on Outside the Lines to talk about Collins. Appearing with ESPN senior writer LZ Granderson, who is openly gay, Broussard was asked by the host, “How ready is the NBA and the locker rooms for having an openly gay teammate?”
Broussard answered, “The climate in society is very set for this thing to happen …. A lot of people feel like if you come out and say you don’t agree with homosexuality, you are viewed as a bigot, you are viewed as intolerant. So I think the climate is right for somebody to come out and say they are gay. I’ve been texting with players, GMs, coaches, agents throughout the day … and it’s been overwhelmingly supportive of Jason, from former teammates to guys who have played against him.” Broussard acknowledged that a few players said they might be uncomfortable with a gay player in the showers, but that “I don’t think you’ll see somebody come out and be against this, whether because of their true feelings or because of political correctness.”
Later in the conversation, Granderson said, “If we really want to move toward progress and toward full acceptance, we have to have this conversation and this process. Broussard then seconded that motion, and gave an example of that conversation and how it could be productive:
I’d like to second what LZ said. “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We’ve gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.
In talking to some people around the league, there’s a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That’s what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names…
Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.
This has been the traditional Biblical view for thousands of years. Still, traditionally religious people in the United States, like Broussard, have reached an understanding and tolerance for those with whom they disagree. Mutual tolerance between the traditionally religious and proponents of the morality of homosexuality is what the conversation between Granderson and Broussard was all about. As Granderson said, “Chris and I have had those uncomfortable conversations, the NBA now needs to have those uncomfortable conversations.” Tolerance is the goal. And tolerance requires tolerance on both sides.
But instead of having those uncomfortable conversations, and coming to mutual respect for one another’s positions, the left went after Broussard hammer and tongs. The hashtag #firechrisbroussard quickly skyrocketed on Twitter. The same left that praised Bob Costas to the skies for randomly sounding off on Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and gun control now decided that Broussard was way out of line. The LA Times ran an online poll asking, “Should Broussard have said what he said on TV?”
Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo! Sports wrote, “The last thing [gay youths] need is to see someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as both its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in ‘open rebellion to God.’” Deadspin’s John Koblin said that it was “unclear why [Broussard’s opinion was] necessary or even relevant at this hour.” Variety subtly suggested, “In December, ESPN suspended commentator Rob Parker for questionable comments on the race of NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III, then chose not to renew his contract after it expired at year’s end.”
In response to all this leftist tolerance, ESPN dutifully released a statement apologizing for Broussard’s comments: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.” Naturally, Buzzfeed’s Kate Aurthur ripped ESPN anyway for not sufficiently falling into line: “So no apology from Broussard …. ESPN got itself into this ridiculous, impossible situation here by relying on one of its employee's religious beliefs to inform a discussion about the huge Collins news …. What I would like to know, therefore, is why they put Broussard on the air to discuss his personal feelings about Collins, homosexuality, and Christianity, rather than his area of professional expertise — basketball — in the first place.” Aurthur went on a rampage, calling Broussard “punitive, unforgiving,” and lamenting that “Collins’ beautiful announcement” had been tarnished by ESPN’s “outdated, homophobic pit of its own making.”
Broussard’s opinion was verboten according to the left. Granderson’s was not. The right was happy to air both opinions. Yet the left thinks that Broussard was way out of bounds. That’s because the goal of the left in overplaying the Jason Collins coming out party – a presidential call? Really? – is to portray those who disagree on homosexuality as bigots and homophobes who want to deny people like Collins happiness. Broussard never even remotely suggested that Collins should not have come out. He repeatedly stated that the time was ripe for Collins to come out. Virtually everyone on the right agrees with that general perspective. But Broussard violated the most taboo of all standards: he suggested that he had a different moral view than that of the left. And so now his job may be in jeopardy.
When it comes to tyranny and tolerance, the case of Chris Broussard is far more telling than that of Jason Collins. It is the left that wants tyranny of expression. Tolerance only extends to those deemed worthy by the left.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/29/ESPN-apologizes-Broussard
-
Hey Fundies - you are free to believe and say anything you want about gay marriage and everyone else is free to call you a bigot, homophobe, etc..
For gods sake stop whining
Jesus whined less when he was being crucified to death than some fundies whine about this issue
-
Obama critic disinvited from Morehouse graduation ceremonies [Black College Punishes Black Pastor]
Georgia Tip Sheet ^ | James Richardson
Posted on May 1, 2013 6:22:02 AM EDT by SoFloFreeper
A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.
The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda
(Excerpt) Read more at georgiatipsheet.com ...
-
Obama critic disinvited from Morehouse graduation ceremonies [Black College Punishes Black Pastor]
Georgia Tip Sheet ^ | James Richardson
Posted on May 1, 2013 6:22:02 AM EDT by SoFloFreeper
A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.
The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda
(Excerpt) Read more at georgiatipsheet.com ...
Not surprised. The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with.
-
Not surprised. The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with.
I'm once again not at all surprised that right wingers and fundies think they should never be criticized for anything they say or that others should not be free to react to what they say with condemnation and rejection
how about everyone just whatever they want (freedom of speech) and stop pissing and moaning if others object to their statements and even choose to un-invite them to share more of their thoughts.
BTW - v. Johnson was told that he would be one of three baccalaureate service speakers, and he refused so once again we've got someone pissing and moaning over nothing
-
A this rate, calling homosexuality a "sin" will be a crime one day. I understand that only matters to Christians, but this kind of censorship is troubling.
Gospel Singer McClurkin Cut From MLK Event Over Gay Rights
Donnie McClurkinGospel musician Donnie McClurkin claims he was uninvited to a concert in Washington, D.C. celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington due to his stance on homosexuality. McClurkin has said that God delivered him from what he reportedly called “the curse” of homosexuality after he was sexually abused as a child. In a video posted online, the musician said Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s office asked him not to attend the concert where he was considered a headliner. “Last night, on the way to the airport, we received a telephone call from the promoters who had received word from the Mayor’s office –Mayor Gray’s office– as well as the arts commission that I was not welcomed and uninvited the night before the concert,” McClurkin said. “[It’s] quite unfortunate that in today a black man, a black artist is uninvited from a civil rights movement depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance.” McClurkin went on to say “These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took never, ever demeaning, never, ever derogatorily addressing any, any lifestyle.” Representatives for Mayor Gray’s office did not immediately return a request for comment. You can watch the full video here.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/08/12/gospel-singer-donnie-mcclurkin-cut-from-mlk-event-over-gay-rights/
-
Not surprised. The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with.
Yup.
Damn libs.
At least the republicans is tolerant.
-
Yup.
Damn libs.
At least the republicans is tolerant.
Yes they is. :)
-
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?
Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.
Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.
He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.
He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”
Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.
Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”
Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.
At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?
Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.
Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.
He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.
He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”
Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.
Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”
Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.
At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
what's your problem Bum
This guy is free to express his opinion and his employer is free to not like it and fire him for it
I don't recall you or any right winger on this board complaining when right wing employers were firing employees for "expressing their opinion" by voting for a Democratic POTUS
-
If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?
Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God
By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.
Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.
He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.
He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”
Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.
Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”
Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.
At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments/#ixzz2ecrpwLCl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Do you think being homo is a choice BB?
-
Do you think being homo is a choice BB?
Its both. Anyone can choose to engage in gay activities or sex if they want to and many are attracted completely to the opposite sex whereas some are only mildly attracted and so on.
I have no idea why some don`t see both aspects of choice and genetics when it comes to sexuality. Its the same thing as deciding if you want rice or beans tonight as Gore Vidal said.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Do you think being homo is a choice BB?
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.
Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored?
-
Its both. Anyone can choose to engage in gay activities or sex if they want to and many are attracted completely to the opposite sex whereas some are only mildly attracted and so on.
I have no idea why some don`t see both aspects of choice and genetics when it comes to sexuality. Its the same thing as deciding if you want rice or beans tonight as Gore Vidal said.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Unless you are at least bisexual it would be next to impossibly to get an erection when being with a man no?
-
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.
Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored?
Its not a choice. I would never physically be able to obtain an erection with a man only with a woman.
Do you sometimes get horny when around men BB? You are atleast bi-sexual then.
-
Its not a choice. I would never physically be able to obtain an erection with a man only with a woman.
Do you sometimes get horny when around men BB? You are atleast bi-sexual then.
How does this relate to Craig James being censored?
-
Lurker and Strraw cant help it - agreed
-
Says the little elf that obsessed over collecting Obama photos on his hard drive and modeling himself after after another man by copying his nickname.
-
Unless you are at least bisexual it would be next to impossibly to get an erection when being with a man no?
I don`t think so. You ever see those Bangbus videos? haha
-
How does this relate to Craig James being censored?
He was censored for his words and we are debating those right now.
You posted the article for a reason i suppose?
-
He was censored for his words and we are debating those right now.
You posted the article for a reason i suppose?
No, we're not debating anything. We're not even discussing Craig James being censored.
-
School Tells Child She Can’t Write About God
Sep 11, 2013
By Todd Starnes
A Tennessee mom is looking for answers after her daughter’s teacher refused to let the child write about God for a school assignment.
Erin Shead, a 10-year-old student at Lucy Elementary School in Millington, was assigned to write about someone she idolized. The girl, who is a Christian, decided to write about God.
“I look up to God,” she wrote. “I love him and Jesus, and Jesus is His earthly son. I also love Jesus.”
The youngster also said that God would “always be the #1 person I look up to.”
“It was so cute and innocent,” Erica Shead told television station WREG. “She talked about how God created the Earth.”
But Shead said her daughter’s teacher objected to the choice and told her she could not use God as an idol for the assignment.
Erin told her mom that it had something to do with religion - that God could not be her idol. The teacher then allegedly told the child that she had to take the paper about God home – because it could not remain on school property.
“How can you tell this baby – that’s a Christian – what she can say and what she can’t say?” Shead asked.
The teacher approved of Erin’s second choice — Michael Jackson.
Shead told WREG she met with the principal and still has questions about what happened.
“I told the principal this morning, would it be better if she wrote about Ellen Degeneres?” she said. “Of course there was no comment.”
Christian Ross, a spokesman for Shelby County Schools, told Fox News ”teachers are prohibited from promoting religious beliefs in the classroom.”
However he said the district does not have a policy that prohibits a student from expressing religious beliefs in class assignments.
If that’s the case, why was Erin Shead not allowed to write about God?
Ross did not provide an answer.
“This incident has been addressed at the school-level, and the principal has contacted parents of the student regarding their concerns,” he said. “Out of respect for and in order to protect the privacy of individual students and staff, the district is not commenting further on this matter.”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-tells-child-she-cant-write-about-god.html
-
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.
Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored?
Craig James was not censored
he is free to express his opinion in written or verbal form
He was just fired because his employers don't like his opinions on a particular subject and perhaps think his opinions will reflect poorly on them or cost them money
they are free to do that as Craig James is completely free to express his opinions
This is no different than a commentator being fired for making a racist comment
-
No, we're not debating anything. We're not even discussing Craig James being censored.
Why do you have a problem with him being fired?
-
Why do you have a problem with him being fired?
His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign. They are not controversial at all. They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.
This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers. Scary stuff.
-
His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign. They are not controversial at all. They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.
This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers. Scary stuff.
maybe his employer thought those kind of comments would cost them money and perhaps they figured he might make them on the air in the future or cause some kind of controversy
they have the right to choose not to be associated with comments they don't agree with or comments that might cause them monetary loss or might cause controversy
Face it Bum, he has the right to say whatever he wants and his employer has the right not to like it and fire him for it
Stop whining and acting like he's some kind of victim
BTW - the very story you posted had an explanation from Fox Sports as to why they fired him
Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”
-
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.
Not sure what that has to do with Craig James being censored?
LOL - it's funny how you know what's going on inside this guys head
how do you know he wasn't "trying" to be straight all these years and just couldn't do it
You seem to think he's was completely straight and just woke up one morning and decided to be gay
-
LOL - it's funny how you know what's going on inside this guys head
how do you know he wasn't "trying" to be straight all these years and just couldn't do it
You seem to think he's was completely straight and just woke up one morning and decided to be gay
Its both though. Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.
-
Its both though. Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.
Are you speaking from experience?
Did this guy come out as bi or gay
There are plenty of gay men who were formally married and even had kids (as I'm sure you know)
Obviously there was/is societal pressure to be straight (especially if you're a black professional athlete)
-
His comments were made a year ago during a political campaign. They are not controversial at all. They echo what mainstream Christianity teaches about homosexuality.
This is another instance of a tiny demographic controlling the private speech of ordinary Americans. They are successfully muzzling private, faith-based commentary, even speech by preachers. Scary stuff.
Please tell me you see the irony here ;D
-
Its both though. Sure, you can be attracted from the get-go to one sex but you can also choose if you like.
You can only choose if you are attracted to the person/gender.
How are you gonna complete the sexual act if you cant get it up?
-
Please tell me you see the irony here ;D
No, I don't. You'll have to spell it out for me. I'm a little slow.
-
You can only choose if you are attracted to the person/gender.
How are you gonna complete the sexual act if you cant get it up?
Nerve endings are blind.
You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like? The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets. The same is true for humans if they so choose.
-
Nerve endings are blind.
You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like? The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets. The same is true for humans if they so choose.
Thats gonna be a hard fucking choise to make :o
-
Yep. Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.
:-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.
Nerve endings are blind.
You ever see how they extract sperm from farm animals, race horses and the like? The animals are not attracted to the humans performing the action but still manage to cum buckets.
Animal sperm collectors don't just show up and try to rub some out. They use females in heat to arouse the animal that's being collected.
-
:-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.
Animal sperm collectors don't just show up and try to rub some out. They use females in heat to arouse the animal that's being collected.
Usually not the case for most animals. Maybe in the zoo, but not with your domesticated livestock all the time.
-
And then you have the prison population where a lot of them make a choice to engage in gay sex, yet never would have had they not been stuck there for the rest of their lives.
-
Usually not the case for most animals. Maybe in the zoo, but not with your domesticated livestock.
You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.
-
And then you have the prison population where a lot of them make a choice to engage in gay sex, yet never would have had they not been stuck there for the rest of their lives.
Thats a choice between sex or no sex its not a choice between male and female.
-
Thats a choice between sex or no sex its not a choice between male and female.
Whats the difference? Someone can learn to like it and then love it and perhaps love the person and be attracted to them.
You never had any gay friends or knew someone who was gay? Ask them their experiences with Straight men and what they have seen happen. Every one of them has a story. :D
-
You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.
I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there. Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female. For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure. Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.
This book covers it all very well.
(http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348237826l/61662.jpg)
-
:-\ This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.
That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis. She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men. He made a choice to start sleeping with men. If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long.
-
That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis. She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men. He made a choice to start sleeping with men. If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long.
sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight
I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"
how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight
I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight
How absurd...right ?
-
sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight
I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"
how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight
I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight
How absurd...right ?
::)
Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.
Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.
-
::)
Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.
Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.
how do you know "it's both" ?
Did Jason Collins say he was bi?
How many times have we heard this same story about a man "trying to be straight"
Do you ever hear stories of gay guys who tried to be gay but really couldn't suppress there straight urges
Layer in the fact that this guy is a black, professional athlete and it makes even more sense
I guess we should assume Jason Collins really doesn't know himself as well and Bum seem to know him
-
That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis. She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men. He made a choice to start sleeping with men. If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long.
Being a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:
I can't imagine what it's like to go through all the stages he has gone through, all the deep layers. I don't know what it's like to wear a mask for 34 years. It's sad that society puts that kind of pressure on a person.
So, neither Collins or his ex-fiancee thinks he made a choice to suddenly turn gay and both have stated that societal pressures had a lot to do with him hiding that fact.
-
I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there.
The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.
Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female. For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure. Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.
This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.
-
The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.
This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.
::)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
Hope this helps:
[ Invalid YouTube link ].O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1
-
::)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
Hope this helps:
[ Invalid YouTube link ].O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1
What is this post supposed to be proving? From your first link: "nearly all bonobos are bisexual".
-
Being a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:
That's not all she said:
"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/
So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids. That's just pure BS. He made a choice. And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants. Free country.
But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut.
-
That's not all she said:
"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/
So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids. That's just pure BS. He made a choice. And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants. Free country.
But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut.
Bum, you and anyone else can talk all you want about your beliefs
The point is that others can choose not to agree with you and if they happen to be your employer and think those beliefs could harm their business then you may suffer the consequences
It would be no different than if you were a racist and your employer decided that your chosen beliefs would be harmful to his business
If you read the comments by Fox Sports that's pretty much exactly what they said
-
That's not all she said:
"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/
So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids. That's just pure BS. He made a choice. And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants. Free country.
But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut.
Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?
-
Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?
very simple
although we can presume that Bum has never met either of these people he somehow knows them both better than they know themselves
-
This entire thread is nothing more than Bums personal desire to luxuriate himself in a fantasy of being victimized for his religious beliefs
-
Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?
What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.” Those are facts.
I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together. Also facts.
So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple.
And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.” If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with. He made a choice, which he had the right to do. He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants.
What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.
In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech. We are in dangerous territory.
-
What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.” Those are facts.
I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together. Also facts.
So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple.
And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.” If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with. He made a choice, which he had the right to do. He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants.
What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.
In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech. We are in dangerous territory.
you're claiming that Jason Collins said something to the effect that "he decided he liked men better"
you have an actual quote to that effect from Collins or is the "fact" you speak of your just your own statement to that effect ...i.e. it's a fact that you made that statement about Collins ?
BTW - for about the 100th time - NO ONE IS SUPPRESSING ANYONE`S SPEECH
you and anyone are free to say whatever you want
why do you keep pretending this is not the case
what you're really complaining about is that others don't agree with what you say and when these people exercise THEIR FREEDOM it bothers you
That's your real beef so why not just admit it
-
What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins. Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.” Those are facts.
No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.
I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together. Also facts.
So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple.
And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.” If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with. He made a choice, which he had the right to do. He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants.
Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.
What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.
No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.
In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech. We are in dangerous territory.
As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."
-
No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.
Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.
No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.
As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."
Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women. How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman??
I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc. Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men? Of course. Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day? Of course not.
I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing. But I’m really just using common sense.
Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed. It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.
Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread. A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice.
Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.”
You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech?
-
Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.
No, it's not.
How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman??
Because he was gay throughout that relationship. Being in a relationship with a woman doesn't mean he wasn't attracted to men.
I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc. Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men? Of course. Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day? Of course not.
[/quote]
It also doesn't mean he did make a choice, which is what you are saying and he is not saying.
I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing. But I’m really just using common sense.
No, I'm actually looking at the story as a whole at not adding made up facts.I'm not cherry-picking at all.
Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed. It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.
Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread. A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice.
Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.”
You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech?
And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean no one is ever going to get angry at what you say.
-
And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean no one is ever going to get angry at what you say.
I never said there should be no repercussions for speech. There are all sorts of restrictions.
What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country.
Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”? So people cannot even joke? (More rhetorical questions.) Of course they can do it. Whether they should is another story.
IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people.
I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance. In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with.
-
I never said there should be no repercussions for speech. There are all sorts of restrictions.
What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country.
Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”? So people cannot even joke? (More rhetorical questions.) Of course they can do it. Whether they should is another story.
IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people.
I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance. In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with.
you're blind to the fact that many people find the statements by christians about homosexuals to be offensive and also a potential legal liability as well as potentially harmful to a businesses bottom line.
Your blindness to these things is YOUR CHOICE.
I think you know these things but you have to choose to ignore them in order to maintain your belief system that you are somehow being persecuted for religious beliefs. The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous and again I suspect you're well aware of that too. It wasn't long ago that saying #igger was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used
-
The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous and again I suspect you're well aware of that too. It wasn't long ago that saying #igger was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used
What he's saying really does basically come down to him being upset that times have changed and standards have changed. It isn't about "suppressing speech". Every single one of those examples was essentially a business trying to mitigate public relations disasters and retain clients. Dangerous territory, indeed. ::)
-
Frightening: White House Intimidating Free Speech
by KEITH KOFFLER on OCTOBER 31, 2013
Okay, someone explain to me how this happens in the United States of America.
The White House is suppressing speech, bullying private citizens into not saying things that will hurt the president by calling attention to his false claim that people could keep their insurance if they like it.
According to CNN – and that doesn’t stand for Conservative News Network – insurance industry officials who criticize the Obamacare rollout are getting calls from the White House telling them to shut the &^%$! up. In particular, the White House doesn’t want them to talk about the inconvenient problem that insurers are being forced to drop people’s coverage – even though Obama promised this would not happen.
We really, really are becoming a new kind of country. These insurance executives are private citizens who have the right to say anything they want. Particularly sacrosanct is their freedom to criticize their government. While under Obamacare the feds exercise considerable sway over the insurers, THEY STILL DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
This is exactly what happens as the government expands its purview over your life. It gets it into its thick head that it can control your life, beyond the specific provisions of any given law. Obamacare is not just going to ruin your health care. It will bite off, chew up, and spit out a nice sized chunk of your freedom.
Here’s the report, as delivered by CNN’s Drew Griffin:
What’s going on is a behind the scenes attempt to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you are going to get a call from the White House – pressure to be quiet.
Insurance executives are being told to keep quiet . . . they feel defenseless against the White House PR team . . . the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade organizations, to keep quiet. The sources are telling us they fear White House retribution.
(They’re being told to keep quiet about) the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare requirements.
Here’s the video.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/31/frightening-white-house-intimidating-free-speech/
-
Liberal commies at brown u just shut down ray kelly speech. Fucking commie rats
-
The reality is that everyone is pissy when things don't go their way.
End of story.
Mr Bum is upset because his religious beliefs don't carry more weight. He can cry a river to anyone who will listen, and in this day and age, there's not that many left.
Reality is that Mr. Bum is of an old guard who is dying off and the younger generation does not take hate for homosexuals lightly.
This!!
-
You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.
I originally saw this as part of a TED talk about sexuality:
The video shows a human (in Denmark, maybe?) stimulating a female hog to the point of orgasm during artificial insemination (because there's said to be a school of thought whereby a female experiencing orgasm is more likely to conceive). BTW, this might make for a funny WYHI thread.
-
Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women. How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman??
Are you being sincere here? Because it seems most reasonable to me that he didn't all of a sudden decide he liked men better but he DID all of a sudden decide he was gonna be open about his preferences. That's all.
Is it really your religion driving all this? Seems like some folks are too hung up on this binary gender thing when it's clearly more complicated than that.
-
Liberal commies at brown u just shut down ray kelly speech. Fucking commie rats
Freedom of speech at work, there, amigo. I applaud them. As the Thai's say, "Som Nom Nah". (Which kinda means "Serves you right" or "You karmically got what you deserved".) (First two words rhyme with "home", 3rd word rhymes with "paw".)
-
Are you being sincere here? Because it seems most reasonable to me that he didn't all of a sudden decide he liked men better but he DID all of a sudden decide he was gonna be open about his preferences. That's all.
Is it really your religion driving all this? Seems like some folks are too hung up on this binary gender thing when it's clearly more complicated than that.
Yes I'm being sincere. I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap. He made a choice. After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.
My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.
-
Freedom of speech at work, there, amigo. I applaud them. As the Thai's say, "Som Nom Nah". (Which kinda means "Serves you right" or "You karmically got what you deserved".) (First two words rhyme with "home", 3rd word rhymes with "paw".)
That's not free speech. That's disturbing the peace, etc.
-
Yes I'm being sincere. I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap. He made a choice. After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.
My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.
Exactly.
It's a choice we've all fought against making, amarite?
-
Yes I'm being sincere. I don't buy that "he's been gay his whole life" crap. He made a choice. After living with a woman for years who had no idea he was in the down low.
My religion has nothing to do with my opinion.
Fair enough.
Without thinking about a whole lot, I'm pretty sure I disagree (over-simplified analogy to follow): If I like and would really enjoy eating chocolate cake but have chosen to refrain from eating it for years and years (for whatever reason) before finally deciding, "Fuck it, I'm gonna eat me some chocolate cake" it doesn't mean I all of a sudden chose to like chocolate cake, it just means I've finally chosen to to eat it.
(Hmmm, maybe the analogy above DOES apply pretty well to the Jason Collins thing; Only instead of "chocolate cake" substitute "chocolate beef-cake". haha)
BB, you seem smart so I think you already understand this viewpoint but just don't go along with it. And I don't have much of a problem with that -- I have no dog in this fight.
My personal feeling is that though I believe gays should have all the legal rights straight people do, they don't deserve any special protections when it comes to being made fun of occasionally. As long as it's genuinely funny (and not ONLY mean-spritited, it's ok.)
-
That's not free speech. That's disturbing the peace, etc.
I see your point but feel that what they did was deserved and was definitely no more wrong than the Stop and Frisk practice. (And, hell yeah, I feel that 2 wrongs DO make a right, sometimes.)
-
Fair enough.
Without thinking about a whole lot, I'm pretty sure I disagree (over-simplified analogy to follow): If I like and would really enjoy eating chocolate cake but have chosen to refrain from eating it for years and years (for whatever reason) before finally deciding, "Fuck it, I'm gonna eat me some chocolate cake" it doesn't mean I all of a sudden chose to like chocolate cake, it just means I've finally chosen to to eat it.
(Hmmm, maybe the analogy above DOES apply pretty well to the Jason Collins thing; Only instead of "chocolate cake" substitute "chocolate beef-cake". haha)
BB, you seem smart so I think you already understand this viewpoint but just don't go along with it. And I don't have much of a problem with that -- I have no dog in this fight.
My personal feeling is that though I believe gays should have all the legal rights straight people do, they don't deserve any special protections when it comes to being made fun of occasionally. As long as it's genuinely funny (and not ONLY mean-spritited, it's ok.)
Here is the way I see it. I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with. We all have different temptations. Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc. People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses. I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals. They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior. Some engage, some do not. At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.
Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide. If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide. For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days. I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law. That's the way democracy works.
-
It's always entertaining when Bum claims to know people better than they know themselves
-
I see your point but feel that what they did was deserved and was definitely no more wrong than the Stop and Frisk practice. (And, hell yeah, I feel that 2 wrongs DO make a right, sometimes.)
How is a private citizen giving a speech responsible for a police officer frisking someone? Don't see any correlation.
There is a way to protest and get your point across without acting like an idiot. Nobody listens to the kind disruption they engaged in.
-
Here is the way I see it. I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with. We all have different temptations. Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc. People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses. I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals. They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior. Some engage, some do not. At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.
Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide. If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide. For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days. I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law. That's the way democracy works.
who the hell are you or anyone to decided what is normal or abnormal between two consenting adults
I think being a vegan is abnormal but it's none of my business what anyone else believes or chooses to do with their lives
regarding the idea that the majority should be able to vote on the rights of a minority (even in violation of the constitution) I assume you'd have no problem if the majority wanted to take away voting rights to redheads or some other random group
-
Here is the way I see it. I was not a fan of Jerry Fallwell (sp?), but he said one thing a while ago that I agree with. We all have different temptations. Some people are susceptible to various drug or alcohol addictions, some food, some smoking, other lifestyle choices, etc. People are tempted to do things in areas where they have weaknesses. I think that's true of people who chose to become homosexuals. They have temptations to engage in abnormal behavior. Some engage, some do not. At the end of the day, they make a choice, and there are numerous examples of people who have chosen that lifestyle and then come out of it.
Regarding legal rights, I think the people should decide. If a majority want to confer legal protections to LGBT, gender identity, and whatever other gender classification we want to create, then I respect what the people decide. For example, I support traditional marriage, but our legislature is about to pass homosexual marriage here in about the next several days. I disagree with the legislature deciding this instead of the people, but I'll respect that law. That's the way democracy works.
Do you have a desire to fuck men but refrain from it because of your faith BB?
-
Do you have a desire to fuck men but refrain from it because of your faith BB?
(http://newturfers.com/mwf/attach/95/578395/TrollBeGone.gif)
-
How is a private citizen giving a speech responsible for a police officer frisking someone? Don't see any correlation.
There is a way to protest and get your point across without acting like an idiot. Nobody listens to the kind disruption they engaged in.
Private citizen? I thought Ray Kelly was the NYPD Police chief? If I'm wrong, then never mind.
But if he is the chief then his men are regularly violating the rights of thousands and thousands of innocent people's rights by detaining and frisking them without cause so having a group of citizens let him know about the extent of their dissatisfaction with the practice by shouting him down and not letting him speak at their college campus not only doesn't seem so bad but it also seems like an effective way of garnering publicity about the problems many have with "Stop and Frisk".
Of course, some of the attention is negative because it will seem to many like his rights to free speech are being infringed upon (I don't think they are to any appreciable degree - he has plenty of other soap-boxes to stand on.) but, again, it's a fair trade-off to me: If Kelly doesn't respect the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches, why should the citizens respect his right to free speech? Som nom nah, I say.
-
Private citizen? I thought Ray Kelly was the NYPD Police chief? If I'm wrong, then never mind.
But if he is the chief then his men are regularly violating the rights of thousands and thousands of innocent people's rights by detaining and frisking them without cause so having a group of citizens let him know about the extent of their dissatisfaction with the practice by shouting him down and not letting him speak at their college campus not only doesn't seem so bad but it also seems like an effective way of garnering publicity about the problems many have with "Stop and Frisk".
Of course, some of the attention is negative because it will seem to many like his rights to free speech are being infringed upon (I don't think they are to any appreciable degree - he has plenty of other soap-boxes to stand on.) but, again, it's a fair trade-off to me: If Kelly doesn't respect the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches, why should the citizens respect his right to free speech? Som nom nah, I say.
You are correct. He is public official.
Still, that doesn't make the disruption any more palatable. Especially at a university, which is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas. Shouting someone down is just censorship. It's a liberal hallmark. Disagree with someone's opinion? Silence it.
There is no trade-off. That's not how society works. If people are opposed to his law enforcement policies, then challenge them by voting, protesting (appropriately), lobbying, and court challenges. If they lose, suck it up and follow the law, or move to another state.
-
You are correct. He is public official.
Still, that doesn't make the disruption any more palatable. Especially at a university, which is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas. Shouting someone down is just censorship. It's a liberal hallmark. Disagree with someone's opinion? Silence it.
There is no trade-off. That's not how society works. If people are opposed to his law enforcement policies, then challenge them by voting, protesting (appropriately), lobbying, and court challenges. If they lose, suck it up and follow the law, or move to another state.
Not how a polite society works, I agree. Not even how the society I would prefer works, I'll even add.
Today's society, I'm sure you realize (and I'll join you in lamenting and risk sounding like old men railing about "kids these days") is more complicated. Disruptions like the one at Brown make news (the squeaky wheel gets the greasin') and in today's society, with it's craven shit like viral marketing, it's to be expected.
I start to understand and condone it, I guess, when I realize how many of our elected representatives, once in office, fail to support the policies they were elected to support.
I tried in vain to search for a youtube clip from the old Bill Murray movie, Quick Change, where an old man in a public restroom, hearing Randy Quaid's moaning (due to Bill Murray ripping the taped stacks of money off of him) inside a stall and thinking some kind of kinky sex act was going on, says in disgust, "You can keep this city!"
-
Not how a polite society works, I agree. Not even how the society I would prefer works, I'll even add.
Today's society, I'm sure you realize (and I'll join you in lamenting and risk sounding like old men railing about "kids these days") is more complicated. Disruptions like the one at Brown make news (the squeaky wheel gets the greasin') and in today's society, with it's craven shit like viral marketing, it's to be expected.
I start to understand and condone it, I guess, when I realize how many of our elected representatives, once in office, fail to support the policies they were elected to support.
I tried in vain to search for a youtube clip from the old Bill Murray movie, Quick Change, where an old man in a public restroom, hearing Randy Quaid's moaning (due to Bill Murray ripping the taped stacks of money off of him) inside a stall and thinking some kind of kinky sex act was going on, says in disgust, "You can keep this city!"
There are plenty of ways to shine the spotlight on conduct people find abusive within the confines of free speech and expression.
But I do agree that way too many of our elected representatives fail to do what's in the best interests of the country and their constituents.
I'm a recent convert to term limits.
-
Toe the line, or they will shut you up.
D.C. insurance commissioner fired a day after questioning Obamacare fix
By Aaron C. Davis
Published: November 16, 2013
A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.
White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday.
White said the mayoral deputy never said that he was being asked to leave because of his Thursday statement on health care. But he said the timing was hard to ignore. Roughly 24 hours later, White said, he was “basically being told, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ ”
White was one of the first insurance commissioners in the nation last week to push back against Obama’s attempt to smooth over part of the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act: millions of unexpected cancellations of insurance plans.
In persuading Congress to vote for the health-care overhaul, Obama had promised that Americans who liked their insurance plans would be able to keep them. When that turned out to not be the case, Obama apologized last week. And to stem growing bipartisan dissent, he announced Thursday that plans slated to be canceled next year to comply with the legislation could be extended for one year.
While the president’s plan sounded like a simple fix, it rattled the insurance industry, which had set prices for next year based on many of its products changing to comply with the health-care law. Allowing some plans to continue beyond Jan. 1 could also run afoul of provisions in laws passed by dozens of states and the District to implement the Affordable Care Act.
In a statement issued Thursday, White hinted strongly that he opposed the idea.
“The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate,” the statement said.
He also pointed to a statement issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that said the Obama order “threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond.”
“We concur with that assessment,” White said Thursday.
White’s statement was removed from the department’s Web site sometime before Friday morning. Asked about the removal Friday, spokesman Michael Flagg said the department’s statement had changed.
“Our statement now is that we’re taking a close look at the implications of the president’s announcement on the District’s exchange and we will soon recommend a course of action after taking into consideration the positions of all the stakeholders,” Flagg wrote in an e-mail.
On Saturday, Flagg declined to comment on whether White had been fired, saying the department doesn’t comment on personnel issues.
A senior city official said White’s initial statement was sent to the mayoral communications director, Pedro Ribeiro, only minutes before it was issued publicly. It was not sent to Deputy Mayor Victor Hoskins, White’s immediate supervisor, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about a personnel matter.
A formal statement critical of the president should have been closely vetted and approved by the mayor’s office, and White refused to acknowledge the misstep, the official said. White said Hoskins fired him Friday.
White said he thought he would have been derelict in his duties to not quickly make a statement on the president’s announcement.
“Everyone was looking for responses from the regulators. One of my chief concerns is always consistency and clarity in the marketplace — you can’t have something that big sitting out there without responding to it,” he said.
White had served as Gray’s commissioner for the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking since February 2011. Prior to last week, his most high-profile and controversial role had been as chief of the department that took control of Chartered Health Plan, the city’s largest manager of health care for low-income residents, amid questions about “irregularities” in its finances.
Chartered was owned by businessman Jeffrey E. Thompson, who has been implicated in funding a $650,000 “shadow campaign” to elect Gray. White oversaw the successful sale of the insurer’s assets, and his department’s handling of the transition has been generally viewed positively.
White said he had known since he took the job that he served at the pleasure of the mayor. He said he was proud of his record and would have stayed.
On the president’s proposed health-care fix, he said: “I wasn’t saying I was against it, I also was saying I didn’t know enough to fully support it — I want to be clear, and I think it is, I was not speaking for Mayor Gray.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop
-
I'm surprised.
Protection, at last? University with liberal bent bans political discrimination
By Faith Mangan, Alicia Acuna
Published November 20, 2013
FoxNews.com
The University of Colorado, which has a reputation for liberal politics, has banned discrimination based on political affiliation -- giving greater protection to students and faculty who speak their minds while on campus.
The policy is believed to be a first for any public college or university, and could help protect campus conservatives who might fear retribution for expressing their views in the classroom, or in written assignments.
While the measure was sponsored by two Republicans, the change was unanimously passed by the entire Board of Regents.
Regent Sue Sharkey, who spent months working on the policy change, points out: "This just wasn't a Republican or conservative initiative. Rather, we as a board came together as Democrats and Republicans to be unified."
Sharkey says it covers students and faculty, "to ensure... we were honoring their First Amendment rights and they could speak out on their political views and not feel they would be discriminated against based on that."
She recounted hearing stories from members of the campus community who told her about feeling diminished or silenced, unable to comfortably express their views.
The regents have also passed a resolution to conduct a campus survey. The study is expected to take the temperature of the campus climate.
Sharkey explains it "will really take a look at discrimination and how pervasive is it. And rather than having just anecdotal stories from students or faculty, we really want to find out how broad this is."
The school is also home to the Ward Churchill scandal.
Churchill is a former professor who was fired after a protracted legal battle. He infamously referred to victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns" – a reference to the Nazi leader.
Attorney David Lane represented him. Asked for reaction to the anti-discrimination policy change, Lane does not mince words: "Well, I wonder where they were when Ward Churchill needed that protection, frankly.
“It's called the First Amendment ... but I fully support the concept that people should not lose their jobs, their government jobs on a government campus, like the University of Colorado, based on their ideas or their speech. I'm all in favor of that,” he said.
Now if someone feels discriminated against for their political views or affiliation, he or she will be able to file a complaint with the office of non-discrimination and have it investigated.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/protection-at-last-university-with-liberal-bent-bans-political-discrimination/
-
CA Teacher Forces Student to Stop Talking About Bible
War on Christmas: The Aftermath
On December 19, a school teacher in Temecula, California told her first grade student, Brynn Williams, that she could not present her family's Christmas tradition of a star of Bethlehem at her school, according to local reports.
Brynn's class was assigned to do a 1-minute presentation about an object that best represents their family's Christmas tradition. When Brynn stood up to give her presentation, she began reciting a Bible verse just before the teacher interrupted and told her to ”go take your seat". She was the only student not allowed to finish her presentation.
"When this took place she was hurt," said Brynn's father Shane, "she felt that she had done something wrong and she was going to be punished."
Brynn's family has since sought legal counsel with Advocates for Faith & Freedom.
"The disapproval and hostility that Christian students have come to experience in our nation's public schools has become epidemic,” said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, "I hope that (the school district ) will take the lead role in adopting a model policy to prohibit this abuse that has become all too common place for religious-minded students."
The Temecula Valley School District released only the following statement:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District respects all students' rights under the Constitution and takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination. Due to the fact that District officials are currently investigating the allegations, it would be inappropriate to provide further comment at this time.
This story broke shortly after advocates for religious freedom picked up on another controversial incident in a West Covina school district where another teacher prevented her student from bringing on campus "candy canes with a religious message".
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ca-teacher-forces-student-stop-talking-about-bible
-
Only opinions that liberals agree with are tolerated.
Latina actress Maria Conchita Alonso out of play over support of Tea Party candidate
Published January 19, 2014
FoxNews.com
A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of “The Vagina Monologues,” after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor.
“We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately,” Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso’s resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts’ upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play.
“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.”
Several Latino organizations have criticized Alonso -- a former Miss Venezuela who gained Hollywood fame for hits like “The Running Man,” and “Moscow on the Hudson” -- for endorsing Tim Donnelly, a California State Assemblyman from San Bernardino.
Connelly founded a state chapter of the Minutemen, an armed vigilante border patrol group, and has vigorously fought against measures that allow California's undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges at the same tuition rates as other residents, as well as permit them to obtain driver’s licenses, according to Fox News Latino.
In the Connelly ad, released Jan. 13, Alonso holds a small dog that she introduces as “Tequila” and at times uses vulgar expressions as she translates remarks by Donnelly about his views on various issues into Spanish.
“Politicians and big government are killing our prosperity, pushing welfare costs through the roof and driving our schools into the ground,” Donnelly reportedly notes in the ad.
Then, while standing next to him, Alonso jokingly translates it all by saying, “We’re screwed.”
“The Tim Donnelly ad with Maria Conchita Alonso ad is so bad it’s almost laughable,” Café Con Leche, a Latino Republican group, said in a statement. “The ad seems designed to appeal to Hispanic voters, but instead insults the intelligence of many Hispanic voters.”
Brava! For Women in the Arts’ production of “The Vagina Monologues” is scheduled to show at the venue it owns and operates called the Brava Theater Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District, a neighborhood heavily populated with people of Latin descent.
For her part, Alonso was reportedly born in Cuba and spent the first five years of her life there, until her family moved to Venezuela in 1962. She became a U.S. citizen in 2005.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/19/latina-actress-maria-conchita-alonso-out-play-over-support-tea-party-candidate/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Only opinions that liberals agree with are tolerated.
Latina actress Maria Conchita Alonso out of play over support of Tea Party candidate
Published January 19, 2014
FoxNews.com
A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of “The Vagina Monologues,” after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor.
“We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately,” Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso’s resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts’ upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play.
“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.”
Several Latino organizations have criticized Alonso -- a former Miss Venezuela who gained Hollywood fame for hits like “The Running Man,” and “Moscow on the Hudson” -- for endorsing Tim Donnelly, a California State Assemblyman from San Bernardino.
Connelly founded a state chapter of the Minutemen, an armed vigilante border patrol group, and has vigorously fought against measures that allow California's undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges at the same tuition rates as other residents, as well as permit them to obtain driver’s licenses, according to Fox News Latino.
In the Connelly ad, released Jan. 13, Alonso holds a small dog that she introduces as “Tequila” and at times uses vulgar expressions as she translates remarks by Donnelly about his views on various issues into Spanish.
“Politicians and big government are killing our prosperity, pushing welfare costs through the roof and driving our schools into the ground,” Donnelly reportedly notes in the ad.
Then, while standing next to him, Alonso jokingly translates it all by saying, “We’re screwed.”
“The Tim Donnelly ad with Maria Conchita Alonso ad is so bad it’s almost laughable,” Café Con Leche, a Latino Republican group, said in a statement. “The ad seems designed to appeal to Hispanic voters, but instead insults the intelligence of many Hispanic voters.”
Brava! For Women in the Arts’ production of “The Vagina Monologues” is scheduled to show at the venue it owns and operates called the Brava Theater Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District, a neighborhood heavily populated with people of Latin descent.
For her part, Alonso was reportedly born in Cuba and spent the first five years of her life there, until her family moved to Venezuela in 1962. She became a U.S. citizen in 2005.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/19/latina-actress-maria-conchita-alonso-out-play-over-support-tea-party-candidate/?intcmp=latestnews
I see you still haven't learned the definition of censorship yet
-
Typical.
Cuomo: 'Extreme Conservatives,' Pro-Lifers Not Welcome in NY
Cortney O'Brien | Jan 18, 2014
If anti-abortion activists thought those 35 feet ‘buffer zones’ currently in place around abortion clinics were restrictive, wait until they hear the boundary New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to draw for them. Calling into “The Capitol Pressroom” radio show Friday morning, the liberal leader made it clear just what he thinks about conservatives and pro-lifers:
“The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
Cuomo’s comments perhaps come as no surprise to those familiar with his proposed Women’s Equality Act - legislation which works opposite its title thanks to its radical abortion agenda. Although the measure was defeated last year, Cuomo, in his fourth State of the State address, declared he was determined to try again in 2014.
Dan Janison at Long Island’s Newsday asks a poignant question about Cuomo’s recent condescending remarks: What if the conservative governor of a red state made these comments about extreme liberals?
Just imagine for a moment if Haley Barbour or Rick Perry said: “Do you support abortion rights? Do you support same-sex marriage? Do you support gun control? Then, you have no place in this state because that's not who we are.”
Those remarks would be ripe for some mocking exposure on MSNBC.
True, MSNBC would have no mercy on Perry and Barbour. Nor should we be soft on Cuomo. We should be attacking his comments, which alienated a large bloc of voters, just as much as the left jumped all over Romney’s ‘47 percent’ gaffe.
One more point from Janison:
Did the governor become a bit, uh, extreme in his critique of extremists?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/01/18/cuomo-extreme-conservatives-prolifers-arent-welcome-in-ny-n1781071
-
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com
Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."
Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.
To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."
The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.
"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.
"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable."
Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.
Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."
Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."
Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."
At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.
Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/
Federal Appeals Court to Decide if Politics Should Factor in Law School Hiring
Sunday, 09 Feb 2014
By Elliot Jager
A Federal Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minn., will on Feb. 13 hear arguments in a case involving a law school accused of refusing to hire a highly qualified instructor because she is also an anti-abortion activist, according to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Berkowitz.
The case, Wagner v. Jones, involves Teresa Wagner, who had applied for the job of legal writing instructor at the University of Iowa law school, and Dean Carolyn Jones, who allegedly refused to hire her on political grounds.
According to Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a constitutional scholar, the legal question is "whether a state law-school may deny employment to faculty candidates because of their political beliefs."
Wagner had been working part-time for the law school when two full-time slots for legal-writing instructors became available. She applied and became a finalist for one of the openings, according to Berkowitz.
Wagner's credentials were extensive; she was a trial attorney; had edited scholarly books, and written a legal brief used in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving partial-birth abortions. The law school committee dealing with faculty appointments recommended giving her the job.
But the overwhelmingly liberal law-school faculty voted against Wagner; Jones said she "flunked" her interview.
Of the two available positions one went to a liberal who subsequently resigned. The second is being staffed by adjunct instructors including one with known pro-abortion sensibilities, according to Berkowitz.
Wagner sued the school. A jury agreed that her rights had been violated. However the panel could not agree to hold the law dean exclusively responsible. Through legal machinations the case was dismissed.
Wager wants the appeals court to order a new trial.
At the time of her rejection, the law school had a single registered Republican on its 50-member faculty. Since she launched her suit, the school has hired several more.
Berkowitz argues: "Hiring decisions should be based on candidates' merits, including their ability to vigorously present in the classroom and criticize conservative as well as progressive views. If the Eighth Circuit protects Teresa Wagner's constitutional rights, the court will also bolster legal education in America by promoting its depoliticization."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/politics-law-school-hiring/2014/02/09/id/551713#ixzz2swgBvhEM
-
Does not surprise me one bit.
Rutgers faculty protest of Condoleezza Rice as graduation speaker 'appalling,' lawmaker says
By Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger
March 04, 2014
TRENTON — Republican state Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini blasted a Rutgers University faculty group today for its opposition to Condoleezza Rice's selection as this year's commencement speaker.
Angelini (R-Monmouth) issued a statement calling the faculty vote protesting Rice's selection "appalling and an embarrassment to our state."
"This is nothing more than a political firestorm fueled by their hatred of an opposing ideology, and President George W. Bush in particular. Dr. Rice and the people of New Jersey deserve better," Angelini said.
Last week, Rutgers' New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind its invitation to Rice. The former U.S. Secretary of State is scheduled to receive $35,000 and an honorary doctorate for her speech.
The faculty resolution said Rutgers should not honor Rice because of her role in the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's adoption of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.
"Condoleezza Rice ... played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction," the resolution said.
In her statement, Angelini praised Rice.
“Condoleezza Rice is a trailblazer and a woman of extraordinary intelligence and diverse talents who has spent most of her career in academia," Angelini said. "She was the first woman and first African-American to serve as provost of Stanford University and has served as a Stanford professor for more than three decades. That alone makes her beyond qualified to deliver the commencement speech at Rutgers or at any university."
Rice is scheduled to speak at the May 18 university-wide commencement ceremony in the Rutgers football stadium in Piscataway. The Rutgers Board of Governors unanimously approved Rice's nomination for the honorary degree last month.
Other honorary degrees will go to Gerald C. Harvey, outgoing chair of the university’s Board of Governors, and Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and environmentalist.
Donald Katz, founder and CEO of Audible Inc. and an award-winning journalist, will receive an honorary doctorate and serve as Rutgers-Newark’s commencement speaker.
-
Supporting idiotic wars has consequences, I guess.
Anyway, unless Rutgers was just looking for publicity, hiring a controversial figure like Rice wasn't a great move -- She HAS accomplished a lot, especially considering her race & gender, but unfortunately for her that's not what she's destined to be known for. Props to the faculty of Rutgers for not having short memories, I say.
-
This isn't an example of censorship, but it's a precursor to what is coming. Any opposition to lifestyle choices will be deemed "barbaric," "hateful," etc. and people will eventually be silenced.
As Obama Meets Pope, Media Mum on Biden's Slam of 'Bizarre,' 'Barbaric' Christian Position on Gays
By Tim Graham | March 27, 2014
As the media boosted President Obama's meeting with Pope Francis on Thursday morning, none have noticed how the reportedly weekly-Mass-attending Vice President Joe Biden made remarks in Los Angeles at a "Human Rights Campaign" event last Saturday night. Biden expressed disbelief and outrage that anyone's still taking Catholic teaching on sexuality seriously in this modern age.
The gay newspaper The Washington Blade reported Biden used words like "close to barbaric" to describe the present system of religious liberty -- the notion that a religious employer doesn't have to hire (and can fire) gay activists. Biden even said "the world -- God willing -- is beginning to change." He then cited Pope Francis (out of context) saying "who are we to judge?" (video below)
Biden called on Congress immediately to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, saying the lack of prohibition on anti-LGBT workplace discrimination is “close to barbaric.”
“It’s outrageous we’re even debating this subject. I really mean it. I mean, it’s almost beyond belief that today, in 2014, I can say to you as your employee in so many states, ‘You’re fired because of who you love,’” Biden said. “Think about that. It is bizarre. No, no, no. It really is. I don’t think most Americans even know that employers can do that.”
Gay activists are upset that Team Obama hasn't just gone around Congress and issued an Executive Order instituting this "anti-discrimination" policy. Biden also said the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality is a "sick" cultural norm that has to go:
“The single most basic of all human rights is the right to decide who you love,” Biden said. “It’s the single basic building block; it’s the single most important human rights. And hate can never, never be defended because it’s a so-called cultural norm. I’ve had it up to here with cultural norms. I really mean it. If a cultural norm is sick, it's sick, it’s simple. There’s never a justification for a government or an individual politician to play off the bigotry and hatred.”
Biden paid tribute to the courage of gay activists: “All of you spoke up and stepped out and came forward, you came out and you marched, you demanded to be recognized, demanded your constitutional rights, demands a basic American dream. You demanded respect...your tenacity, your integrity, and yes, your physical courage, and your pride, bent the moral arch of this nation, and it’s finally moving in the right direction.”
Biden claimed they not only “liberated millions, millions in the LGBT community...you liberated tens of millions of straight guys and straight women,” who can now speak up for gay activism.
Biden's not only disagreeing with his own church's teaching. He's openly proclaiming it's "sick" and "close to barbaric."
Pope Francis could have also asked Obama how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be both Catholic and accept a "Margaret Sanger Award" from Planned Parenthood on the same day as this meeting. Penny Starr at CNS News reminds readers that Sanger wrote against “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families” and believed “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Hollywood sponsors of the HRC's Los Angeles gala included HBO, Disney-ABC Television Group, A&E, and DirecTV.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/03/27/media-mum-obama-meets-pope-joe-bidens-denunciation-bizarre-and-barbaric-#ixzz2xCJP5GNg
-
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti
Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
So, what’s the problem?
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/
-
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti
Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
So, what’s the problem?
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/
Good grief. ::)
Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
Reuters By Sarah McBride
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.
The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.
"We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act," wrote Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a blog post. "We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry."
The next step for Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed," she added, with more information to come next week.
While gay activists applauded the move, many in the technology community lamented the departure of Eich, who invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla.
View galleryA man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand …
A man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelon …
"Brendan Eich is a good friend of 20 years, and has made a profound contribution to the Web and to the entire world," venture capitalist Marc Andreessen tweeted.
Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.
His resignation came days after OkCupid.com, the popular online dating site, called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world's No. 2 Web browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.
On Monday, OkCupid sent a message to visitors who accessed the website through Firefox, suggesting they use browsers such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer or Google Inc's Chrome.
"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message said. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."
http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-says-ceo-resigns-amid-gay-marriage-controversy-195338477.html;_ylt=AwrBEiT.yT1TKDYAllnQtDMD
-
11 pages and Bum still has no clue what the word censorship means
-
Why are so many liberals afraid of different viewpoints? The really unfortunate things about this is how young those women are.
Tolerant Feminists Tell Conservative Young Woman: We Don't Want You Here
Katie Pavlich | Apr 02, 2014
Campus Reform is a conservative outlet that keeps tabs on liberal university indoctrination and hypocrisy. Recently Campus Reform's Katherine Timpf, who considers herself a libertarian, attended the "inclusive" National Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Crystal City, Virginia to ask young women questions about what feminism means to them.
Not surprisingly, the liberal women at the conference weren't happy about Timpf being in attendance. She was discriminated against based on her place of employment, attacked for her assumed political views and was told "you guys aren't wanted here." Organizers of the event are seen repeatedly seen saying, "Campus Reform is a conservative outlet, just to warn you if you're going to talk to them."
“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.
“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.
“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.
“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.
“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.
“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.
“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/02/tolerant-feminists-tell-conservative-young-woman-we-dont-want-you-here-n1817656
-
Kirsten Powers: Liberals' Dark Ages
May 14, 2014
Each week seems to bring another incident. Who will the thought police come for next?
Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.
How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.
Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can't have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the "right" things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I.
This week, a trail-blazing woman was felled in the new tradition of commencement shaming. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from delivering the commencement speech at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.
Don't bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as "a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully" and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a "psychotic mass murderer" and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.
The self-serving capriciousness is crazy. In March, University of California-Santa Barbara women's studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus' "free speech zone" (formerly known as America). Though she was charged with theft, battery and vandalism, Miller-Young remains unrepentant and still has her job. But Mozilla's Brendan Eich gave a private donation to an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago and was ordered to recant his beliefs. When he wouldn't, he was forced to resign from the company he helped found.
Got that? A college educator with the right opinions can attack a high school student and keep her job. A corporate executive with the wrong opinions loses his for making a campaign donation. Something is very wrong here.
As the mob gleefully destroys people's lives, its members haven't stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that's how these things usually end.
Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.
-
Liberals doing what they do: shutting down different viewpoints.
(http://[quote author=OzmO link=topic=539720.msg7567952#msg7567952 date=1403190578]
[url=http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/student-school-censors-conservative-websites/#24391101=0]http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2014/06/18/student-school-censors-conservative-websites/#24391101=0[/url]
[b]Student: school censors conservative websites[/b]
[img width=450 height=337]http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/files/2014/06/ct-gop-screenshot-no-access.jpg)
Andrew Lampart couldn’t right click.
Yet the 18-year-old high school senior from Woodbury could left click with relative ease.
Denied access to conservative-leaning websites by the school district’s Internet firewall, the soon-to-be graduate of Nonnewaug High School lodged a formal complaint with the Region 14 Board of Education Monday night over what Lampart said is double standard.
While doing research for a assignment on gun control in the school’s library, Lampart said he tried unsuccessfully to visit the websites of Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association on his Android tablet that was connected to the school’s WiFi network. Woodbury is 13 miles from Newtown.
Lampart said he ran into similar roadblocks while surfing the websites of anti-abortion and traditional marriage organizations — and even the Connecticut Republican Party.
Access to the websites of the Connecticut Democrats, the pro-gun control Newtown Action Alliance and advocacy groups for the LGBT community was unfettered, according to Lampart, who took screen shots from his Internet browser.
“It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided,” Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.
Jody Ian Goeler, the superintendent of Region 14, which serves the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem, denied that the district has a political agenda.
“There is not a bias,” Goeler told Hearst Wednesday. “We’ve done everything we can in a our power to ensure that students have access to a variety of resources and a variety of different perspectives.”
Goeler said that the website of the Connecticut Democrats should have also been blocked by Dell SonicWALL, a paid firewall service that the district uses to filter sites accessed on its computers and WiFi network.
Any website that is political in nature is restricted under a uniform policy, according to Goeler, who said that political parties are treated no differently than groups such as a the Ku Klux Klan or Neo-Nazis.
Teachers do have the ability to override the restrictions on a case-by-case basis if a students needs to visit a website for an assignment, he said.
“From a policy perspective, I think we’re solid,” Goeler said. “We have a very good policy.”
From bullying and sexually explicit websites to those political in nature, Goeler said there are 64 categories of restricted sites.
The superintendent said he spent an entire day with the district’s information technology officer after Lampart went to the school board. Additional websites that might have an advocacy component such as the Newtown Action Alliance are also blocked now, said Goeler, who added that the district is reviewing its choice of firewall provider.
Messages seeking comment were also left Wednesday for John Chapman, school board chairman for Region 14.
State GOP Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. condemned the district’s Internet access policy.
“If it’s true, it’s very troubling and constitutes a dangerous form of censorship,” Labriola told Hearst Wednesday. “I call upon the school district to give equal access to political viewpoints across the spectrum. The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators.”
Lampart said he brought the matter to the attention of Goeler toward the end of May.
“When I first went to the superintendent, he seemed surprised and vowed to fix the problem,” Lampart said. “Nothing was done.”
Lampart said he complained to members of the Region 14 school board and went so far as to speak at the body’s meeting Monday night.
“As of right now, the issue has not been fixed, nor do I know of any course of action they’re taking,” Lampart said. “Somebody must have categorized the websites initially. The teachers also have the ability to block or unblock some websites.”
Even the official website of the Vatican was blocked, according to a screen shot provided by Lampart.
Lampart said the student body at Nonnewaug is split between liberals and conservatives like himself.
“You can definitely tell what side of argument that teachers stand on,” Lampart said.
More screenshots provided by Lampert:
[/quote][/img]
-
School accused of 'purging' Christian books
By Todd Starnes
Published September 23, 2014
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/TheHidingPlace-cover.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
TheHidingPlace-cover.jpg
It’s hard to imagine that any school would have a problem with a book about a Christian family that helped Jews escape the Holocaust.
But Springs Charter Schools in Temecula, Calif., not only had a problem with “The Hiding Place,” they also took issue with any other book that was written by a Christian author or included a Christian message.
“We do not purchase sectarian educational materials and do not allow sectarian materials on our state-authorized lending shelves,” Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer wrote in a letter to attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).
Why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.
Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.
“She was told by one of the library attendants that the library has been instructed to remove all books with a Christian message, authored by Christians, or published by a Christian publishing company,” read a letter PJI sent to the public charter school. “The attendant advised that the library would no longer be carrying those books. Indeed, our client was told that the library was giving those books away, and she actually took some.”
Among the books deemed inappropriate, the PJI said, was “The Hiding Place” the biography of Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch Christian who was imprisoned by the Germans for helping Jews escape the Holocaust.
“It is alarming that a school library would attempt to purge books from religious authors,” said Brad Dacus, president of the religious advocacy group. “This is a major sweep by this charter school to eliminate the religious viewpoint. Libraries cannot engage in an open purging of books simply because they are of a Christian perspective.”
Dacus said the charter school must reverse “their ill-conceived and illegal book-banning policy.” If they fail to do so, he said, PJI is prepared to take further legal action.
So why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?
I figured Superintendent Hermsmeyer would be more than willing to set the record straight and explain the book purging. It seems I figured wrong. I gave her 24 hours to return my calls, and as of this writing, she has not done so.
But she did reply to the letter she received from Pacific Justice Institute. And what she told them was a bit alarming.
“We are a public school, and as such, we are barred by law from purchasing sectarian curriculum materials with state funds,” she wrote. “We only keep on our shelves the books that we are authorized to purchase with public funds.”
I’m guessing Harry Potter is OK but Frodo is not.
Pacific Justice Institute said the charter school has violated the First Amendment. They cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that said “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’” If you’d like to read the entire case – it’s “Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.”
Hermsmeyer denied they were discriminating against Christian authors or publishing companies.
“At no time, however, have we discriminated against Christian authors or publishing companies who create secular educational materials,” she wrote.
Heaven forbid the children find a Bible in the library.
It’s quite unfortunate that the charter school endorses the banning of books.
“Some of the greatest literature of Western civilization comes from religious authors,” Dacus said. Are they going to ban the sermons or speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?”
I oppose all book banning. If a book offends you, don’t read it.
The way I see it – book banning is just one step away from book burning. And I don’t mean to pour gasoline on the fire, but we all know what regime did that.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/23/school-accused-purging-christian-books/
-
Colleges and universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas; a place where kids can express and discuss viewpoints, including viewpoints people consider offensive.
Except if you are a liberal, then you only get to discuss what the liberal agrees with. Tolerance. ::)
Teacher to student: If you don't support gay marriage, drop my class
By Todd Starnes
Published November 21, 2014
FoxNews.com
Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.
I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.
The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professor and was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.
The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.
“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”
Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.
So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission.
“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.
“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.
“Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.
Abbate disagreed.
“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”
The student said he did not know the answer to her question.
“Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.
At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”
“Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class] to make homophobic comments.”
The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic.
“This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals,” he said. “Because they’re homosexual, I can’t have my opinions?”
And that’s when the teacher dropped the bombshell.
“You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”
So the student dropped the class.
“I understand that other people have very different views than I do and that’s understandable,” the student told me. “But when a student is not allowed to have an open discussion in a discussion-type class on a specific issue because it’s regarded as homophobic – that really irks me.”
Marquette Professor John McAdams, who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, accused Abbate of using a tactic “typical among liberals now.”
“Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” he wrote.
The student told me he filed a complaint – but he said university officials dismissed his concerns.
McAdams wrote that he was not surprised because the university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor.
“Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university,” he wrote. “And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”
A university spokesman told me they were viewing “both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member.”
“We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly,” the spokesman told me. “In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.”
Abbate told the website Inside Higher Ed that the “class discussion was not meant to be an opportunity for students to express their personal beliefs about political issues.”
She said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.”
“It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty,” she told Inside Higher Ed.
The only thing toxic at Marquette are teachers who oppose Catholic doctrine and try to silence dissenting opinions.
I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.
I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions.
Nevertheless, the student’s behavior does not excuse Marquette University’s successful attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas.
So let’s review -- an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.
I’m not a Catholic – but it seems to me Marquette University is one of those CINO schools – Catholic in Name Only.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/21/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)
ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.
In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."
Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."
At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.
Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.
Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."
He said he will not hide his Christian faith.
"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.
Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.
"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.
Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.
"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.
Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.
Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.
"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.
Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.
"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.
The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.
"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.
"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/
-
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)
ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.
In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."
Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."
At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.
Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.
Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."
He said he will not hide his Christian faith.
"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.
Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.
"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.
Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.
"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.
Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.
Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.
"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.
Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.
"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.
The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.
"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.
"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/
good riddance
now he can spend more time reading his bible
-
good riddance
now he can spend more time reading his bible
He looks a little light in the loafers. Probably wouldn`t be any use with a plow or rake.
-
Good commentary.
New York Times Applauds Atlanta's Religious Intolerance
By Tony Perkins | January 14, 2015
(http://newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/Kelvin-Cochran2%5B1%5D.jpg?itok=hYC8H_PT)
Apparently, the New York Times is in favor of faith in the public square -- if the purpose is to mock it. Editors at the Times poured gasoline on the fire of Atlanta’s latest controversy with an editorial that should shock even their most liberal readers. Just when you thought the media couldn’t sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians.
In a stunning editorial Tuesday, the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind. The piece, which shows a remarkable disinterest in the facts, claims that Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran didn’t have permission to publish his book on biblical morality. Not only did Cochran have permission from the city’s ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend.
But the shoddy journalism didn’t end there. Editors insisted that Cochran’s book was full of “virulent anti-gay views” -- when in fact, the 162 page book only mentioned homosexuality twice. And both times, the conversation merely echoed the Bible’s teachings on the subject. For that -- privately espousing a faith that a majority of Americans share -- Kelvin was fired.
“It should not matter,” the New York Times conveniently suggests, “that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.” And what is that “standard,” specifically? That he has no First Amendment rights? If so, that’s the height of hypocrisy for these editors, who just days ago championed the press’s freedom to ridicule religion in the public square. Apparently, the New York Times believes in the freedom of the press to attack faith, but not the public’s right to hold a faith in the first place.
“Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe,” the editors say (somewhat ironically, since that’s what they seem to be doing). “If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.” At no point did Kelvin Cochran “foist” his views on anyone. And if you follow the Times’s suggestion to its natural conclusion, then there’s no place in this country for Christians in any position of authority!
Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of Cochran supporters spilled into the rotunda of the Georgia Capitol to stand up to the city’s religious intolerance -- and then marched to Mayor Reed’s office where they left nearly 50,000 petitions from citizens across the nation. Together with Atlanta’s religious leaders, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, I urged Americans to fight this notion that Christians have to check their faith at the workplace door.
“This past weekend the world marched in Paris recognizing that free speech is the cornerstone of a truly free society. A realization is now sweeping Europe that political correctness has become lethal and it is an avowed enemy of true freedom. But whether a journalist in France satirically writes about religion or a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia writes about the sacred teachings of his faith, the silencing of either is a threat to the freedoms of all...Chief Cochran has spent a lifetime, ready at a moment’s notice to fight the fires that threatened lives and property, today he stands ready to fight the flames of intolerance fueled by our own government that threaten our most fundamental freedoms.”
It’s time for the city of Atlanta to end its campaign of discrimination against Christians, whose only crime is exercising the same liberties our forefathers came to these shores to protect. The New York Times is calling for public servants to be held to a different standard when it comes to their freedom of speech and religion. But I think most Americans are quite happy with the standard that we’ve had for the last 226 years -- the First Amendment!
Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. This is cross-posted from his Washington Update.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tony-perkins/2015/01/14/new-york-times-applauds-atlantas-religious-intolerance#sthash.ySCREd9d.dpuf
-
Hey Bum ,where is the link to the NY Times story?
I think we'd all rather read it and draw our own opinion about it rather than hearing Tony Perkins (obviously biased) opinion about it.
Clearly Perkins is too much of a pussy to include a link in his own commentary so his readers can draw their own conclusions rather than being spoon fed an opinion about it without being able to check and see if it is accurate or not.
Did you happen to notice this quote in the original story that you posted
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.
"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
-
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bcef3913a9a4abe8a4ba8f15ad49fb3b85ffc32c/c=0-0-534-712&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562131058503375-atlantafirechief.jpg)
atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)
ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.
In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."
Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."
At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.
Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.
Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."
He said he will not hide his Christian faith.
"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.
Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.
"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.
Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.
"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.
Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.
Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.
"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.
Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.
"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.
The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.
"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.
"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/
What an idiot. Now if someone wrote a book calling blacks unclean, vulgar or inappropriate, he would be the first one to start howling with outrage. But when he throws the same bullshit onto someone else, it's ok. ::)
-
Why are liberals so afraid of opposing viewpoints? I'm sure he would have had no complaints if the default channel was MSNBC. Too bad United caved.
Former Obama Aide Furious Over Newsmax TV
Tuesday, 20 Jan 2015
By Jim Meyers
A former senior White House aide to President Obama became furious after he noticed Newsmax TV airing on a United Airlines flight.
Bill Burton, who served as Obama’s White House press secretary, was apparently outraged when he saw Newsmax TV yesterday on the plane’s video screens, and quickly tweeted:
"Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes."
Burton apparently doesn’t have much use for the liberal ideals of free expression or allowing for an open exchange of ideas and opinions – at least when it comes to Newsmax TV.
Newsmax TV, the new and fast-rising cable and online channel, went on air in June of 2014. It is broadcast 24/7 to more than 35 million homes and businesses on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH 223.
Numerous companies, such as airlines and hotels that offer DIRECTV or DISH, can easily broadcast Newsmax TV. United temporarily has been broadcasting the network as its airline default channel.
Burton seems to have cowed the airline into submission. United responded to Burton's complaint with their own tweet: "@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel."
Burton’s and United’s tweets have now gone viral, and some United customers are not happy about the airline’s quick cave-in to P.C. browbeating.
One person tweeted back: “Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?”
Burton served as chief strategist for the Priorities USA Action committee that backed Obama’s 2012 re-election, as well as communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election cycle.
Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes? #tcot
— Bill Burton (@billburton) January 20, 2015
@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel. ^JT
— United (@united) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?
— Chris Dengler (@chrisdengler) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton please don't replace it with that moronic MSNBC
— Jae Onasi (@JaeOnasi) January 20, 2015
@united what a pathetic bunch of surrender monkeys you are. Your airline sucks @billburton
— Stelios Karakolis (@agrianthropo) January 20, 2015
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-burton-newsmaxtv-united-flight/2015/01/20/id/619609/#ixzz3PTW1E1B3
-
Good for him.
This is true: "If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian."
Christian ex-fire chief fires back at Atlanta mayor, files discrimination complaint
By Todd Starnes
Published January 26, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Kelvin-Cochran-Fox.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran (Fox 5 Atlanta)
Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran says he was fired because he wrote a book expressing his Christian faith, according to a discrimination complaint filed Jan. 19 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
“I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my religion,” Cochran wrote in the complaint.
His attorney, Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith, said the ADA wants to vindicate the former fire chief following his “unjust termination.”
The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of losing their jobs because of their beliefs and thoughts,” Tedesco said.
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed threatened that the former fire chief’s reputation would be destroyed should he file a lawsuit.
“He’s gonna lose,” Reed told television station WAGA. “And in the process his reputation is going to be destroyed because people are going to see he’s dishonest.”
The EEOC complaint is the latest move in a battle between Cochran and Reed that has generated a national debate over religious liberty in the public marketplace since it began in November.
Cochran was suspended without pay on Nov. 24 for writing a book about biblical morality, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” He said homosexuality is “vile” and listed it among other forms of “sexual perversions.”
He was also accused of giving the book to colleagues at work with whom he had personal friendships.
An investigation by the city of Atlanta found that “firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.”
The report went on to say that “there is also general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”
But the investigation found no evidence of discrimination against LGBT firefighters.
“There is currently no indication that Chief Cochran allowed his religious beliefs to compromise his disciplinary decisions,” the report states. “No interviewed witness could point to a specific instance in which any member of the organization has been treated unfairly by Chief Cochran on the basis of his religious beliefs.”
Cochran was cleared of any wrongdoing. But on Jan. 6 – the day he was supposed to return to work – he was fired.
The mayor denied that Cochran’s faith had anything to do with his dismissal. Instead, he said it was lack of judgment and management skills. He also said Cochran violated the city’s code of conduct.
Folks, this was nothing short of an old-fashioned witch hunt led by the mayor, LGBT activists and the city’s left-wing firefighter’s union.
According to the city’s investigation, they interviewed a retired lesbian battalion chief who harbored “suspicions” about Cochran’s Christian faith.
“She stated that she took a voluntary demotion because of these suspicions,” the report states.
What a load of fertilizer.
The Atlanta Professional Firefighters Local 134 piled on, commending the mayor for firing the Christian fire chief.
“Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” the union said in a statement, urging the city to “improve LGBT rights by adding an LGBT liaison for the fire department.”
Now, the leadership of Local 134 is either ignorant or illiterate – because the official investigation clearly shows the fire chief NEVER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST LGBT FIREFIGHTERS.
The New York Times editorial board said it doesn’t matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That’s not the point, it wrote Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled “God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department.”
“It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians,” the Times wrote. “His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”
The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.
Leading the charge is Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham told me he’s known Cochran for years – and found him to be a decent and honorable man.
He said Cochran has become the latest victim of a national cleansing of Christians in the public marketplace.
“We need to stand up with Chief Cochran and others when they are persecuted,” Graham told me. “This man is being persecuted because he believes the Bible.”
Robert White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, called The New York Times editorial “quite remarkable.”
“It declares his innocence and then declares him guilty,” he said. “Guilty of what? He didn’t discriminate against any homosexuals. He vowed that he wanted to have a healthy workplace for all of his employees.”
The Times went on to argue that while Cochran is free to believe whatever he wants, there are limits to where he can believe and still maintain gainful employment in the public arena.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/26/christian-ex-fire-chief-fires-back-at-atlanta-mayor-files-discrimination/?intcmp=trending
-
The dumbass shouldn't have been handing these out at work.
If he had a half a brain he would have waited until he retired to self publish his stupid book
It's not like the world couldn't have waited a few years for another anti-gay screed from a fundie dipshit
-
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance. Another liberal hallmark.
Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell
ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense. TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/
-
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance. Another liberal hallmark.
Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell
ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense. TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/
almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship
for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there
-
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance. Another liberal hallmark.
Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell
ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense. TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/
Dr. Carson's response:
Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3488e625-36b6-4e32-8c93-335eaa96aea1&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Monday, 09 Feb 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Monday fired back at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has included him in its "Extremist Files" because of his long-stated opinions against same-sex marriage.
"It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," the retired neurosurgeon said in a statement. "That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment."
Further, said Carson, the nation is approaching the stage where "wrong is called right" at a time "when embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred" and "it is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."
By naming Carson to its list, the SPLC includes him along with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician David Duke and numerous KKK members, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and more.
The SPLC, using a series of Carson quotes to back up its assertions, claims that after Carson came to conservatives' attention with his speech condemning the Affordable Care Act at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he soon "was appearing as the keynoter at a rash of right-wing and hate group gatherings, linking gays with pedophiles, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and endorsing biblical economic practices for 21st century America."
The SPLC is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and describes itself as a civil rights organization. It includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council.
Carson is not the first prominent conservative to land on one of the SPLC's lists, reports The Blaze. Last year, historian David Barton and American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney were also added to the center's lists.
The SPLC says its "hate map" targets those groups that follow "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" and is "compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-SPLC-extremist-file-gays/2015/02/09/id/623629/#ixzz3RHbVngIc
-
almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship
for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there
Go back to bed loser.
-
Go back to bed loser.
am I talking to you
aren't you the closet queer who claims I stalk him yet you can't stop responding to any post I make whether it's directed to you or not
-
am I talking to you
aren't you the closet queer who claims I stalk him yet you can't stop responding to any post I make whether it's directed to you or not
:'(
-
:'(
Go back to bed loser.
-
Go back to bed loser.
You don't even lift - go back to bed Strawpajamafag
-
You don't even lift - go back to bed Strawpajamafag
Go back to bed loser.
-
:-\
Students opposed to LGBT agenda shamed in classroom
By Todd Starnes
Published February 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook2166 Twitter334 livefyre5219 Email Print
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/876/493/starnes660.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Students at Acalanes High School were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.
Teenagers at a California high school were publicly shamed for disagreeing with speakers allowed to push an LGBT agenda during an English class, according to several upset parents.
The Queer Straight Alliance at Acalanes High School, in Lafayette, lectured students in several ninth-grade English classes on Jan. 29 about LGBT issues, according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing the parents.
During the class, the students, ages 14 and 15, were instructed to stand in a circle. Then, they were grilled about their personal beliefs and their parents’ beliefs on homosexuality, PJI alleges.
“The QSA had students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice and whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said. “Students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated.”
PJI is a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases. They are representing several families who had children in the freshman classes -- some of whom also are angry because there was no parental notification of the LGBT lecture.
“Singling out students for ridicule based on their moral or political beliefs is a Marxist tactic that should have no place in the United States of America,” Dacus said.
During the lecture, the Queer Student Alliance provided students with the names of the gay and lesbian teachers at the high school. They also had students line up to demonstrate where they fell on the “gender spectrum.”
“It was an exercise in gender fluidity,” the parent of one child told me. “They told the students that one day they could come to school feeling like a boy and the next day they could come to school feeling like a girl.”
Students were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.
Demi-boy/girl is defined as someone who only partially identifies as a man or woman. Gray gender defines someone who feels as though they sort of fit inside the gender binary, but that their gender is more hazy and undefined.
“Acalanes High School and the district have defied common sense, ignored the law and broken parents’ trust,” McReynolds said in a prepared statement. “These administrators are acting like schoolyard bullies. If they think intimidation is going to work on us or these parents, they are greatly mistaken.”
“It was a public outing,” one parent told me. “My child is being raised in a family with conservative values. We are a Christian family. What bothers me the most is the school is being dishonest and secretive about what’s happening. My son’s value system and our belief system is not being respected on a many levels.”
And from a very practical point – she wants to know why the Queer Student Alliance was allowed to take over an English class.
“There’s no other club at the high school that gets face time in front of freshman English classes for an entire period,” the parent said.
So why is Acalanes High School outing students who may not agree with every facet of the LGBT agenda?
Superintendent John Nickerson tells me it’s all about tolerance.
“The classroom instruction in question was part of a tolerance workshop led by peer educators under the supervision of teachers,” Nickerson wrote to me in an email.
That’s all well and good – but were the teenagers academically qualified to teach a class on issues like “gender fluidity”? Why weren’t the teachers teaching the class? And what about the allegations that students were bullied by the Queer Student Alliance?
“We are aware of the concerns and allegations raised by two parents and the Pacific Justice Institute,” he wrote. “We are investigating the situation, learning activities and classroom environment.”
This happens to be the same high school that invited a “pleasure activist” from Planned Parenthood to teach sex education to the freshman class. Students were encouraged to ask each other questions like “Is it okay if I take my pants off?”
The parent I spoke to bristled at the notion the LGBT class was about tolerance.
“They are tolerant of everyone except people who have Christian values,” she told me.
PJI sent a letter to the school district demanding an explanation of what happened. They believe the classroom lecture violated the privacy rights of the students.
“It should be self-evident that, as a fundamental privacy right, students cannot be ‘outed’ during class time by being made to declare their beliefs and feelings about sensitive sexual matters, any more than a student could be required to announce their sexual orientation,” PJI wrote in their letter to the school district.
Has it really come to this, America – forcing students to declare their allegiance to the LGBT agenda? Maybe they should just stick to teaching English in English class.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/09/students-opposed-to-lgbt-agenda-shamed-in-classroom/
-
Dr. Carson's response:
Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3488e625-36b6-4e32-8c93-335eaa96aea1&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Monday, 09 Feb 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Monday fired back at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has included him in its "Extremist Files" because of his long-stated opinions against same-sex marriage.
"It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," the retired neurosurgeon said in a statement. "That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment."
Further, said Carson, the nation is approaching the stage where "wrong is called right" at a time "when embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred" and "it is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."
By naming Carson to its list, the SPLC includes him along with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician David Duke and numerous KKK members, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and more.
The SPLC, using a series of Carson quotes to back up its assertions, claims that after Carson came to conservatives' attention with his speech condemning the Affordable Care Act at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he soon "was appearing as the keynoter at a rash of right-wing and hate group gatherings, linking gays with pedophiles, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and endorsing biblical economic practices for 21st century America."
The SPLC is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and describes itself as a civil rights organization. It includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council.
Carson is not the first prominent conservative to land on one of the SPLC's lists, reports The Blaze. Last year, historian David Barton and American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney were also added to the center's lists.
The SPLC says its "hate map" targets those groups that follow "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" and is "compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-SPLC-extremist-file-gays/2015/02/09/id/623629/#ixzz3RHbVngIc
Liberal SPLC Removes Ben Carson From 'Extremist Files'
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2015
By Greg Richter
The Southern Poverty Law Center has removed Dr. Ben Carson from its "Extremist Files," citing "intense criticism" in recent days.
A statement on the group's website now replaces Carson's "Extremist File" page, where quotes he made opposing same-sex marriage were cited as the reason for including him with Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads and other white supremacists.
"In October 2014, we posted an 'Extremist File' of Dr. Ben Carson. This week, as we've come under intense criticism for doing so, we've reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards, so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it," the statement on the group's website reads.
But the group didn't completely back down, noting "We've also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our 'Extremist Files' is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme."
The statements in question are then listed.
"We laud Dr. Carson for his many contributions to medicine and his philanthropic work, and we, like so many others, are inspired by his personal story," the statement reads. "Nevertheless, particularly because Dr. Carson is such a prominent person, we believe that his views should be closely examined."
Carson is widely expected to run for president as a Republican in 2016.
"I want to thank all the people who have spoken up in my behalf," Carson said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor." "I think it's obviously quite ridiculous.
The SPLC, based in Montgomery, Alabama, describes itself as a civil rights organization, and includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, including the Family Research Council.
The SPLC's list has worked to shut people up because they are afraid they might end up on their list, Carson told Fox News.
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Ben-Carson-Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-extremist-files/2015/02/11/id/624277/#ixzz3RYoiWZWG
-
Atlanta’s former fire chief sues the city, says he was fired because of religious beliefs
By Abby Ohlheiser
February 18, 2015
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2015-01-24/AP/Gay_Rights_States-01f36.jpg&w=1484)
Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, third from right, observes a moment of prayer as religious groups rally to support him in January. (David Goldman/AP file)
The standoff between former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran and the city that used to employ him escalated on Thursday, when Cochran’s attorneys announced that they have filed a federal lawsuit.
The suit accuses the city of firing Cochran because of his religious beliefs, violating his constitutional rights.
Cochran’s case has become a focal point in a larger national debate over public religious expression protections and the civil rights of LGBT Americans.
Cochran, who is an evangelical Christian, was terminated in January after a city investigation pertaining to his self-published book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked,” a Bible study-style text that covers a range of his personal religious beliefs. In one section of the book, Cochran called “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” a “sexual perversion” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.”
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said in January that Cochran’s firing was over his “judgment and management skills,” and that “Cochran’s personal religious beliefs are not the issue.” The city had suspended Cochran in November, after questioning whether the book’s passages on homosexuality violated the city’s non-discrimination policy.
But that is not at all how Cochran and his growing number of supporters see things.
“To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement released with news of the lawsuit. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me.”
The complaint, provided by Cochran’s lawyers, claims: “Defendants fired Cochran solely because he holds religious beliefs concerning same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct that are contrary to the Mayor’s and the City’s views on these subjects.”
It adds: “Cochran, and other City employees who agree with Cochran’s religious views regarding same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, are under a constant state of threat of the City taking adverse action against them — up to and including termination — if they express those views inside and outside of work.”
In an administrative federal discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last month, Cochran stated: “I have been discriminated against because of my religion — Christian.”
Last week, six members of Georgia’s congressional delegation wrote a letter to Mayor Reed in support of Cochran’s reinstatement. “Your action against Chief Cochran appears to violate fundamental principles of free speech and religious freedom,” it reads. “The only way Chief Cochran could avoid his views would be to disown his religion.”
The letter, written by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) and co-signed by five other Republican members of Congress, adds: “Atlanta itself engaged in an act of discrimination.”
Cochran’s case has become a rallying point for several conservative religious groups that believe some laws and policies designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination are a violation of religious liberty protections. Those groups include the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is legally representing Cochran; the Faith and Freedom Coalition; the Family Research Council; and the Georgia Baptist Convention.
“The idea that the government can force public servants to surrender their First Amendment rights is outrageous,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said at a mid-January religious freedom rally at the Georgia State Capitol, according to the Christian Post. “If a government will fire someone for their religious beliefs, no beliefs are safe from government regardless of how sacred those beliefs may be. Mayor Reed is sending a very clear message that Christians must check their faith at the door of public service.”
On its Web site, the Alliance Defending Freedom takes the position that same-sex marriage is “the most prominent and pressing danger to fundamentally altering marriage, as it undermines the good that marriage provides society” — and that “those who believe in marriage,” by which the group means those who believe in heterosexual marriage only, “are politically, culturally, and legally persecuted for those beliefs.”
Cochran’s dismissal has also hovered in the background of a pair of controversial religious liberty bills currently being considered in the Georgia legislature.
The city has the support of LGBT rights groups such as Georgia Equality and Lambda Legal, along with the Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, which released a statement commending Reed for Cochran’s termination. “Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” it reads.
Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in January that “the fact that Mayor Reed lost confidence in Kelvin Cochran’s ability to do his job is completely unsurprising, and his decision to terminate Cochran was right, fair and in the best interest of all Atlanta’s residents.
“People of faith take their religious convictions with them to the workplace every day, but Cochran’s unprofessional and irresponsible conduct was completely unrelated to his personal convictions.”
Jenna Garland, a spokeswoman for Mayor Reed, said Wednesday that the city of Atlanta would “rigorously defend” itself against Cochran’s legal actions and is “confident that the decision to terminate Mr. Cochran was both the right thing to do and fully legal.”
The city also disagreed with Cochran’s version of the story on several major points, as it has done in the past.
In the compliant and in previous statements, Cochran has said that he sought the permission of Nina Hickson, the City of Atlanta Ethics Officer, before publishing the book. He says he was told that “so long as the subject matter of the book is not the city government or fire department he could write the book.”
Garland, the mayor’s spokeswoman, countered in a lengthy January statement that “Mr. Cochran was told that the City Code required him to get the approval of the Board of Ethics before publishing his book, something he admits he never did.”
Cochran has also said, both in the complaint and in his previous administrative discrimination filing, that “the [city] investigation revealed zero instances of discrimination by me against any other employee of the city.”
“What he was actually told was that his distribution of a book about his beliefs within his department had caused his employees to question his ability to continue to lead a diverse workforce,” Garland’s January statement reads, adding that the city believes Cochran’s overall conduct before and during the investigation “reflected poor judgment and failure to follow clearly defined work protocols.”
“The City of Atlanta remains a place where all people, including those who share Mr. Cochran’s beliefs, are equally valued and respected,” Garland added on Wednesday. “However, religious beliefs cannot shield any employee from the consequences of poor judgment and insubordination.”
Both sides of the matter do agree that Cochran distributed his book to several Atlanta fire employees during his tenure.
Cochran’s complaint says that the fire chief distributed the book to “10 AFRD employees who he knew were Christians,” and who had requested copies of the book; to “approximately 3-5 additional employees who approached him and requested a copy of the book”; and to “three command level AFRD employees” who “previously shared their Christian faith with him.”
In its report on the matter, the city says that Cochran distributed the book to at least nine employees, three unsolicited.
Based on interviews with multiple city employees, the city’s report concluded that “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book. There also is general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”
Again, Cochran disagreed. “During this time frame, Cochran’s book caused no disruption with any city practices or procedures or in the workplace at all,” the complaint argues.
In the complaint, Cochran asks for compensatory damages, reinstatement to his old job and a pair of declarations from the city stating that it violated his constitutional rights.
The complaint also asks for the city to “stop enforcing their policies…and practice of allowing adverse employment actions against Cochran and other City employees for expressing protected religious messages about marriage and sexuality when those messages are about matters of public concern.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/18/with-growing-national-support-for-his-cause-atlantas-former-fire-chief-sues-the-city-over-his-dismissal/
-
I'll be donating to this kid's campaign when he eventually runs for office. :)
And how typical of liberals to shut down viewpoints that differ from their own.
Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative who said Obama doesn't love U.S.
February 28, 2015
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/3d/2e/3d2e312d196b22a85a33c59ec336a4bc.JPG?itok=E0mi-D8m)
Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative.
On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That's when he learned his account and page had been locked for "suspicious activity."
He jumped through all of Facebook's hoops, but wasn't able to recover his account. So he created a new profile to take its place. His public page was not affected, he said, however, he can no longer administer the page. Fortunately, he said, a friend is helping post links to that page.
As is so often the case in these situations, Facebook did not respond to his requests for help. Nor would they tell him what the alleged suspicious activity was. We reached out to Facebook, but the social media giant has so far refused to respond to our request for comments.
Pearson said he is working on legislation to lower the age of those serving in the state House and Senate. The legislation, which is set to be the subject of a hearing on Monday, would lower the age of House members from 21 to 18, and lower the age of state Senators from 25 to 21. Pearson said he was using Facebook to line up witnesses for the hearing, but Facebook's actions have made that more difficult. He can't read any messages sent to his old profile and the old page doesn't show up.
On Monday, we reported that Pearson posted a video supporting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He also minced no words when he said that President Obama doesn't love America.
“I don’t want to be politically correct. I don’t care about being politically correct at this point,” he said. “President Obama, you don’t love America.”
The video has gone viral and as of this writing, has received over 1.2 million views. He has also become something of a celebrity among conservatives who appreciate his candor and his willingness to publicly state with conviction what so many others are afraid to say. Many have said they would love to see the young man run for office, and they may get their wish, as Pearson said he "definitely" has political aspirations and wants to "fight for freedom."
This is not the first time Facebook has blocked conservatives for questionable reasons. In March 2013, for example, Facebook banned Florida blogger Diane Sori for 30 days over something she never posted. As we have reported many times, Facebook has banned conservatives for clicking "like" or simply saying "thank you." Conservative pages have also been targeted and shut down for questionable reasons while other pages have been allowed to flourish. As we reported last May, articles mentioning Islam were falsely flagged as "unsafe" and pages critical of Islam have been removed over false claims of inappropriate material.
http://www.examiner.com/article/facebook-yanks-page-of-12-year-old-conservative-who-said-obama-doesn-t-love-u-s
-
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D
-
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to have a facebook user, he outed himself :D shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D
Hahaha.
If this is true... then HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D
You are correct. Apparently, lying starts at an early age for Repubs as well.
----------
Demanding a response from Facebook, they duly responded and gave him a cast-iron reason why they banned his page - he is 12.
Indeed, it is explicitly stated in Facebook's terms and conditions that no one under the age of 13 can have an account.
In a statement, Facebook said they were alerted to the fact that Pearson is 12 and acted accordingly.
'You have to be 13 to have a facebook account. This is a requirement, not a suggestion. He was locked out because he lied about his age, not because of the content,' replied a Facebook representative according to the Beaufort Observer.
-
he was locked out because he's 12,you have to be 13 to be a facebook user, he outed himself :D shooting yourself in the foot starts early as a repub :D
Oh that's BS. Someone reported his post. The age was nothing more than an excuse to censor him. If his post/video was one spouting blind devotion like The Messiah's cult-like followers, it would likely still be up.
I've heard of numerous stories of anti-Obama posts disappearing from facebook, particularly during the 2012 campaign.
In any event, I like this kid. :)
-
Actually age does have something to do with it. They require their members to be 13, he is only 12 and lied about it. They don't need any type of excuse to remove him if he violates their TOS.
So in short, he should :
1 - Follow the rules
2 - Don't lie
-
Oh that's BS. Someone reported his post. The age was nothing more than an excuse to censor him. If his post/video was one spouting blind devotion like The Messiah's cult-like followers, it would likely still be up.
I've heard of numerous stories of anti-Obama posts disappearing from facebook, particularly during the 2012 campaign.
In any event, I like this kid. :)
lol he's 12 you have to be 13 simple as that ;D
-
lol he's 12 you have to be 13 simple as that ;D
It's not as simple as that. Have you heard of "pretext"? It's when someone gives an excuse to cover up their true intent. That's what I think happened to this kid.
-
It's not as simple as that. Have you heard of "pretext"? It's when someone gives an excuse to cover up their true intent. That's what I think happened to this kid.
You mean his "pretext" was to lie about his age to cover up the fact that he was not old enough to be a member of that site?
Well that sounds pretty simple.
-
You mean his "pretext" was to lie about his age to cover up the fact that he was not old enough to be a member of that site?
Well that sounds pretty simple.
Of course it sounds simple to you. Does not surprise me one bit.
-
Of course it sounds simple to you. Does not surprise me one bit.
;D
-
Of course it sounds simple to you. Does not surprise me one bit.
poor repubs always someone else fault,the rules are the rule get over it.unless you have proof and that doesn't mean your women's intuition ;D
-
poor repubs always someone else fault,the rules are the rule get over it.unless you have proof and that doesn't mean your women's intuition ;D
If you want to take the simplistic approach, go right ahead. You rarely have a smoking gun when someone is using pretext. You have to look at other factors, use common sense, etc.
-
If you want to take the simplistic approach, go right ahead. You rarely have a smoking gun when someone is using pretext. You have to look at other factors, use common sense, etc.
so you have no proof,the only real proof is their rules say you have to be 13 he 12
-
so you have no proof,the only real proof is their rules say you have to be 13 he 12
I have an opinion. You are choosing to accept their reasoning at face value. I'm not based on what I've read and heard, and actually personally experienced.
-
that's right is just your opinion,I'll have to go with the facts unless you can prove otherwise
-
that's right is just your opinion,I'll have to go with the facts unless you can prove otherwise
You don't really know all of the facts either, like whether they had an agenda, and whether other kids who haven't criticized the president have been allowed to keep their pages active.
This has to be viewed in the broader context of the repeated, proven liberal practice of censoring opposing viewpoints.
-
Of course it sounds simple to you. Does not surprise me one bit.
The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.
-
The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.
The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps. ;)
-
I have an opinion. You are choosing to accept their reasoning at face value. I'm not based on what I've read and heard, and actually personally experienced.
Your opinion isn't fact. And based on what we have seen of it over time, isn't worth shit either.
On the other hand, they have a rule. Which is a fact. He broke the rules. That is a fact too. When considering their factual statement or your "opinion", there really is no second guessing to be done on where the credibility lies.
-
The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps. ;)
The fact that you have to tell yourself lies about another person you don't even know in order to calm your rampant insecurities is a concept we have long since attributed to laundry list of mental problems you have.
-
The fact you can't grasp a simple concept doesn't surprise anyone on this board.
You really aren't very bright.
-
The fact that you are a creepy perv stalker who does not even lift, barely 30 yo and in dire need of T Shots is a concept everyone on this board grasps. ;)
It doesn't surprise me that he is so young. It's pretty obvious. Either that or he's just much dumber than I thought.
-
Your opinion isn't fact. And based on what we have seen of it over time, isn't worth shit either.
On the other hand, they have a rule. Which is a fact. He broke the rules. That is a fact too. When considering their factual statement or your "opinion", there really is no second guessing to be done on where the credibility lies.
Obviously, my opinion isn't a fact and I never said it was.
This subject requires you to think critically, which you have shown, conclusively, that you are unable to do.
-
It doesn't surprise me that he is so young. It's pretty obvious. Either that or he's just much dumber than I thought.
You have proven yourself to be stupid. Now THAT is pretty obvious.
If you want to believe lies that some mental midget tells you about someone else, please go ahead. Given your level of stupidity, I wouldn't expect anything else. Funny how every time I question where he gets these notions from he just runs away without answering like a little girl.
-
Obviously, my opinion isn't a fact and I never said it was.
This subject requires you to think critically, which you have shown, conclusively, that you are unable to do.
No, your opinion isn't fact. Or factual based for that matter. The facts however have been listed. Critical thinking isn't required in that area. But spinning it for your own viewpoint is a must for the delusional ones as you have proven.
-
You have proven yourself to be stupid. Now THAT is pretty obvious.
If you want to believe lies that some mental midget tells you about someone else, please go ahead. Given your level of stupidity, I wouldn't expect anything else. Funny how every time I question where he gets these notions from he just runs away without answering like a little girl.
Yes, you are dumber than I thought.
And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names. You are a punk. I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces. They would likely punch you in the mouth. That's probably what you need.
Are you really 30 years old? That would explain a lot.
-
Yes, you are dumber than I thought.
And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names. You are a punk. I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces. They would likely punch you in the mouth. That's probably what you need.
Are you really 30 years old? That would explain a lot.
and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc. Pathetic huh?
-
Yes, you are dumber than I thought.
And you really never know when to quit when it comes to stalking people and calling them names. You are a punk. I seriously doubt you would say some of the things you have said to Coach and Soul Crusher to their faces. They would likely punch you in the mouth. That's probably what you need.
Are you really 30 years old? That would explain a lot.
Actually, I would tell them - and you - exactly the same things to your face that I type on here. The only way they would punch me in the mouth is if they stood on a booster seat.
But hey.... why are you asking me if I am really 30 years old. This is Pole Toucher's little lie.... have to let him tell it the way that makes him feel best about himself. Apparently, believing it is doing wonders for you too.
-
and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc. Pathetic huh?
Yep.
-
and taking T shots while not competing in anything ,etc. Pathetic huh?
Hey, why not provide proof of this. This is only, like.... the 100th time you have been challenged to do so. Or will you run away again like a little bitch?
-
Actually, I would tell them - and you - exactly the same things to your face that I type on here. The only way they would punch me in the mouth is if they stood on a booster seat.
But hey.... why are you asking me if I am really 30 years old. This is Pole Toucher's little lie.... have to let him tell it the way that makes him feel best about himself. Apparently, believing it is doing wonders for you too.
Dude you are a straight up punk. I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.
How old are you?
-
Dude you are a straight up punk. I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.
How old are you?
Ask Pole Toucher, this is his story. Don't want to interject any facts in it. You wouldn't recognize facts anyway.
Don't worry, he will come back and provide links to all his claims about me on here. Surely, he wouldn't lie would he? ::)
-
Ask Pole Toucher, this is his story. Don't want to interject any facts in it. You wouldn't recognize facts anyway.
Don't worry, he will come back and provide links to all his claims about me on here. Surely, he wouldn't lie would he? ::)
Grow up already. ::)
-
What's the matter? Don't you want him to support his claims? Or does his lies about other people calm your little insecurities as well?
-
What's the matter? Don't you want him to support his claims? Or does his lies about other people calm your little insecurities as well?
Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no?
You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO? You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO? Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO?
Me? No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all. Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like.
Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?
-
Dude you are a straight up punk. I'm really a little tired of reading your crap on this board.
How old are you?
i thought you are a moderator
-
Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no?
You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO? You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO? Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO?
Me? No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all. Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like.
Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?
I have never deleted a post on this board that I have ever made. So anything related to me taking T-Shots will still be there. YOU find it. I can't find what doesn't exist. "Should be very easy to sort out". (Your words)
Somehow 30-31 doesn't equate into being "not even 30".
But since apparently you know these "facts", I am sure you can link to us to where you got them. You know... "Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no? "
-
i thought you are a moderator
He's a hypocrite who is easily flustered when confronted with "facts" or when his own words and tactics are used against him.
-
I have never deleted a post on this board that I have ever made. So anything related to me taking T-Shots will still be there. YOU find it. I can't find what doesn't exist. "Should be very easy to sort out". (Your words)
Somehow 30-31 doesn't equate into being "not even 30".
But since apparently you know these "facts", I am sure you can link to us to where you got them. You know... "Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no? "
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0
QUOTE FROM YOU:
"Awesome. If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience. For me, libido loss was a huge issue. It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to. It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time! But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me. It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely. Other than that, I had no complaints.
Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.
Everyone is different though. I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides. But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."
________________________ ________________________ ____________________
LMFAO!!!!!! SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0
QUOTE FROM YOU:
"Awesome. If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience. For me, libido loss was a huge issue. It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to. It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time! But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me. It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely. Other than that, I had no complaints.
Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.
Everyone is different though. I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides. But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."
________________________ ________________________ ____________________
LMFAO!!!!!! SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.
What on Earth has that got to do with me having T-Shots? Besides nothing?
The only thing sad and pathetic is that when given the chance to clear up your lies, after it becomes evident that you can't, instead of just keeping quiet and slinking off like you have done every time in the past, you post some bullshit completely unrelated to what you are challenged to prove.
Seriously, you really are mentally challenged aren't you?
-
What on Earth has that got to do with me having T-Shots? Besides nothing?
The only thing sad and pathetic is that when given the chance to clear up your lies, after it becomes evident that you can't, instead of just keeping quiet and slinking off like you have done every time in the past, you post some bullshit completely unrelated to what you are challenged to prove.
Seriously, you really are mentally challenged aren't you?
That was only one post Limp Dick. Quit while you are ahead. ;)
-
That was only one post Limp Dick. Quit while you are ahead. ;)
Then please post more. Maybe one that even supports your claims. Never mind the fact you had to go to 2009 and find one from my early use. Never mind the fact (x2) almost every one has libido issues due to nandralone. ::)
So are you going to support your lies claims or just post nonsense and look like the whining bitch you are?
-
Then please post more. Maybe one that even supports your claims. Never mind the fact you had to go to 2009 and find one from my early use. Never mind the fact (x2) almost every one has libido issues due to nandralone. ::)
So are you going to support your lies claims or just post nonsense and look like the whining bitch you are?
Many of us don't need or use roids at 30 yo so we don't have those issues. Now go get your shine box - FNG sad sad sad sad - drug abusing loser who doesn't even compete or do anything.
-
i thought you are a moderator
I don't know? Am I? :)
-
Ok - this is VERY easy to sort out no?
You posted on this board that you are taking T-shots within the past year - YES or NO? You are also 30-31 yo - YES or NO? Do you compete in anything whatsoever - YES OR NO?
Me? No T-Shots not now, ever, at all - 39 y/o - have a competition NEXT WEEKEND that is 24+ hours straight, have done over 2 dozen events in the last 2 years or so in various events, competed in BB years ago 23-27 yo - didn't use anything at all. Was on TV obviously so you know whati look like.
Is it that FNG hard you little creepy perv?
LOL! So he is a kid taking T-shots who doesn't compete? Oh brother. What a loser.
-
So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been
lying crying about for a year huh?
So what you are really saying is :
You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.
Well hell, that is nothing new. We already knew all that.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=277813.0
QUOTE FROM YOU:
"Awesome. If it doesn't affect you. There are very few people who can use deca without the sides from it causing it to be a unpleasant experience. For me, libido loss was a huge issue. It wasn't that I couldn't get a hard on, it was that I just didn't care to. It is one thing to desire sex and be horny but to encounter a limp dick when it is Go Time! But it is something else all together to be able to get hard enough to have sex, but just not really care too. That is what deca did to me. It didn't render me impotent, but rather it removed all desire and interest in sex completely. Other than that, I had no complaints.
Now if I were going to lock myself away from all female contact for 3-4 months at a time - you know... like taking a winter caretaker job at a closed mountain resort ala The Shining - LOL!! ... then I would use it again for sure.
Everyone is different though. I fall in with the majority that can't (or won't) handle the sides. But then on the other hand, I am in the minority of other groups as winstrol and tren doesn't cause hair problems for me and I never get acne from anything."
________________________ ________________________ ____________________
LMFAO!!!!!! SO FNG SAD AND PATHETIC.
Bwahahahaha!!! Why the heck would he post about being a limp noodle? LOL!! ;D
-
LOL! So he is a kid taking T-shots who doesn't compete? Oh brother. What a loser.
The only losers we see are the ones resorting to blatant lies and the one believing him.
Good job you two losers.
-
Bwahahahaha!!! Why the heck would he post about being a limp noodle? LOL!! ;D
Yeah, because no one else experienced that on deca before? ::)
A better question is why are you interested in my noodle? Oh, I forgot you have a penchant for keeping pics of cocks on hand. Just to show the kids you know...
-
Yeah, because no one else experienced that on deca before? ::)
A better question is why are you interested in my noodle? Oh, I forgot you have a penchant for keeping pics of cocks on hand. Just to show the kids you know...
Listen you little admitted limp noodle'd punk, I am drawing the line with you and pedo comments. I will make you a promise: one more comment like that I will delete or modify every single post I see from you on this board. I'm not going to bother asking Ron to put in you timeout, like he previously did. How big of a friggin loser must you be to get banned from a message board? ::)
And I'm leaving this right here so everyone (including Ron) can see what I plan to do.
So make your choice. :)
-
Listen you little admitted limp noodle'd punk, I am drawing the line with you and pedo comments. I will make you a promise: one more comment like that I will delete or modify every single post I see from you on this board. I'm not going to bother asking Ron to put in you timeout, like he previously did. How big of a friggin loser must you be to get banned from a message board? ::)
And I'm leaving this right here so everyone (including Ron) can see what I plan to do.
So make your choice. :)
Why not leave EVERYTHING here for Ron to see? Oh, you don't want to do that huh? No matter, I have screen captures. :D
-
DUDE REALLY?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=485855.0
When measuring levels, 397-1169 is what is considered "normal" ranges no matter what your age is. Most docs are still stuck in the 70s with this treatment and protocol. If you get a doc wanting to do injects every other week, walk out the door immediately.
The standard protocol for HRT/TRT clinics here in South FL is
250mg Test Cyp weekly
2 x 500iu HCG weekly
2 tabs of Arimidex weekly
One shot of cyp weekly should bring your numbers up to between 1100 and 1400. The average is the low to mid 1200s.
So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been lying crying about for a year huh?
So what you are really saying is :
You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.
Well hell, that is nothing new. We already knew all that.
-
Ones here charge $150-$195 per month for all three drugs and your lab tests every two months for the first six months and then once a year.
You can add in HGH for an extra $350-$500 per month.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=485855.0
So.... no evidence of these so called T-Shots that you have been lying crying about for a year huh?
So what you are really saying is :
You are a liar.
We know you are a liar.
You know that we know you are a liar.
You are so pathetic and self loathing that you have to make up lies about someone you don't even know in order to deal with your own insecurities.
Well hell, that is nothing new. We already knew all that.
-
Yeah.... dude REALLY.
Where does that equate into me being on T-Shots?
Not translating your (lack of) logic here.
-
Deleted.
-
Lurker your days of posting crap on this board are over. As long as I'm around.
-
Yeah.... dude REALLY.
Where does that equate into me being on T-Shots?
Not translating your (lack of) logic here.
LMFAO
You have endless posts on roids and drugs a test - barely a blip on training or competing or anything in that relm. FNG sad - if you are going to be a drug abuser and addict - at least do something with it.
-
LMFAO
You have endless posts on roids and drugs a test - barely a blip on training or competing or anything in that relm. FNG sad - if you are going to be a drug abuser and addict - at least do something with it.
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low
-
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low
He didn't ask me to delete anything. That was all me. And I do it in the open and say exactly what I'm doing, so there is no confusion about it. :)
-
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low
I never ever once asked on of the mods to ever delete anything. Ask OMR, Ron, whoebver, I had an issue w some stalkers from GB in real life - that was a different situation by some creepy stalking pervs on here
-
you posting shit about someone then having someone delete his post so he can't defend himself. that's pretty low
Losers get banned from message boards because they lack self-control. I guess that makes me a loser?
-
Just another example of paranoid anti-religious extremists
Christian chaplain fired for preaching compassion and love over violence of American Sniper
On February 10th, MidAmerica Nazarene University’s (MNU) chaplain Randy Beckum gave his morning sermon, which wasn’t unusual – it was his job. But what was different that day was the response to the sermon – as one student paper put it, the sermon sparked an “outcry” and a torrent of criticism particularly on social media. The criticism ranged from complaints that Beckum had politicized his sermons to the idea that he had insulted Christians who served in the military.
What was this controversial sermon that Beckum gave? Here’s the full text:
http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message (http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message)
Beckum’s sermon that day was about America’s addiction to violence, citing the film “American Sniper” as a symptom of that, and how this was problematic for Christianity, a religion founded on the ideals of nonviolence. Here’s an excerpt:
As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.
He went on to say that we have to “be very careful about equating patriotism with Christianity,” and implored his flock to be “controlled by love, compelled by love for everyone.”
Shortly after Beckum’s sermon, it was announced that he would no longer be the vice president of the university’s Community Foundation. Although the university president claimed Beckum had previously expressed interest in stepping down from that position, his daughter disputes this assertion.
Many in the MNU community are wondering if Beckum was “punished” for his pro-peace sermon, and the timing of his dismissal as VP of the community foundation seems to validate those concerns. “Even the people that were frustrated with what (Beckum) had to say in chapel, or wanted to challenge it, were confused and almost offended by the demotion,” said Kristi Rose Jackson, who was elected to be student body president.
Sadly, it appears that MNU may have given into the furor and decided that a Christian clergyman preaching the peace the founder of the faith stood for is simply too controversial for their campus.
-
Free Speech you FNG moron?
Just another example of paranoid anti-religious extremists
Christian chaplain fired for preaching compassion and love over violence of American Sniper
On February 10th, MidAmerica Nazarene University’s (MNU) chaplain Randy Beckum gave his morning sermon, which wasn’t unusual – it was his job. But what was different that day was the response to the sermon – as one student paper put it, the sermon sparked an “outcry” and a torrent of criticism particularly on social media. The criticism ranged from complaints that Beckum had politicized his sermons to the idea that he had insulted Christians who served in the military.
What was this controversial sermon that Beckum gave? Here’s the full text:
http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message (http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message)
Beckum’s sermon that day was about America’s addiction to violence, citing the film “American Sniper” as a symptom of that, and how this was problematic for Christianity, a religion founded on the ideals of nonviolence. Here’s an excerpt:
As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.
He went on to say that we have to “be very careful about equating patriotism with Christianity,” and implored his flock to be “controlled by love, compelled by love for everyone.”
Shortly after Beckum’s sermon, it was announced that he would no longer be the vice president of the university’s Community Foundation. Although the university president claimed Beckum had previously expressed interest in stepping down from that position, his daughter disputes this assertion.
Many in the MNU community are wondering if Beckum was “punished” for his pro-peace sermon, and the timing of his dismissal as VP of the community foundation seems to validate those concerns. “Even the people that were frustrated with what (Beckum) had to say in chapel, or wanted to challenge it, were confused and almost offended by the demotion,” said Kristi Rose Jackson, who was elected to be student body president.
Sadly, it appears that MNU may have given into the furor and decided that a Christian clergyman preaching the peace the founder of the faith stood for is simply too controversial for their campus.
-
Free Speech you FNG moron?
what a surprise my stalker is the first to respond
yes, free speech
that's what this guy was exercising but apparently the paranoid anti religious extremists didn't agree with his message so they fired him
-
what a surprise my stalker is the first to respond
yes, free speech
that's what this guy was exercising but apparently the paranoid anti religious extremists didn't agree with his message so they fired him
So - its not govt related so while he may be a douche - its his right.
-
So - its not govt related so while he may be a douche - its his right.
why is he a douche
-
This is where we are headed. They will try and censor pastors. Dangerous territory.
Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/450-Modder.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Navy Chaplain Wes Modder is pictured with a ceremonial oar presented to him by Naval Special Warfare Command. He received the oar at the end of his tour. (Courtesy Wes Modder)
A chaplain who once ministered to Navy SEALs could be thrown out of the military after he was accused of failing “to show tolerance and respect” in private counseling sessions in regards to issues pertaining to faith, marriage and sexuality, specifically homosexuality and pre-marital sex, according to documents obtained exclusively by Fox News.
Lt. Commander Wes Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, has also been accused of being unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.
“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.
Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.
Modder is a highly decorated, 19-year veteran of the military. Prior to becoming a Navy chaplain, he served in the Marine Corps. His assignments included tours with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Naval Special Warfare Command – where he served as the Force Chaplain of the Navy SEALs.
His record is brimming with accolades and endorsements – including from Capt. Fahs.
In Modder’s most recent review, Fahs declared that the chaplain was “the best of the best,” and a “consummate professional leader” worthy of an early promotion.
So how did Chaplain Modder go from being the “best of the best” to being unfit for service in the U.S. military in a span of five months?
The Navy did not return my calls seeking comment – so all we can do is rely on their written accusations and evidence.
Michael Berry, a military veteran and attorney with Liberty Institute a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases is representing Modder. He accused the military of committing a gross injustice against the chaplain in a letter to the Navy. He told me they will respond forcefully and resolutely to the allegations – which they categorically deny.
“We are starting to see cases where chaplains have targets on their backs,” Berry said. “They have to ask themselves, ‘Do I stay true to my faith or do I keep my job?’”
He said Modder is being punished because of his Christian faith.
“They want chaplains to be glorified summer camp counselors and not speak truth and love into people’s lives,” Berry told me. “There are some anti-religious elements in our military. Anytime somebody wants to live their faith out – there are people who say that is offensive.”
Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.
“The military now wants a 2.0 chaplain instead of a legacy chaplain,” Modder said. “They want a chaplain to accommodate policy that contradicts Scripture.”
Modder’s troubles started on Dec. 6 when an assistant in his office showed up to work with a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives and a five-page complaint documenting grievances against the chaplain.
The lieutenant junior grade officer went on to detail concerns about Moody’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.”
Modder said the young officer had only been working with him for about a month and would constantly pepper him with questions pertaining to homosexuality. He had no idea that the officer was in fact gay – and married to another man.
“His five page letter of complaint was unconscionable,” Modder said. “He said I had a behavioral pattern of being anti-discriminatory of same sex orientation.”
The chaplain was not even given a chance to defend himself. He was immediately removed from duties and told to clean out his office.
“It was insulting and it was devastating,” Modder said. “I felt discriminated against. How could something like this happen at this stage of my career?”
Zollie Smith, the executive director for the Assemblies of God, U.S. Missions, told me they stand firmly behind the chaplain.
“We stand behind him 100 percent,” he said.
In hindsight, Berry believes the officer was setting up his client – and in doing so may have committed a crime.
“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime – false statements – taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it – in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” he said. “He abused the position he was placed in as a chaplain’s assistant.”
He believes the officer may have gained access to private counseling file
“To be clear, Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin,” Berry said.
Modder said many Americans may be shocked to discover how much military culture has changed over the past few years.
“This new generation is very secular and very open sexually,” he said. “The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That’s at the heart of this.”
Modder recalled an incident that occurred when he first arrived on the base. He was about to deliver the invocation at a graduation ceremony when the captain pulled him aside.
“He looked at me and said, ‘Hey chaplain – do not pray in Jesus’ name,’” he recalled.
Modder said he understands the firestorm he is about to enter – but he remains resolute.
“Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I’m not being obedient to the Lord,” he told me. “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from.”
The reality is that many other chaplains could find themselves in Chaplain Modder’s shoes. The Roman Catholic church and the Southern Baptist convention have nearly identical positions on the issues that the Navy found problematic with Modder.
“It’s going to be a hard road for me,” he said. “But it’s what God has called me to do.”
Ultimately, it’s about leaving a legacy and setting an example for his family – his wife and four young children.
The day he was relieved of his duties, Chaplain Modder’s 14-year-old son tagged along to help pack up his dad’s office. A few senior enlisted men were there as well.
As they were driving away, the boy told his father that the enlisted men had spoken to him.
“They told my son that ‘you can be proud of your father because he’s keeping the faith,’” Modder said. “The whole command knows that Chaplain Modder is keeping the faith.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/09/former-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-navy-for-christian-beliefs/
-
Some piece of shit fag sets up or causes problems for a true warrior...this is what happens when an agrieved class gets power in places they have no business being. They don't want to "serve honorably". They want to make the rest of us validate their life style. This is exactly why many of us were against this shit in the first place.
-
This is where we are headed. They will try and censor pastors. Dangerous territory.
Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
Christian beliefs are definitely under attack in this country
http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message
-
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor
By Todd Starnes
Published March 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Modder-praying-LI.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Chaplain Wes Modder prays over Navy service members. (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
It really takes a special kind of lowlife to stop a chaplain from ministering to the family and colleagues of a dead sailor.
But that’s exactly what happened last week at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C., according to attorneys representing Chaplain Wes Modder.
It’s become clear to me Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.
“For this Navy to bar a chaplain from comforting and ministering to sailors and families is a reprehensible violation of religious freedom and common human decency,” said Kelly Shackelford, the president of Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.
Some quick background before I explain what happened:
Chaplain Modder is facing the end of a stellar, 19-year-career in the Navy because he expressed his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality during private counseling sessions with sailors.
Last December, a gay officer took offense at Christian chaplain’s take on homosexuality. Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect, among other things.
Just a few months earlier, Modder’s commander had called him the “best of the best” and a “consummate professional leader.” But now he’s on the verge of being kicked out of the military.
Modder was relieved of his duties and temporarily reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation. The Navy has since denied the chaplain’s request to be reinstated. for religious accommodation.
So that brings us to an incident that occurred last week, when a sailor in Modder’s previous unit unexpectedly died.
Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry tells me Modder was about to reach out to the sailor’s grieving family when he was stopped by a member of the command.
He was slapped with a “no contact” order – the Navy’s version of a restraining order – banning him from providing counsel or ministering to any members of his unit.
“This Navy official is using the ‘no contact’ order as a weapon to punish and humiliate a decorated military chaplain,” Berry said. “To deny Chaplain Modder of the ability to minister to a grieving family and other sailors is deplorable.”
The Navy went so far as to banish Modder from the base on the day of the sailor’s memorial service. The chaplain said that was adding “insult to injury.”
“One of the most important things chaplains do is to provide comfort and care after a tragic death,” Modder said. “I am heartbroken for the family, and yet the Navy won’t allow me to do my job of helping them grieve and mourn.”
It’s beyond me why the Navy would treat a Marine and highly decorated chaplain with such derision. This is a man who was deployed multiple times during the War on Terror. This is a man who once led chaplains who ministered to Navy SEALs.
Tens of thousands of Americans have petitioned the Pentagon to reinstate Modder, and a number of high profile-political and religious figures – including Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, Franklin Graham and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins – have offered their support.
I reached out to the Chief of Chaplains’ office for comment, but they did not return my call. I can only hope the reason is because they are just as speechless as I am.
It’s become clear to me that Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene, before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/24/navy-bans-chaplain-from-ministering-to-family-dead-sailor/
-
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor
LOL. The greatest hack of them all. ;)
Chaplain faces possible discharge for being 'intolerant'
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/10/chaplain-fired/24699275/
Navy Capt. Jon Fahs, NNPTC commander, cited several specific incidents in which Modder offered inappropriate counseling to sailors in the command, according to the detachment for cause letter. The letter states that Modder:
- Told a female that she was "shaming herself in the eyes of god" for having premarital sex.
- Told another student that homosexuality was wrong and that "the penis was meant for the vagina and not for the anus."
- Suggested to a student that he, Modder, had the ability to "save" gay people.
- "Berated" a student for becoming pregnant while not married.
The issue arose after multiple sailors filed equal opportunity complaints about Modder with the command, alleging discrimination.
When confronted with the complaints, Modder told his command that "he will not follow Navy policy if it conflicts with his faith," according to the letter.
-
LOL. The greatest hack of them all. ;)
Chaplain faces possible discharge for being 'intolerant'
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/10/chaplain-fired/24699275/
Navy Capt. Jon Fahs, NNPTC commander, cited several specific incidents in which Modder offered inappropriate counseling to sailors in the command, according to the detachment for cause letter. The letter states that Modder:
- Told a female that she was "shaming herself in the eyes of god" for having premarital sex.
- Told another student that homosexuality was wrong and that "the penis was meant for the vagina and not for the anus."
- Suggested to a student that he, Modder, had the ability to "save" gay people.
- "Berated" a student for becoming pregnant while not married.
The issue arose after multiple sailors filed equal opportunity complaints about Modder with the command, alleging discrimination.
When confronted with the complaints, Modder told his command that "he will not follow Navy policy if it conflicts with his faith," according to the letter.
Wow. Breaking news. Except for my post about this on the previous page.
This is where we are headed. They will try and censor pastors. Dangerous territory.
Former SEALs chaplain could be kicked out of Navy for Christian beliefs
By Todd StarnesPublished March 09, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/450-Modder.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Navy Chaplain Wes Modder is pictured with a ceremonial oar presented to him by Naval Special Warfare Command. He received the oar at the end of his tour. (Courtesy Wes Modder)
A chaplain who once ministered to Navy SEALs could be thrown out of the military after he was accused of failing “to show tolerance and respect” in private counseling sessions in regards to issues pertaining to faith, marriage and sexuality, specifically homosexuality and pre-marital sex, according to documents obtained exclusively by Fox News.
Lt. Commander Wes Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, has also been accused of being unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.
“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.
Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.
Modder is a highly decorated, 19-year veteran of the military. Prior to becoming a Navy chaplain, he served in the Marine Corps. His assignments included tours with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Naval Special Warfare Command – where he served as the Force Chaplain of the Navy SEALs.
His record is brimming with accolades and endorsements – including from Capt. Fahs.
In Modder’s most recent review, Fahs declared that the chaplain was “the best of the best,” and a “consummate professional leader” worthy of an early promotion.
So how did Chaplain Modder go from being the “best of the best” to being unfit for service in the U.S. military in a span of five months?
The Navy did not return my calls seeking comment – so all we can do is rely on their written accusations and evidence.
Michael Berry, a military veteran and attorney with Liberty Institute a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases is representing Modder. He accused the military of committing a gross injustice against the chaplain in a letter to the Navy. He told me they will respond forcefully and resolutely to the allegations – which they categorically deny.
“We are starting to see cases where chaplains have targets on their backs,” Berry said. “They have to ask themselves, ‘Do I stay true to my faith or do I keep my job?’”
He said Modder is being punished because of his Christian faith.
“They want chaplains to be glorified summer camp counselors and not speak truth and love into people’s lives,” Berry told me. “There are some anti-religious elements in our military. Anytime somebody wants to live their faith out – there are people who say that is offensive.”
Modder told me he was devastated by the accusations. He believes charges have been trumped up.
“The military now wants a 2.0 chaplain instead of a legacy chaplain,” Modder said. “They want a chaplain to accommodate policy that contradicts Scripture.”
Modder’s troubles started on Dec. 6 when an assistant in his office showed up to work with a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives and a five-page complaint documenting grievances against the chaplain.
The lieutenant junior grade officer went on to detail concerns about Moody’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.”
Modder said the young officer had only been working with him for about a month and would constantly pepper him with questions pertaining to homosexuality. He had no idea that the officer was in fact gay – and married to another man.
“His five page letter of complaint was unconscionable,” Modder said. “He said I had a behavioral pattern of being anti-discriminatory of same sex orientation.”
The chaplain was not even given a chance to defend himself. He was immediately removed from duties and told to clean out his office.
“It was insulting and it was devastating,” Modder said. “I felt discriminated against. How could something like this happen at this stage of my career?”
Zollie Smith, the executive director for the Assemblies of God, U.S. Missions, told me they stand firmly behind the chaplain.
“We stand behind him 100 percent,” he said.
In hindsight, Berry believes the officer was setting up his client – and in doing so may have committed a crime.
“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime – false statements – taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it – in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” he said. “He abused the position he was placed in as a chaplain’s assistant.”
He believes the officer may have gained access to private counseling file
“To be clear, Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin,” Berry said.
Modder said many Americans may be shocked to discover how much military culture has changed over the past few years.
“This new generation is very secular and very open sexually,” he said. “The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That’s at the heart of this.”
Modder recalled an incident that occurred when he first arrived on the base. He was about to deliver the invocation at a graduation ceremony when the captain pulled him aside.
“He looked at me and said, ‘Hey chaplain – do not pray in Jesus’ name,’” he recalled.
Modder said he understands the firestorm he is about to enter – but he remains resolute.
“Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I’m not being obedient to the Lord,” he told me. “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from.”
The reality is that many other chaplains could find themselves in Chaplain Modder’s shoes. The Roman Catholic church and the Southern Baptist convention have nearly identical positions on the issues that the Navy found problematic with Modder.
“It’s going to be a hard road for me,” he said. “But it’s what God has called me to do.”
Ultimately, it’s about leaving a legacy and setting an example for his family – his wife and four young children.
The day he was relieved of his duties, Chaplain Modder’s 14-year-old son tagged along to help pack up his dad’s office. A few senior enlisted men were there as well.
As they were driving away, the boy told his father that the enlisted men had spoken to him.
“They told my son that ‘you can be proud of your father because he’s keeping the faith,’” Modder said. “The whole command knows that Chaplain Modder is keeping the faith.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/09/former-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-navy-for-christian-beliefs/
-
Some of this is wrong but if you go to a chaplain for this kind of thing they don't leave their beliefs at the door. There are other alternatives to this. I don't understand why a gay junior officer was in the chaplains's office in the first place.
-
Some of this is wrong but if you go to a chaplain for this kind of thing they don't leave their beliefs at the door. There are other alternatives to this. I don't understand why a gay junior officer was in the chaplains's office in the first place.
Probably to set him up.
-
I'm pretty secular....I always ask a chaplain what he is..so I know how much my Irish Catholic mouth can get away with. I have really never run into this.
-
If someone seeks the advice and counsel of a Christian chaplain, they should not be surprised or offended when he talks about his Christian beliefs.
But there is an effort to silence those folks (both in the military and out). Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
-
Wow. Breaking news. Except for my post about this on the previous page.
There were several complaints. Not just 1. ::)
-
Yeah and I suspect that the first few went away and then he was targeted. Oddly enough that shit happens now.
-
There were several complaints. Not just 1. ::)
Really? You must have learned that from the article I posted. ::)
-
Really? You must have learned that from the article I posted. ::)
Neither of the articles you posted list the other complaints.
-
Neither of the articles you posted list the other complaints.
You mean it didn't say this? “On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.
-
You mean it didn't say this? “On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” the Chaplain’s commanding Officer Capt. Jon R. Fahs wrote in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.
That's hardly a list and both articles heavily implied that everything came down to one case.
-
Liberals can be such pansies. Afraid of opposing viewpoints.
Growing trend of students protesting campus speakers they don't agree with
Published April 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Another report tonight from an American college campus where some students want to silence a speaker they don't happen to agree with.
Students at a public university in Texas are petitioning against their own Governor Greg Abbott as their graduation speaker because they say, well, he's just not diverse enough and does "not align the spirit" of the University of North Texas.
In just the last two -- the last week, I should say, two other colleges were at the center of controversy after students protested a conservative author who had been invited to speak about sexual assault.
Students complained that her mere presence was offensive they needed to spoke trigger warnings on campus, so people could get prepared to deal with their upset.
Joining me now -- warning, here she comes, that author. Cristina Hoff Sommers, who is outspoken feminist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Great to see you, Christina.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE SCHOLAR: Great to be here.
KELLY: They only have that label feminist because you're the kind of feminist they believed in and you don't say the stuff they want to say. And therefore, they want you to check your mouth. And if you don't check your mouth then everyone needs to be held before you come on campus and told that they can go to their safe space if you have the nerve to show up.
SOMMERS: Yes they have to -- they have safe rooms where they go. At Brown University, for example, they have played-doh and bubbles and tape recordings of puppy dogs, it is so infantilizing (ph). It is so shocking to me as a philosophy professor, that free speech, free expression, I mean, the campus has become a hostile environment for free expression.
KELLY: As I understand it, when you were going to Georgetown University to speak, they had to create safe zone for people who are so overwhelmed by your presence there. It's like I can't...
(CROSSTALK)
SOMMERS: And Kelly when they wanted...
KELLY: And in the meantime you had been receiving so many threats for your mere appearance. They had to give you a security guard to maintain your actual physical safety.
SOMMERS: I don't know if there were threats but the tone of the criticism is on Facebook postings and other places alarmed the campus authorities so they thought perhaps I need protection from these safe spacers.
KELLY: Did they give you a play-doh? I mean, were like a -- did you authorize.
SOMMERS: I sort of it -- I would say it went over, I wouldn't reminded going to their safe room because it was so intense. I walk into the hall and it's filled. They kept changing the room because there were greater numbers of people wanted to come to protest leaving on campus. The room was filled with people with posters and placards and then the...
(CROSSTALK)
KELLY: It's like we are ruining the upcoming generation. Life doesn't involve only people who think the way you think college students. You have to kind of get used to people with opposing views.
SOMMERS: Exactly. And you know, it used to be people would come and debate me or they wouldn't like my views. Now, they say I pose a threat to their safety. And I'm moderate liberal feminist. There is nothing incendiary about my views. That's what also shocking as the...
KELLY: You don't buy the full dogma about things like the numbers about sexual assaults in campus neither just Brit Hume, neither do a lot of people who aren't sexists or misogynist.
SOMMERS: Neither do a lot of -- if campus feminist who speak out against it. But as one professor did at Northwestern, Laura Kepner, she spoke out against the sort of rape culture rhetoric in the trigger warnings in the chronicle of higher education. Well, her article triggered students and they are demanding that she be sanctioned and it's very bad. It's a real threat to freedom.
KELLY: You know it -- I end this segment with the profound words of my old trainer, Dave, back in the day when I still worked out. Toughen up, buttercup. That's what those college students need to be told. Christina, good to see you.
SOMMERS: Thank you.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/04/23/growing-trend-students-protesting-campus-speakers-dont-agree-with/
-
Univ Students Want Gov. Abbott Removed as Graduation Speaker
Apr 22, 2015
University of North Texas students have created a petition asking school officials to replace Gov. Greg Abbott as the keynote speaker for the spring commencement ceremony.
The petition on Change.org has garnered more than 2,495 signatures. It focuses on the fact that some students have political disagreements with the Republican governor.
“The University of North Texas’ student body is made up of students from all walks of life,” the petition reads. “Therefore, it is pivotal that our keynote speaker be someone who reflects not only our student population but our views on equality and representation. Governor Abbott is an advocate for immigration reform, border patrol, and anti-equal marriage laws.”
The creators of the petition also stated that Abbott's views do “not align the spirit of the University of North Texas which prides itself in providing equal opportunities for their students.”
Neal Smatresk, the university's president, told the Star-Telegram that he's not going to replace Abbott with another speaker.
Read more from the Star-Telegram:
“He’s a new governor, he’s supportive of higher education,” said Smatresk, who became UNT’s president last year. “Why wouldn’t we want to celebrate the success of our institution in its 125th year with him?
“I feel it’s a great way to celebrate.”
Despite the controversy swirling around his appearance — most via social media — Abbott plans to honor his commitment.
“Gov. Abbott is honored to accept the invitation to address the University of North Texas’ commencement, and he looks forward to recognizing the great work UNT is doing to elevate Texas’ higher education system, as well as the contributions that the UNT Class of 2015 will make to build a better future for Texas,” said Amelia Chasse, press secretary for the governor.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/22/texas-university-students-want-gov-greg-abbott-removed-graduation-speaker
-
The marketplace of ideas, so long as they are liberal ideas. Some liberals can be so weak minded.
Texas student sues after college bans gun rights sign
By Maxim Lott
Published May 28, 2015
FoxNews.com
A Texas college student filed suit against her school this week, saying her constitutional rights were violated when she was shooed off the quad for displaying a pro-Second Amendment sign.
Nicole Sanders, 24, who attends Blinn College, a two-year public college in Brenham, Texas, said she and a classmate at the 18,000-student school were holding signs near the student center in February when they were told to move. Sanders' sign read, “Defend Gun Rights on Campus,” and the other said “LOL,” with President Obama’s logo as the “O.” The pair was trying to attract members for a student group they were forming, a chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.
Sanders claims a college official accompanied by three armed campus police officers approached and said someone had complained that their display was offensive and that they wouldn’t be allowed to do it again unless they got “special permission.” According to Sanders, the official added that it was unlikely such permission would be granted to advocate for gun rights.
“When you have to get a permit before you can speak, it shuts down ideas – everything gets censored through the administrators,” Sanders, who is studying political science, told FoxNews.com. "It's unconstitutional for a public university to limit speech to one area of campus. I think that college should be a marketplace of ideas.”
"When you have to get permit before you can speak, it shuts down ideas."
- Nicole Sanders, Blinn College student
There was an option, Sanders says she was told. She and her classmate, Chris Bradford, who is not part of the suit, could display their signs at a “free speech area” off to the side of the campus center, roughly the size of two parking spaces, where few would see her.
“You only get so many people there,” Sanders told FoxNews.com.
Her lawsuit, which is being filed in federal court in Austin with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), also alleges that her ceramics professor, David Peck, tried to intimidate her into not suing the school. The suit alleges that he warned her that he would “protect me and mine” from accusations against Blinn College and that Sanders “better think” before taking further action.
Blinn College student Nicole Sanders, (l.), is suing after school officials told her she could not display the sign shown at right in a heavily-trafficked area of campus. (Courtesy: FIRE/Jenifer Morris)
Peck did not respond to a request for comment Friday. University spokesman Jeff Tilley said the school is evaluating its policies.
“We certainly will take this opportunity to evaluate our policies as they are written and as they are applied by faculty and staff," Tilley said. "We will evaluate whether any misunderstandings may have occurred. Because of our commitment to our students and to the law, we are confident that we will be able to resolve any concerns that have been raised.”
Tilley said the school has a policy not to discriminate based on politics, but that it can have reasonable restrictions to ensure order.
“Blinn College is allowed to implement what the courts call “time, place and manner” regulations to ensure that the operations of the college, including classes in session, are not disrupted,” he said.
First Amendment legal experts say Sanders has a strong case if they can show other types of speech were permitted in the same area.
"If they can prove that they were specially denied because they were for gun rights, then it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in the First Amendment, told FoxNews.com.
He added that it also was constitutional in another way.
“On government property, even in an airport outside the security cordon, bans on leafleting and other 'low footprint' speech would be unconstitutional,” he said.
Despite that, such bans are common on universities. Volokh attributes that to a bureaucratic mindset.
“Colleges are government institutions. They are run by people who see their primary job as making everything run smoothly, with a minimum of complaints and a minimum of upset. It takes publicity, and often a lawsuit, for them to realize ‘Well, there is this legal rule that we need to be following,'" he said.
FIRE often files such lawsuits, and recently won a case against the University of Hawaii, which tried to ban students from handing out the U.S. Constitution in most areas of campus, and only reversed course after being sued.
Sanders' lawyer is optimistic about this case.
“Blinn College thinks it’s acceptable to have a free speech zone that is the size of a parking spot," FIRE lawyer Catherine Sevcenko said. "But the Constitution’s free speech zone is the size of the United States.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/28/texas-student-sues-after-college-bans-gun-rights-sign/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Shocking at Vox: 'I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me'
By Laura Flint | June 6, 2015
A top article trending on Vox, an exclusively online (and leftward leaning) news platform is entitled "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me." According to a professor of a "mid-size state school" who preferred to remain anonymous to protect his job, "The student-teacher dynamic has been re-envisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best."
Of course for anyone paying a speck of attention to the free speech environments of American campuses, this is nothing new. In 2012, George Will penned an article in The Washington Post entitled "Colleges have free speech on the run." He described, "The right never to be annoyed, a new campus entitlement" and the "Legions of administrators, who now outnumber full-time faculty, are kept busy making students mind their manners, with good manners understood as conformity to liberal politics."
Meanwhile FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), whose president Greg Lukianoff describes himself as "a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat," has been trying to bring the lack of free speech on public and private college campuses to public attention since its founding in 1999.
But no matter. Now that college intellectual oppression is affecting not only the few conservative professors who dared to enter the polarized world of American academia but also liberal professors, some in the liberal media are prepared to listen.
The professor described the he fear he held that students would rate him poorly on evaluations or report him for insensitivity to the administration if he assigned readings that "affect the student's emotional state." He pointed to "a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice" that focuses on emotions, as the culprit for turning millennial students into fragile flowers.
According to the professor, this trend toward ever-increasing censorship "affects liberal, socially conscious teachers much more than conservative ones." It remains unclear how that logic pans out. However, he also believes these conservative professors will be liberal academia's savior from itself, as "there's nothing much to do other than sit on our hands and wait for the ascension of conservative political backlash."
PS: The Wall Street Journal had the story of students going after liberal prof Laura Kipnis for an essay on "growing sexual paranoia" on campuses.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/laura-flint/2015/06/06/shocking-vox-im-liberal-professor-and-my-liberal-students-terrify-me#sthash.9tTY8l27.dpuf
-
Navy bans chaplain from ministering to family of dead sailor
By Todd Starnes
Published March 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/876/493/660-Modder-praying-LI.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Chaplain Wes Modder prays over Navy service members. (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
It really takes a special kind of lowlife to stop a chaplain from ministering to the family and colleagues of a dead sailor.
But that’s exactly what happened last week at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C., according to attorneys representing Chaplain Wes Modder.
It’s become clear to me Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.
“For this Navy to bar a chaplain from comforting and ministering to sailors and families is a reprehensible violation of religious freedom and common human decency,” said Kelly Shackelford, the president of Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases.
Some quick background before I explain what happened:
Chaplain Modder is facing the end of a stellar, 19-year-career in the Navy because he expressed his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality during private counseling sessions with sailors.
Last December, a gay officer took offense at Christian chaplain’s take on homosexuality. Modder, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect, among other things.
Just a few months earlier, Modder’s commander had called him the “best of the best” and a “consummate professional leader.” But now he’s on the verge of being kicked out of the military.
Modder was relieved of his duties and temporarily reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation. The Navy has since denied the chaplain’s request to be reinstated. for religious accommodation.
So that brings us to an incident that occurred last week, when a sailor in Modder’s previous unit unexpectedly died.
Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry tells me Modder was about to reach out to the sailor’s grieving family when he was stopped by a member of the command.
He was slapped with a “no contact” order – the Navy’s version of a restraining order – banning him from providing counsel or ministering to any members of his unit.
“This Navy official is using the ‘no contact’ order as a weapon to punish and humiliate a decorated military chaplain,” Berry said. “To deny Chaplain Modder of the ability to minister to a grieving family and other sailors is deplorable.”
The Navy went so far as to banish Modder from the base on the day of the sailor’s memorial service. The chaplain said that was adding “insult to injury.”
“One of the most important things chaplains do is to provide comfort and care after a tragic death,” Modder said. “I am heartbroken for the family, and yet the Navy won’t allow me to do my job of helping them grieve and mourn.”
It’s beyond me why the Navy would treat a Marine and highly decorated chaplain with such derision. This is a man who was deployed multiple times during the War on Terror. This is a man who once led chaplains who ministered to Navy SEALs.
Tens of thousands of Americans have petitioned the Pentagon to reinstate Modder, and a number of high profile-political and religious figures – including Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, Franklin Graham and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins – have offered their support.
I reached out to the Chief of Chaplains’ office for comment, but they did not return my call. I can only hope the reason is because they are just as speechless as I am.
It’s become clear to me that Navy leadership cannot be trusted to protect religious liberty within the ranks. It’s time for our elected officials to intervene, before Chaplain Modder’s commander brings more embarrassment and shame to the Armed Forces.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/24/navy-bans-chaplain-from-ministering-to-family-dead-sailor/
Navy exonerates chaplain accused of being anti-gay
By Todd Starnes
Published September 04, 2015
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/09/04/navy-exonerates-chaplain-accused-being-anti-gay/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1441399349199.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Wes Modder
A Navy chaplain accused of failing to show “tolerance and respect” toward gay sailors has been cleared of all wrongdoing and will not be removed from the military.
“I am relieved the Navy sided with me,” Lt. Cmdr. Wes Modder told me.
Join Todd’s American Dispatch - a Must-Read for Conservatives
Modder, a highly decorated veteran who once ministered to an elite Navy SEAL unit, had been given a “detachment for cause” letter in February.
He was removed from his job after his commander accused him of being intolerant and unable to “function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C.
“On multiple occasions he discriminated against students who were of different faiths and backgrounds,” wrote Capt. Jon R. Fahs, the chaplain’s commanding officer, in a memorandum obtained by Fox News.
Navy Personnel Command rejected the commander’s recommendation to fire Modder, Military Times reported.
“There is no documentation of poor performance in his personnel record,” one unnamed officer told the newspaper.
Instead, the chaplain, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was cleared of all wrongdoing and will be allowed to retire — marking the end of nearly 20 years of military service.
“This is not only a great day for Chaplain Modder, but for every American who supports religious freedom in our military,” said Michael Berry, the chaplain’s attorney.
Berry is an attorney with Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s largest law firms specializing in religious liberty cases. They partnered with the law firm of WilmerHale to defend Modder.
“Although Captain Fahs’ actions against Chaplain Modder violated the Constitution, federal law and military regulations, we are grateful that Navy officials categorically rejected those actions,” Berry said.
“We believed this would be the outcome from day one.”Berry said the popular Navy chaplain was the victim of a setup.
Earlier this year, a gay married officer was assigned to be Modder’s assistant. The assistant initiated the complaint against the chaplain because of his views on homosexuality and same-sex relationships.
“I believe some of what the lieutenant has alleged could constitute a military crime - false statements, taking what the chaplain said and twisting or misconstruing it in an attempt to get the chaplain punished,” Berry told me.
Modder had also been accused of telling a woman that she was “shaming herself in the eyes of God” for having premarital sex and for berating an unmarried student for becoming pregnant.
Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford commended the Navy for exonerating their client and called it a victory for religious liberty.
“We always knew that when the facts came to light, the Navy would exonerate Chaplain Modder,” Shackelford said. “Religious liberty is our first freedom and essential for our men and women in uniform.
”It’s unfortunate that a good man like Chaplain Wes Modder has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule because of a young officer’s witch hunt. However, truth won the day and Chaplain Modder should be commended for his courage under fire and his long years of service to the United States Armed Forces."
And let this be a warning to those officers who might try to target other military chaplains. Your misdeeds will be exposed.
“We hope this sends a strong signal to military commanders — violating religious liberty will not be tolerated,” Shackelford told me.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/navy-exonerates-chaplain-accused-being-anti-gay.html
-
D.N.C. Officer Says She Was Disinvited From Debate After Calling for More of Them
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/10/13/us/12firstdraft-dnc/12firstdraft-dnc-tmagArticle.jpg)
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.
Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates.
A person close to the committee who asked for anonymity to discuss internal discussions insisted, however, that Ms. Gabbard had not been disinvited. Instead, the person said, an aide to Ms. Wasserman Schultz expressed a desire to keep the focus on the candidates as the debate approached, rather than on a “distraction” that could divide the party, and suggested that if Ms. Gabbard could not do that, she should reconsider going.
Ms. Gabbard insisted otherwise.
“When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night. She said she would watch the debate in her district in Hawaii, which elected her to her second term last year.
“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”
Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the desire was to allow the Democrats to present a clear contrast with the Republicans.
“The focus of the debate in Nevada as well as the other debates and forums in the coming weeks should be on the candidates who will take the stage, and their vision to move America forward,” she said. “All that was asked of Ms. Gabbard’s staff was to prioritize our candidates and this important opportunity they have to introduce themselves to the American people. The Democratic Party is a big-tent party, and we embrace the diversity of opinions and ideas that come from our members.”
Ms. Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, a committee vice chairman and a former mayor of Minneapolis, have for weeks publicly called for more debates.
“More and more people on the ground from states all across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and greater engagement in our democratic process at a critical time, as they make the decision of who should be the next person to lead our country,” Ms. Gabbard said in her MSNBC appearance.
The next day, two people briefed on the conversations said, the chief of staff to Ms. Wasserman Schultz reached out to her counterpart in Ms. Gabbard’s office about attending the debate. Weeks earlier, Ms. Gabbard had said she would like tickets for herself and a guest to the Nevada debate, the one closest to Hawaii.
The person close to the committee insisted: “She was not uninvited. The D.N.C. team wanted this first debate to have all the focus on the candidates. Gabbard’s people were told that if they couldn’t commit to that, since Tulsi was trying to publicly divide the D.N.C. leadership last week, then they should consider not coming.”
The person added, “The fact that she is still making this about her and not our great candidates by talking to The New York Times says something unfortunate.”
Ms. Gabbard said the only issue raised had been “the fact that I had publicly disagreed” with Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
“This isn’t about any one person,” Ms. Gabbard said. “It’s about how the Democratic Party should be representing democratic values, allowing for free speech and open debate within our party, and for more transparency and debates for our presidential candidates.”
“All of our candidates agree with my position,” she added.
Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been struggling to gain traction in the Democratic primary contest, has been calling for more debates and has accused Ms. Wasserman Schultz of trying to benefit the leader in the polls, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by limiting debates. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also called for more debates, although he has not been as adamant as Mr. O’Malley has.
People who disagree with Mr. O’Malley have pointed out that he infrequently debated his challenger for governor in Maryland. And they note the number of sanctioned debates is the same as in the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But there were more than a dozen unsanctioned debates and forums back then. This time, the candidates could be excluded from the sanctioned debates if they take part in ones that are not approved by the national committee.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/12/d-n-c-officer-says-she-was-disinvited-from-debate-after-calling-for-more-of-them/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
-
D.N.C. Officer Says She Was Disinvited From Debate After Calling for More of Them
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/10/13/us/12firstdraft-dnc/12firstdraft-dnc-tmagArticle.jpg)
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.
Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates.
A person close to the committee who asked for anonymity to discuss internal discussions insisted, however, that Ms. Gabbard had not been disinvited. Instead, the person said, an aide to Ms. Wasserman Schultz expressed a desire to keep the focus on the candidates as the debate approached, rather than on a “distraction” that could divide the party, and suggested that if Ms. Gabbard could not do that, she should reconsider going.
Ms. Gabbard insisted otherwise.
“When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night. She said she would watch the debate in her district in Hawaii, which elected her to her second term last year.
“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”
Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the desire was to allow the Democrats to present a clear contrast with the Republicans.
“The focus of the debate in Nevada as well as the other debates and forums in the coming weeks should be on the candidates who will take the stage, and their vision to move America forward,” she said. “All that was asked of Ms. Gabbard’s staff was to prioritize our candidates and this important opportunity they have to introduce themselves to the American people. The Democratic Party is a big-tent party, and we embrace the diversity of opinions and ideas that come from our members.”
Ms. Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, a committee vice chairman and a former mayor of Minneapolis, have for weeks publicly called for more debates.
“More and more people on the ground from states all across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and greater engagement in our democratic process at a critical time, as they make the decision of who should be the next person to lead our country,” Ms. Gabbard said in her MSNBC appearance.
The next day, two people briefed on the conversations said, the chief of staff to Ms. Wasserman Schultz reached out to her counterpart in Ms. Gabbard’s office about attending the debate. Weeks earlier, Ms. Gabbard had said she would like tickets for herself and a guest to the Nevada debate, the one closest to Hawaii.
The person close to the committee insisted: “She was not uninvited. The D.N.C. team wanted this first debate to have all the focus on the candidates. Gabbard’s people were told that if they couldn’t commit to that, since Tulsi was trying to publicly divide the D.N.C. leadership last week, then they should consider not coming.”
The person added, “The fact that she is still making this about her and not our great candidates by talking to The New York Times says something unfortunate.”
Ms. Gabbard said the only issue raised had been “the fact that I had publicly disagreed” with Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
“This isn’t about any one person,” Ms. Gabbard said. “It’s about how the Democratic Party should be representing democratic values, allowing for free speech and open debate within our party, and for more transparency and debates for our presidential candidates.”
“All of our candidates agree with my position,” she added.
Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been struggling to gain traction in the Democratic primary contest, has been calling for more debates and has accused Ms. Wasserman Schultz of trying to benefit the leader in the polls, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by limiting debates. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also called for more debates, although he has not been as adamant as Mr. O’Malley has.
People who disagree with Mr. O’Malley have pointed out that he infrequently debated his challenger for governor in Maryland. And they note the number of sanctioned debates is the same as in the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But there were more than a dozen unsanctioned debates and forums back then. This time, the candidates could be excluded from the sanctioned debates if they take part in ones that are not approved by the national committee.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/12/d-n-c-officer-says-she-was-disinvited-from-debate-after-calling-for-more-of-them/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
DNC Vice Chair: Wasserman Schultz "Saying Things That Aren't True," Told Me Stop Calling For More Debates
Posted on October 13, 2015
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), vice-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, talks to NBC's Andrea Mitchell about DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling her not to come to the first Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.
"I was on your network, MSNBC, talking on Meet the Press Daily about how we do need more debates," Gabbard said. "The same thing that I have been saying now for several weeks. And the very next day got a message saying that if I'm going to continue talking about that, that I shouldn't go to the debate."
"It's not surprising to me that she is saying things that aren't true," Gabbard added.
Wasserman Schultz disputes this is the case, saying Gabbard "chose not to come because I guess she can't."
Andrea Mitchell asked Gabbard if she will stay at the DNC in her leadership position.
"You just called her a liar for all intents and purposes," Mitchell said.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Congresswoman, what happened here? [Wasserman Schultz] says that it's not the case that you were not told you couldn't come, that she simply wanted you to stop discussing the debate structure and discuss the issues.
REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI): Good morning, Andrea. Aloha from Hawaii. I can't say much more than to say that that's just not true. I was on your network, MSNBC, talking on Meet the Press Daily about how we do need more debates. The same thing that I have been saying now for several weeks. And the very next day got a message saying that if I'm going to continue talking about that, that I shouldn't go to the debate. It's not surprising to me that she is saying things that aren't true.
About a month ago, shortly after I called for more debates, the chairwoman said publicly that she had communicated and consulted with vice chairs and officers of the DNC prior to making her decision, both about the number of debates as well as this retribution policy of the exclusivity clause.
The fact is, there was no communication or no consultation with the vice chairs and officers, of which I am one, so it's unfortunate that she continues to say things that aren't true but what I would like to focus on is the issue of democracy, the issue of freedom of speech which is really the core principle here in my call for more debates and in my call to get rid of this retribution policy that punishes these very serious presidential candidates from going out and engaging the American people across the country in different forums and different debates if they do so outside of the six DNC-sanctioned debates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/13/dnc_vice_chair_wasserman_schultz_saying_things_that_arent_true_told_me_stop_calling_for_more_debates.html
-
Campus paper budget yanked in dust-up over ‘Black Lives Matter’ op-ed
(http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/10/20/argus_c0-171-2649-1715_s561x327.jpg?ca53a159b28eacee3ceac46f296bd68fb4ae8e97)
The Wesleyan Argus student newspaper is displayed Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015, on the campus of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. The student government for the liberal arts school is weighing a petition to strip The Argus of funding after some objected to an opinion piece it published on the Black Lives Matter movement. (AP Photo/Michael Melia)
By Valerie Richardson
The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The Wesleyan University student government has voted to slash funding for the school newspaper following widespread criticism over an op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement.
The resolution, passed Sunday by a vote of 27-0 by the Wesleyan Student Assembly, cuts the $30,000 annual budget for The Wesleyan Argus in half and redistributes it among the campus’ five publications through the creation of 20 work-study positions in student media.
Junior Alex Garcia, who introduced the proposal, said the resolution was aimed at reducing paper waste and attracting “students of all backgrounds into media,” but the effort was widely viewed as an act of retaliation against the 147-year-old campus newspaper.
“Questioning ‘Black Lives Matter’ costs student paper $17K,” said conservative website Campus Reform in a headline.
Wesleyan President Michael S. Roth issued a statement Monday warning that “any decision about student publications made in the wake of a controversial op-ed should be understood with real caution.”
Mr. Roth added in a Tuesday post on Twitter: “I believe students will realize it’s a big mistake to cut newspaper funding, and they can find ways to support alternative publications.”
The uproar on the Middletown, Connecticut, campus was touched off by sophomore Bryan Stascavage’s Sept. 15 opinion piece headlined “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” in which he sympathized with some of the movement’s goals but criticized it for “the vilification and denigration of the police force.”
Two days later, the newspaper issued an apology, saying the article contained “flaws,” and promised to run a “Black Out Issue” written only by “students of color.” Even so, the damage was done.
Students launched a petition campaign accusing the newspaper of failing to “provide a safe space for the voices of students of color” and calling for a boycott, along with demands that the newspaper staff complete “social justice/diversity” training and reserve front-page space for “marginalized groups/voices.”
“I know change will take time, but by passing this proposal we can’t say we didn’t try to make the concrete structural changes necessary to start addressing the problem of diversity and inclusion in publications,” said Mr. Garcia in an online video on behalf of the resolution.
The Argus editorial staff had urged the student government to vote down the resolution, saying that the editors had participated in “Social Justice Education Training,” and that “we are in the process of developing a new Editor of Equity and Inclusion position, as well as new outreach programs.”
“These initiatives can’t transform The Argus right away, but transformation takes time,” said the editorial. “This is where the resolution fails: It is reactionary and therefore disregards its broader implications.”
Other students and alumni criticized the newspaper for what they described as caving to political pressure.
“As a former editor on the Argus, I am troubled by this apology,” said Rebecca Schiff, class of 2001, in a comment on the newspaper’s website. “You work on a newspaper. It’s a dinky, barely readable newspaper, but it’s still a newspaper. Reporters and editors have fought for the freedom to say what they want in many countries, including ours.
“You don’t need to apologize if people disagree with an op-ed that you print,” she said. “Apologies like this reflect a totalitarian culture that you must fight. I say this as a left-winger who strongly supports Black Lives Matter.”
The Argus publishes twice a week with a paper distribution of 3,000 copies, which would be reduced to 2,400 copies under the resolution.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/wesleyan-students-slash-campus-newspaper-budget-af/?page=all
-
Cornell University Kicks Jesse Watters Off Campus for Asking About Liberal Bias
Published October 26, 2015
Fox Nation:
Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.
“We ask that you don’t interview students on campus,” Melissa Osgood, Cornell’s deputy director of media relations said.
“Cornell doesn’t have a problem with Fox News, does it?” Watters asked.
“Absolutely not,” Osgood said.
After Watters asked repeatedly, even the senior director of Cornell media relations would not budge, saying that Fox News could not interview students “on campus” and that he would send Watters a statement.
Still, before Watters' ejection, he did get some questions in to some students.
Jesse: What’s the vibe on campus?
“A very diverse campus – a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds.”
Jesse: It’s not that diverse, because according to this report, 96 percent of the donations from faculty here went to Democrats.
“What’s wrong with that?”
Jesse: Do you ever feel the professors are pushing a political agenda here?
“I’ve got friends who are liberal arts majors – they write a paper and they bring up a conservative viewpoint, they won’t get a good grade.”
“If I want an A, I tailor my paper to how the professor leans.”
Jesse: 95 percent is kinda high.
“It’s really high.”
Jesse: Your brain is a sponge right now, and I’m worried that these teachers are starting to have a chilling effect.
“Uh…”
Jesse: I’m going to give you a test to see if you’ve been indoctrinated and how bad it is. Do you think we should build a wall on the Southern border to protect against the illegal alien invasion?
[laughter]
“The invasion…”
“Make it out of ice.”
Jesse: That’s not very smart from a Cornell student.
“Well, it’s because I’m indoctrinated, so I know nothing.”
Jesse: So you’d be okay with Guatemalans coming into your dorm room and sleeping on your floor?
“Okay, no.”
Jesse: What is the national debt right now?
“200 million.”
Jesse: 18 Trillion. Professors aren’t tell you the truth.
“Maybe not.”
Jesse: What do you think about Hillary Clinton?
“After the whole email scandal, I’ve lost a lot of trust in her.”
Jesse: Do you trust Hillary?
“Yes.”
Jesse: Then why did she lie about the Benghazi attacks being about a video when she knew it was about a terrorist attack?
“Huh…”
“I don’t think that she was lying at all to the American public.”
Jesse: Sanders – you feelin’ the Bern?
“I feel like Hillary will give him the burn.”
O’Reilly’s Take:
O'Reilly: "They hated you."
Jesse: They did.
O'Reilly: "There's no doubt about it. Did the guy tell you why you couldn't shoot?"
Jesse: Finally I got a statement. It didn't say why I couldn't shoot, it just says Cornell does not consider a person's political stance in its hiring practices.
O'Reilly: "You didn't ask them anything about that."
Jesse: Maybe they should if 96% are Democrats.
O'Reilly: "Don't they know they looked 18 times worse not having you question?"
Jesse: Maybe after they hire some conservative professors, they can hire a new PR team.
O'Reilly: "They told me the real reason they didn't want you on campus."
Jesse: What was that?
O'Reilly: "You had mittens...That offended almost everybody."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/cornell-university-kicks-jesse-watters-campus-asking-about-liberal-bias
-
I have no words. :-\
Yale’s Halloween Advice Stokes a Racially Charged Debate
By LIAM STACK
NOV. 8, 2015
Weeks of simmering racial tension at Yale University boiled over in recent days into a debate over whether the administration was sensitive enough to concerns about Halloween costumes seen as culturally offensive, students and adminstrators said.
Peter Salovey, the president of Yale, said he had been left “deeply troubled” by a meeting he held with students of color last week who were “in great distress.” Many said they did not believe the university was attuned to the needs of minority students.
“The experiences they shared went beyond the incidents of the last few days,” he said in a statement. “Their concerns and cries for help made clear that some students find life on our campus profoundly difficult.”
James Ramsey, lower right, the University of Louisville president, and his wife, Jane, upper left, hosted a Halloween party in Louisville, Ky. The University of Louisville has apologized after the photo showing Ramsey among university staff members dressed in stereotypical Mexican costumes was posted online.
The debate over Halloween costumes began late last month when the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email to the student body asking students to avoid wearing “culturally unaware and insensitive” costumes that could offend minority students. It specifically advised them to steer clear of outfits that included elements like feathered headdresses, turbans or blackface.
Students in front of the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University. Credit Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times
In response, Erika Christakis, a faculty member and an administrator at a student residence, wrote an email to students living in her residence hall on behalf of those she described as “frustrated” by the official advice on Halloween costumes. Students should be able to wear whatever they want, she wrote, even if they end up offending people.
An early childhood educator, she asked whether blond toddlers should be barred from being dressed as African-American or Asian characters from Disney films.
“Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?” she wrote. “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”
Ms. Christakis’s email touched on a long-running debate over the balance between upholding free speech and protecting students from hurt feelings or personal offense. It also provoked a firestorm of condemnation from Yale students, hundreds of whom signed an open letter criticizing her argument that “free speech and the ability to tolerate offence” should take precedence over other considerations.
“To ask marginalized students to throw away their enjoyment of a holiday, in order to expend emotional, mental, and physical energy to explain why something is offensive, is — offensive,” the letter said. “To be a student of color on Yale’s campus is to exist in a space that was not created for you.”
Ms. Christakis’s email also led to at least one heated encounter on campus between her husband, Nicholas Christakis, a faculty member who works in the same residential college, and a large group of students who demanded that he apologize for the beliefs expressed by him and his wife, which they said failed to create a “safe space” for them.
When he was unwilling to do so, the students angrily cursed and yelled at him, according to a video posted to YouTube by a free speech group critical of the debate. On Sunday it had been viewed over 450,000 times.
“You should step down!” one student shouted at Mr. Christakis, while demanding between expletives to know why Yale had hired him in the first place. “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It is about creating a home here!”
“You’re supposed to be our advocate!” another student yelled.
“You are a poor steward of this community!” the first student said before turning and walking away. “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting.”
The debate over Halloween costumes comes at a time of escalating racial tension at college campuses across the United States. Last month, the president of the University of Louisville apologized to students after he and over a dozen friends were pictured wearing ponchos, sombreros and bushy mustaches with maracas in their hands as part of Mexican-themed Halloween costumes. And on Sunday, dozens of black football players at the University of Missouri vowed to boycott school athletic activities over the university’s handling of racial incidents unless its president resigned.
The debate has erupted against an increasingly tense racial background at Yale. The campus has seen a long-running debate over a residential college named in honor of John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century South Carolina politician, outspoken white supremacist and member of the Yale class of 1804. His name continues to adorn its graceful Gothic halls.
And one week ago a black undergraduate accused a fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, of denying her entrance to a “white girls only” party on the basis of her race, an allegation that the fraternity denies. Jonathan Holloway, the dean of Yale College, said that his office took the accusation seriously and was investigating.
In an email sent to the student body on Thursday, Mr. Holloway said that he was “fully in support” of the request that Yale students avoid culturally insensitive Halloween costumes and that he regretted the sense among some minority students that Yale had “a poisonous atmosphere.”
“We need always to be dedicated to fashioning a community that is mindful of the many traditions that make us who we are,” he wrote. “Remember that Yale belongs to all of you, and you all deserve the right to enjoy the good of this place, without worry, without threats, and without intimidation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/nyregion/yale-culturally-insensitive-halloween-costumes-free-speech.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
-
Cornell University Kicks Jesse Watters Off Campus for Asking About Liberal Bias
Published October 26, 2015
Fox Nation:
Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.
“We ask that you don’t interview students on campus,” Melissa Osgood, Cornell’s deputy director of media relations said.
“Cornell doesn’t have a problem with Fox News, does it?” Watters asked.
“Absolutely not,” Osgood said.
After Watters asked repeatedly, even the senior director of Cornell media relations would not budge, saying that Fox News could not interview students “on campus” and that he would send Watters a statement.
Still, before Watters' ejection, he did get some questions in to some students.
Jesse: What’s the vibe on campus?
“A very diverse campus – a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds.”
Jesse: It’s not that diverse, because according to this report, 96 percent of the donations from faculty here went to Democrats.
“What’s wrong with that?”
Jesse: Do you ever feel the professors are pushing a political agenda here?
“I’ve got friends who are liberal arts majors – they write a paper and they bring up a conservative viewpoint, they won’t get a good grade.”
“If I want an A, I tailor my paper to how the professor leans.”
Jesse: 95 percent is kinda high.
“It’s really high.”
Jesse: Your brain is a sponge right now, and I’m worried that these teachers are starting to have a chilling effect.
“Uh…”
Jesse: I’m going to give you a test to see if you’ve been indoctrinated and how bad it is. Do you think we should build a wall on the Southern border to protect against the illegal alien invasion?
[laughter]
“The invasion…”
“Make it out of ice.”
Jesse: That’s not very smart from a Cornell student.
“Well, it’s because I’m indoctrinated, so I know nothing.”
Jesse: So you’d be okay with Guatemalans coming into your dorm room and sleeping on your floor?
“Okay, no.”
Jesse: What is the national debt right now?
“200 million.”
Jesse: 18 Trillion. Professors aren’t tell you the truth.
“Maybe not.”
Jesse: What do you think about Hillary Clinton?
“After the whole email scandal, I’ve lost a lot of trust in her.”
Jesse: Do you trust Hillary?
“Yes.”
Jesse: Then why did she lie about the Benghazi attacks being about a video when she knew it was about a terrorist attack?
“Huh…”
“I don’t think that she was lying at all to the American public.”
Jesse: Sanders – you feelin’ the Bern?
“I feel like Hillary will give him the burn.”
O’Reilly’s Take:
O'Reilly: "They hated you."
Jesse: They did.
O'Reilly: "There's no doubt about it. Did the guy tell you why you couldn't shoot?"
Jesse: Finally I got a statement. It didn't say why I couldn't shoot, it just says Cornell does not consider a person's political stance in its hiring practices.
O'Reilly: "You didn't ask them anything about that."
Jesse: Maybe they should if 96% are Democrats.
O'Reilly: "Don't they know they looked 18 times worse not having you question?"
Jesse: Maybe after they hire some conservative professors, they can hire a new PR team.
O'Reilly: "They told me the real reason they didn't want you on campus."
Jesse: What was that?
O'Reilly: "You had mittens...That offended almost everybody."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/cornell-university-kicks-jesse-watters-campus-asking-about-liberal-bias
Do you even read the crap that you post
first paragraph
Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.
Cornell is a private university and they can kick anyone off campus if they want to, especially some douchebag reporter
I'm sure private fundie univerities would have no problem kicking out almost anyone who asked questions about their idiotic religious beliefs or bigotry and I'm sure you'd be in total support of that
-
MISSOURI: PROFESSORS AGAINST PRESS FREEDOM
WENDY KAMINER
WRITER AND LAWYER
How fortysomething academics inflame campus witch-hunts.
12 NOVEMBER 2015
(http://www.spiked-online.com/images/Missouri_campus.jpg)
There they go again’, may be all we can add these days when students shut down or shout down viewpoints that violate the imagined right of favoured groups to feel ‘safe’, ‘comfortable’ and ‘unoffended’. Protests about allegedly offensive speech and speakers occur at least once a week, targeting with increasing aggressiveness even mild disagreements with campus orthodoxies.
The latest high-profile protests erupted at Yale University. They were sparked by a fraternity’s alleged racially discriminatory actions but exploded over instances of unwelcome speech, when the associate house master of Silliman College, Erika Christakis, questioned the wisdom and necessity of cautionary notes about offensive Halloween costumes. Further outraged by the failure of Christakis and her husband, house master Nicholas Christakis, to apologise for their divergent defences of free speech, students demanded their resignations. ‘I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain… Christakis needs to stop instigating more debate’, one student succinctly explained in an op-ed that appeared briefly in the Yale Herald.
When students at one of the United States’ most prestigious universities throw tantrums in reaction to a call for debate, free-speech advocates who have long warned of the dangers posed by campus civility codes may be tempted simply to respond, ‘We rest our case’.
But silence in the face of censorship isn’t an option. At the very least, speech-policing must be chronicled. Consider recent efforts to bar journalists from covering a protest at the University of Missouri, as reported by the New York Times:
‘Tim Tai, a student photographer on freelance assignment for ESPN, was trying to take photos of a small tent city that protesters had created on a campus quad… Protesters blocked Mr Tai’s view and argued with him, eventually pushing him away. At one point, they chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go”.’
‘I am documenting this for a national news organisation’, Mr Tai told the protesters, adding that ‘the First Amendment protects your right to be here and mine’. The protesters accused him of acting unethically and disregarding their requests for privacy.
Student hostility toward freedom of the press is, by now, routine and predictable. But it also infects some faculty members, partly because campus rules treating offensive speech as an actual civil-rights violation date back some 20 years. Students educated under early speech-code regimes are now in or entering their 40s. Those who stayed in academia are sometimes as censorious as their students.
So, University of Missouri protesters intent on forcibly barring press coverage were joined by a faculty member, Melissa Click, who, according to the New York Times, ‘appeared to grab’ at the camera of another photographer and yelled, ‘Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.’
Click teaches mass media. Her research focuses on ‘popular-culture texts and audiences, particularly texts and audiences disdained in mainstream culture’, according to her staff-profile page. ‘Her work in this area is guided by audience studies, theories of gender and sexuality, and media literacy.’ You might think that media literacy would require some study of press freedom. But the aptly named Professor Click’s current research includes studies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey readers’ and ‘the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga’.
What more can you say when confronted with media experts who oppose the freedoms on which media rely? If student and faculty censors aim to leave me speechless, they’re beginning to succeed.
Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer, and civil libertarian.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/missouri-professors-against-press-freedom/17622#.VkYXHdCRqng
-
Yale graduates are some of the most violent and dishonest liberals the country has seen.
-
Prof Bans Students From Saying ‘Husband’ Or ‘Wife’ Because It’s Not ‘Inclusive’
PETER HASSON
02/05/2016
In just the latest instance of taxpayer-funded censorship, students in one University of Florida course have been banned from using words such as “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or dad” in the classroom and risk losing points off their grade if they don’t comply.
In the syllabus for her “Creativity In Context” class — a required course for any student pursuing a minor in Innovation — UF professor Jennifer Lee informs students of her four paragraph long classroom “communications policy” that she says will enforce “ethical conduct” in the classroom.
“The following policies and guidelines will be followed in this course,” the policy begins, followed by a bullet point instructing students to “Use inclusive language.” The policy mandates that students “[ s]peak in a way that does not make assumptions about others based on “norms”, stereotypes, or one’s own identity or experience.”
The syllabus explains that this means replacing the words “boyfriend”/”girlfriend” with the more inclusive “partner” or “significant other.” The rule applies to conversations about married couples too: saying “husband” or “wife” is forbidden. Even the words “mom” and “dad” have a more “inclusive” alternative — students are told to use the word ‘family” instead.
By using the new words, Lee explains, students will be using speech that “is inclusive of alternative orientations and family structures, and free of stereotypes.”
Students are also required to comply with professor Lee’s “safe education environment policy” — distinct from her “communications policy” — which warns students that “any behavior or language that makes others feel unsafe or unwelcome in this classroom can and will not be tolerated.” Lee openly acknowledges that this no-tolerance policy covers “interrupting or ignoring others.”
Lee’s exhaustive policies aren’t just meaningless words, either. She warns that “Students who do not meet conduct expectations will be given one warning by electronic mail, and continued behavior issues will result in the loss participation points per course instructor’s discretion.” She did not reply to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told TheDC that the policies are “likely to chill classroom discussion to the detriment of all.” He went on to say that Lee’s “inclusive language” policy presents “a veritable minefield through which students must tip-toe when they wish to participate in class. Faced with the possibility of a lower grade, students are likely to refrain from providing their input for fear that the professor or a classmate will be offended by something that they say, no matter how unreasonably.”
Cohn noted, “Generally, professors have the discretion, and the right—consistent with principles of academic freedom—to conduct their classrooms as they see fit. However, faculty members must be careful not to infringe on the rights of their students to freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience.”
Lee isn’t the first professor to face public scrutiny for banning words inside the classroom. Just last fall, multiple professors at Washington State University threatened students with bad grades if they used “oppressive and hateful language” such as “illegal alien,” “male,” or “female,” in the classroom. After public backlash, the school walked back the language mandates.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/05/prof-bans-students-from-saying-husband-or-wife-because-its-not-inclusive/#ixzz3zh8RyIN7
-
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Ben-pasted_image_at_2016_02_22_11_47_pm_480.png)
by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016
On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”
In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, 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. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”
Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “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 see them on Thursday.”
YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”
Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”
The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/
-
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Ben-pasted_image_at_2016_02_22_11_47_pm_480.png)
by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016
On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”
In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, 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. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”
Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “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 see them on Thursday.”
YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”
Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”
The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/
What's most troubling is how young these folks are. They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas. Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro. Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence. These are future leaders. :-\
Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160226_YAFProtest_Johnson-1250x650.jpg)
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.
Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.
Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.
Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.
Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.
“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.
She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.
“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.
Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing “safety concerns.”
Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.
Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:
Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.
Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.
The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.
Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.
On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”
The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.
“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”
Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:
This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.
One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.
“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”
David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.
Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.
The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.
“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/
-
What's most troubling is how young these folks are. They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas. Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro. Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence. These are future leaders. :-\
Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160226_YAFProtest_Johnson-1250x650.jpg)
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.
Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.
Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.
Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.
Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.
“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.
She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.
“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.
Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing “safety concerns.”
Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.
Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:
Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.
Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.
The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.
Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.
On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”
The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.
“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”
Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:
This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.
One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.
“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”
David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.
Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.
The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.
“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/
PRIVATE ARMED SECURITY
-
Student senator faces impeachment for conservative beliefs
By Todd Starnes
Published March 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
There’s a witch hunt underway for conservatives at the University of Southern California – and Jacob Ellenhorn appears to be Public Enemy No. 1.
Ellenhorn is a student senator at USC and president of the College Republicans. He is also an outspoken conservative.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives!
And that’s a big problem among his fellow student lawmakers at USC.
Ellenhorn is facing possible impeachment – accused of all sorts of tawdry behavior – like publicly expressing his conservative opinions and (brace yourself) inviting high-profile conservative speakers to campus.
“It seems like freedom of speech and freedom to express your views is not allowed by the University of Southern California student government right now,” he told me.
Ellenhorn accused liberal students of engaging in a “witch hunt” and committing “institutionalized discrimination against me and my views.”
“If you voice a difference of opinion on any small issue – they lash out at you,” he told me. “You’re a racist, you’re a homophobe, you’re anti-woman, you’re sexist. This is ridiculous.”
The official complaint, first reported by Campus Reform, alleges that Ellenhorn “created a hostile environments (sic) for our USC study body, and has also violated our USC Principles of Community by bringing a speaker and moderating an event that blatantly perpetuates sexism.”
The Lefties were especially troubled when Ellenhorn invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak last year.
PODCAST: Listen to Todd’s indepth interview with Jacob Ellenhorn
Stephen Smith, an adjunct professor and executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, accused Yiannopoulos of being known for his “anti-feminist and more broadly misogynist commentary.”
“Harmful speech has no place in the Trojan community,” Smith wrote in a letter calling for Yiannopoulos to be disinvited.
“Whatever Yiannopoulos has to say on campus, his invitation here calls into question the human values as well as the academic standards of the USC College republicans,” he wrote. “Controversial celebrity presenters may draw an audience, but the integrity of the USC College Republicans is rubbished by such content, the high standards of excellence we all try to uphold at USC are undermined, and the USC community as a whole is deeply offended on behalf of its women students, staff and faculty.”
Ellenhorn admits that he’s invited firebrand speakers like Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.
“They are claiming that because I invited them – I made students on campus feel unsafe,” he said. “No one has to listen to them. No one was forced to attend. For goodness’ sake – we’re adults. We should be able to handle other people’s opinions.”
Senators are expected to hold hearings later this month to determine the young conservative’s fate. But Ellenhorn doesn’t seem to be all that intimidated.
He penned a fiery response to the complaint – accusing University Student Government of “trying to castrate strong male voices into submission.”
Bold.
Now, you might be wondering why I’m dedicating this column to covering what some might consider a silly campus skirmish. But this is no silly skirmish.
Pew Research did a study a few months ago – revealing that 40 percent of millennials believe there should be limitations on free speech. That’s a disturbing number.
I suspect that our public universities are being used to foster such anti-American thinking. The Left isn’t just opposing dissenting viewpoints. They are trying to silence opposing viewpoints.
Ellenhorn told me he’s seen his fellow senators rant about all sorts of outrageous issues – but he’s never tried to silence anyone. He’s never tried to have his opposition impeached.
“Difference of opinion should be triumphed,” he said. “But what they are trying to do is shut difference of opinion down.”
And they are in for a mighty big fight.
“I’m not going to stand down,” he said. “I’m going to stand up. I’m not going to be quiet.”
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/03/09/student-senator-faces-impeachment-for-conservative-beliefs/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-26/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1457558027981.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
USC student Senator Jacob Ellenhorn (Courtesy of Jacob Ellenhorn)
Well said, Jacob! That’s exactly what you should do when faced with a leftwing bully. Stand your ground.
“They are trying to silence me – and I’m just going to get louder.”
The USC senators might want to invest in some ear plugs – because it’s about to get rowdy.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/09/student-senator-faces-impeachment-for-conservative-beliefs.html?intcmp=trending
-
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency: the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.
POLITICO reporter denied access to Trump event
By HADAS GOLD
03/16/16
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/603f23a/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffd%2F29%2Fb871019844849a01bf5eed24fc3a%2F160315-donald-trump-rally-gty-1160.jpg)
Donald Trump arrives for a primary night event at the Mar-A-Lago Club's Donald J. Trump Ballroom March 15, 2016, in Palm Beach, Florida. | Getty
POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger was denied entry to Donald Trump's press conference on Tuesday night, despite having previously been granted credentials by the campaign.
The move followed a threat last week from Trump officials to exclude POLITICO reporters from campaign events.
On Tuesday morning, Schreckinger, who has covered the campaign regularly for more than six months, received an email granting him credentials for Trump's speech and press conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida that evening. But less than 10 minutes later, another email arrived saying those same credentials were denied. Upon arriving at Trump's private club, he was denied entry and escorted off of the property.
Schreckinger, whose latest story on Trump's campaign was a report on concerns about campaign manager Corey Lewandowski's temperament and behavior, never received an explanation as to why his credentials have been denied. Neither Lewandowski nor Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to requests for comment.
"I’m saddened by the personal nature of the Trump campaign’s attack on an excellent reporter, Ben Schreckinger. The campaign provided no explanation for barring our reporter from Donald Trump’s speech tonight. If this is the response to honest, fair, and sometimes critical reporting – like today’s piece on Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski — it certainly will not intimidate POLITICO as we cover the campaign in the days ahead," POLITICO editor Susan Glasser said in a statement.
POLITICO is far from alone among media organizations being denied entry to Trump events. The Des Moines Register, Univision, Fusion, The Huffington Post, National Review, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed have all been denied credentials to Trump's events, often after publishing critical stories about the campaign. In January, New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was ejected from an event in Iowa after writing about Trump's weak ground game in the state, which he eventually lost to Ted Cruz.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/ben-schreckinger-denied-access-donald-trump-220836#ixzz43668CBhw
-
Raising a nation of sissies. :-\
‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016
(http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/uploads/2016/3/23/24.png)
Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):
According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”
“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”
The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”
“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”
Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:
The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:
"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...
It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.
To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."
Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life. Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353
-
Emory is a private university and Trump has no right of any sort to speak there and the students that pay to be there have every right to protest him speaking there
He can book an auditorium somewhere else in the city and hold his race baiting Hitler youth rally
-
A generation of cupcakes.
-
Raising a nation of sissies. :-\
‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016
(http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/uploads/2016/3/23/24.png)
Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):
According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”
“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”
The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”
“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”
Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:
The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:
"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...
It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.
To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."
Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life. Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353
Debate continues over Donald Trump chalkings at Emory University
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
March 31, 2016
Students at Emory University were the subject of some ridicule last week after protesting that pro-Donald Trump messages written in chalk around campus left them "in pain." University administrators and students have taken several steps since then to respond to the protests, but criticism of the students continues.
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an Emory alum, wrote on Twitter Thursday that he's worried about the "fragility and timidity" of some students. "In the age of ISIS how can a name in chalk be frightening?" He followed up with one more tweet on the matter:
Newt Gingrich ✔@newtgingrich
Emory has me worried because i thought college was a place to grow up and explore ideas not a place to hide and be intimidated by trivia
9:41 AM - 31 Mar 2016
University president Jim Wagner met with the students and sent a campus-wide email broaching the matter last week, pledging to promote a "safe environment" at Emory.
Then on Friday, Wagner stopped by a table on campus where members of the Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian group, were collecting signatures for a petition that asks the university administration to clarify free speech protections on campus. Wagner wrote his own sidewalk chalk message next to their table: "Emory Stands for Free Expression!"
The Young Americans for Liberty over the weekend created a whole new round of chalk drawings and messages on the campus, Inside Higher Ed reports. Their drawings included messages of support for all of the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential candidates -- including a picture of Trump with the message, "Make Emory Great Again."
Alex Reibman, one of the event organizers, told Insider Higher Ed that the new chalkings were "a counterprotest to show that students are capable of handling chalk and that we stand for freedom of expression."
Meanwhile, Ajay Nair, the dean of campus life at Emory, published a column in Inside Higher Ed this week to put the controversy "in context."
"In the context of a college campus, we thrive on open and civil dialogue, inviting even the most controversial perspectives and remarks," he wrote. "The college setting is a laboratory where students may, for the first time, grapple with such issues. Those conversations by their very nature can be difficult and must take place in a safe environment that is inclusive and guided by mutual respect and civility."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emory-university-continues-to-take-heat-for-response-to-donald-trump-chalk-drawings/
-
Student Government At Public University Wants To Kick Out Member Over Pro-Trump Chalking
SCOTT GREER
Associate Editor
04/06/2016
Student government leaders at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga have demanded one of its members to resign over chalking a message on campus supporting Donald Trump.
In a message posted to Twitter early Wednesday morning, the incoming government slate called “Empower UTC” said they asked one of the participants in their coalition, Hailey Puckett, to leave student government over her pro-Trump artwork.
According to the message, Puckett’s values “do not line up with the pillars we’ve established ourselves on.”
“We do not support bigotry or hatred or the messages spread by Donald Trump’s ignorance,” the message from the student leaders said. “We do not support the mission of those who wish to spread that ignorance.”
“We promised to represent you, and by you we mean everyone,” the message continued. “We will not, however, represent those who support the oppression of others. We do not ask you to forgive or forget her actions, but that you start conversations with them. We ask that you spread messages of love and inclusion to everyone you encounter.”
Empower UTC is set to take over the positions of president, vice president and secretary for student government in the upcoming school year. As apart of the ticket, Puckett won a seat as a senator just last week in campus elections. According to a source at the college, Empower UTC was considered the pro-Greek Life, conservative ticket in the race.
The removal of Puckett appears to be in response to outrage over her posting a tweet celebrating a “Trump 2016” chalk mark she helped make. Underneath the slogan, a wall was drawn.
In response to the chalk mark, incensed students began tweeting out the hashtag #BlackUTC and #BlackUnity and chalked an opposing message on campus.
One of the main proponents for the dismissal of Puckett was part of a rival student government coalition that sought to promote more diversity on campus.
Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Last weekend, over a hundred campuses were dotted with pro-Trump chalkings as part of a movement calling itself #TheChalkening. #TheChalkening was an effort less created to support Trump than to fight back against out-of-control campus political correctness. (RELATED: The Frat Site That Helped Ignite #TheChalkening Speaks Out)
The nationwide movement was done in response to Emory University students claiming chalk marks in support of Trump at their campus in March threatened their safety. (RELATED: Is It Now A Hate Crime To Support Donald Trump On A College Campus?)
UTC SGA president-elect Phillip Stubblefield did not a return a request for comment about his decision to ask for Puckett’s resignation, nor did Puckett herself return a request for comment by the time of publication.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/student-government-at-public-university-kicks-out-member-over-pro-trump-chalking/#ixzz45A2aZmum
-
Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie
By Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) • 4/7/16
The three Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, in their latest and boldest move to regulate conservative media, voted in unison to punish a movie maker critical of President Obama after he distributed for free his latest work, Dreams of My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception.
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, owner of Highway 61 films, has produced several independent politically-themed movies and sent Dreams out to millions of voters in key swing states prior to the 2012 election.
While he acted on his own, and with no ties to political groups or parties, an FEC complaint was filed claiming he violated reporting rules, prompting him to seek the standard media "exemption."
But despite giving the same exemption to liberal movie makers like Michael Moore and Daily Kos, the Democrats recently voted against Gilbert in a February action, reviving their bid to punish conservative media, a campaign initially targeting online news outlets like the Drudge Report.
Lucky for Gilbert, the three Republicans on the FEC also united to vote to give him the exemption. The tie vote blocked any action, and was followed by a unanimous 6-0 vote to close the file. Had he lost, Gilbert would have been required to report who helped fund the anti-Obama movie.
The latest Democratic move on conservatives comes as some Democrats in Congress, and liberal publications, are pushing to end the even split between Democrats and Republicans on the FEC, a move conservatives have warned would lead to punishing new rules on right-leaning media and candidates.
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman has been warning about the assault on conservative media for three years and said the vote on Gilbert showed that the Democrats are still focused on right-leaning media.
"Freedom of the press isn't so free when three government commissars vote to punish a filmmaker for distributing a documentary film," he told Secrets.
"Conservative documentary films have faced tough sledding at the FEC, no matter how the films are distributed," Goodman said, adding, "It's chilling."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-target-conservatives-vote-to-punish-maker-of-anti-obama-movie/article/2587898
-
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency: the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.
#5 and #13 of Alinsky Tactics. Trump has used 12 of 13 of them.
-
Cut-and-paste warrior. ::)
-
Cut-and-paste warrior. ::)
He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.
What would you like to be done instead?
-
Ohio University Cancels Fundraising Week Events After Students Paint Pro-Trump Messages
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/wi/afp_bbeec5ff349b2a1187d9d8b9ff7486afc19f11a7-640x428.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters on April 11, 2016 in Albany, New YorkAFP
by BEN KEW
13 Apr 2016
Officials at Ohio University have cancelled several events during a charity fundraising week, known as ‘Greek Week,’ after students painted a wall designated for graffiti with pro-Trump slogans.
The fundraising events were due to take place between April 11 – 16, however the plans were amended after members painted “Build the Wall” and “Trump 2016” along with the GOP party logo.
The graffiti is understood to be an endorsement of Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican Nomination, supporting his policy of building a wall between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration into the country.
The wall has been an outlet for free speech since the 1970’s, however many students have argued that pro-Trump artwork took it too far.
A letter sent to all sororities and fraternities signed by various student councils states, “This phrase is offensive and hurtful to many individuals as it is directly tied to the Hispanic/Latino/a community, makes them feel marginalized, and the message was interpreted that they do not belong at Ohio University.”
“The big picture right now is that some people didn’t feel unified with Greek life,” Matt Falconer, president of OU’s chapter of Sigma Chi, said. “That was one of the main reasons why Greek Week was altered.”
In light of an emergency meeting held by the university’s Hispanic and Latino Society, University President McDavis Roderick sent an email to students which read: “Indeed, this wall is a place of free speech and expression; however, the words painted were troubling because they had a very different meaning to some than they may have to others viewing the message or even to those who painted the message.” He also suggested cultural competency classes to encourage students to be more sensitive.
The graffiti has since been removed by Hispanic students who painted over it. The university has said the students will not be punished.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/13/ohio-university-cancels-fundraising-week-after-students-paint-trump-wall/
-
He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.
What would you like to be done instead?
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?
-
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?
HAHAHAHAHA.
-
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?
Strong take!
-
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON
May 2, 2016
The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.
Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.
That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”
It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.
What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.
Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.
What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.
For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded
-
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON
May 2, 2016
The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.
Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.
That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”
It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.
What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.
Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.
What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.
For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded
Wall Street Journal columnist will speak at Virginia Tech after school issues public apology
Posted: Thursday, May 5, 2016
BY ROBBY KORTH | The Roanoke Times
Jason Riley, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, will speak at Virginia Tech once the school issues him a public, written apology.
Riley stirred controversy earlier this week in a column saying that he was disinvited from speaking at a lecture. He is known as an outspoken black conservative who wrote the 2014 book “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” and for his appearances on Fox News.
At the time, Tech officials said he actually never was invited because a professor who had emailed him an invitation wasn't authorized to do so. Instead, a university committee had selected a Harvard economist to give the BB&T funded business school lecture.
Tech President Timothy Sands said in a Thursday statement that he and other university officials "regret the confusion and assure our friends, parents, students, alumni and partners that we will take the actions necessary to ensure that such miscommunication does not occur in the future."
Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh said Thursday that the school will issue the public apology at some point. She said details on the Riley talk – assuming he agrees to speak – are not yet ironed out. She said that Riley could come as a part of the original lecture series or a separate function. Riley would be paid by Tech's Pamplin College of Business, she said. The cost for the speech was not available Thursday.
Riley said he had a phone conversation with Virginia Tech Pamplin College of Business Dean Robert Sumichrast, Thursday afternoon.
"He was extremely contrite, respectful and very apologetic for what happened," Riley said of the conversation in a phone interview with The Roanoke Times.
Riley said he appreciated that Sumichrast acknowledged that he was invited and then disinvited. He said in the conversation Sumichrast also offered to issue an apology on the school's behalf, something crucial Riley said because he felt like Tech administrators had been characterizing him "as a liar."
Riley said once he reads the public apology he will make arrangements to travel to Blacksburg for a lecture in the series, though he isn't yet sure if it will be part of the BB&T series or a separate event.
He said he'd like to talk about public policy rather than the behind-the-scenes issues he's had with Virginia Tech.
Riley had said that he was invited by Tech finance professor Douglas Patterson for the 2016 BB&T fall lecture series.
Patterson wrote to Riley "My purpose in writing is to invite you to give the fall 2016 lecture here in Blacksburg."
The university, through the business school dean and its public relations office Tuesday, said Riley was never officially invited to speak.
“I am deeply sorry to see this characterization of Virginia Tech in the national media and across social media,” Sumichrast wrote in a letter to the university community Tuesday.
The committee set up by Sumichrast selected Robert Barro, an economist at Harvard University, as the series’ next speaker, according to Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh.
Patterson, in the earlier email to Riley, wrote that university officials were concerned about potential backlash after protests after an appearance by Charles Murray as a BB&T lecturer in March.
Riley said he was happy with the outcome. However, he was disappointed because he believes it took media backlash - the issue was discussed on Fox News Wednesday night and in a Riley column in the Wall Street Journal - for him to actually receive the invitation.
"It's kind of a shame that's what it takes for you to be heard on campus," Riley said.
Vosburgh said that the backlash wasn't the reason Tech wanted Riley to come to campus. Once officials realized that he had been offered an invitation by a Tech professor, it was time to make good on it.
"It was the right thing to do," she said.
The BB&T lecture series began in 2007 with a $1 million grant funded by the foundation to explore “the foundations of capitalism and freedom,” according to a 2007 news release.
The courses and lectures are aimed at comparing free market economies with alternative economic systems such as capitalism versus socialism, the release said.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_dd343f6a-f815-53de-b462-f2238ded786d.html
-
Did Facebook bury conservative news? Ex-staffers say yes.
By Philip Bump
May 9, 2016
The great irony of the tech blog Gizmodo's revelation that Facebook's trending-topic curators weeded out stories about Facebook or about issues popular with conservatives is that Gizmodo's story therefore likely won't end up on Facebook's list of trending topics. After all, the report, which suggests that the social media behemoth's team filtered out stories on conservative topics from conservative sites, will most certainly be very, very popular with conservatives. (Update: Or maybe it will.)
What we're talking about here is that little box in the upper right of your Facebook page — the short list of news topics that are being discussed on Facebook at the moment. They're clearly tailored to the user; as I write, mine include stories about New York (where I live) and politics, which I would assume that a surgeon in Dallas probably wouldn't see. Because Facebook has one-sixth of the world using it every day, pretty much everything is being talked about to some extent. The company uses an automatic system (an algorithm) to surface what's currently popular, and a team of staffers then further curates the list to tailor it to meet particular standards.
And there's the problem. Gizmodo quotes several former curators suggesting that conservative news stories would be booted from the automatically generated list of trending stories for two reasons. One was if the story came from a conservative-leaning site, such as Breitbart.com or Newsmax.com, in which case curators were told to find the same story on a mainstream media site, if possible. The other was if the curator didn't want to include the story or didn't recognize the story as important. It's hard to know the extent to which the latter judgments took place, but one of the former curators — a conservative — told Gizmodo, "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news."
That's problematic, for obvious reasons. (Gizmodo notes that it's not clear whether this is still happening, because the trending news algorithm is constantly being tweaked, and that it's not clear whether liberal news was similarly affected.) The bigger question is the extent to which Facebook overlays another filter on top of what you see — and the extent to which that can influence political decisions.
We already knew (even if we sometimes forget) that there are a lot of layers of filtration that occur before you see anything on Facebook. There's the filtering that you yourself do, picking friends, clicking links, posting stuff. There's the main Facebook algorithm that puts things in your feed. That's based in large part on what you tell the system you like. Two years ago, journalist Mat Honan liked everything in his feed, telling Facebook, in short, that he liked everything. Within 48 hours, his feed was a garbage dump. His human curation had failed.
So this manipulation of the trending news is another layer. But it's significant in part because it's the most obvious manifestation of what Facebook wants you to see. Facebook slips ads in your feed and highlights some posts over others, but the trending news is Facebook itself sharing content with you. And as Gizmodo reports, its employees are deliberate in doing so. For example:
In other instances, curators would inject a story — even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook — because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.”
Facebook was also criticized for not having a trending topic on the Black Lives Matter movement, one former curator claimed. So they "injected" it into the feed. "This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence," Gizmodo's Michael Nuñez writes. Black Lives Matter existed without Facebook, but this injection could only have helped.
In April, Nuñez reported that Facebook employees were advocating for chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain during a company meeting what responsibility Facebook had to block Donald Trump's candidacy. (The question doesn't appear to have been answered.) If it wanted to block Trump from appearing on the site, an expert told Nuñez, it was within its legal rights to do so, just as it can block other forms of content. The report resulted in assurances from the company that it would never interfere with people's voting choices. "We as a company are neutral," a spokesman told The Hill, "we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."
Any news organization, including The Washington Post, is subject to bias introduced by the people that work for it. Hand-tailoring what the trending-news algorithm spits out introduces bias (not that the algorithm itself is without any bias, given that it, too, is cobbled together by humans). But that bias affects an audience of a size that The Post could only dream about.
This is a company that wants to create a system to bring the Internet to the entire world — so that the entire world can use Facebook. It's a company whose chief executive, Zuckerberg, led a recent effort to reform immigration policies in the United States. If Facebook wanted to, it could put a message in support of immigration at the top of every user's news feed, completely legally — though risking huge backlash.
Or it could use its influence more quietly. In 2010, Facebook conducted a social experiment, introducing a tool letting people tell friends when they'd voted in that year's elections. People who saw that message were 0.4 percent more likely to vote — resulting in an estimated 300,000 more people getting to the polls. This prompted a lot of questions about how Facebook could influence turnout, either at its own whim or as a product offered to political campaigns.
That's the issue at the heart of the question over what Facebook is suppressing or promoting. This is a media company at a scale that's without precedent in the world. Nearly three-quarters of American adults who use the Internet use Facebook. And those adults didn't see stories about political topics in their trending news feeds because a human who works at Facebook decided not to show it.
Update: Facebook released a statement on Monday afternoon.
We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum.
Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook.
There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/
-
My conservative page got blocked by Facebook
By Todd Starnes
Published May 16, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/05/16/my-conservative-page-got-blocked-by-facebook/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1463405111039.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
I am the bad boy of Facebook.
I earned that badge of honor back in 2013 when Facebook blocked my page and removed a message I had posted that invoked Paula Deen, the National Rifle Association and Jesus Christ. Here’s what I wrote:
"I'm about as politically incorrect as you can get. I'm wearing an NRA ball cap, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich, reading a Paula Deen cookbook and sipping a 20-ounce sweet tea while sitting in my Cracker Barrel rocking chair with the Gaither Vocal Band singing 'Jesus Saves' on the stereo and a Gideon's Bible in my pocket. Yes sir, I'm politically incorrect and happy as a June bug."
The folks over at Facebook took great offense to that message.
Join Todd’s American Dispatch newsletter: A must-read for conservatives!
"We removed this from Facebook because it violates our Community Standards," Facebook wrote me. "So you're temporarily blocked from using this feature."
I wasn't even allowed to post our daily Bible verse -- a popular feature called "Morning Glory -- Start Your Day Inspired."
Facebook Inc. (FB) | FindTheCompany
For the record, I really do have a Cracker Barrel rocking chair, I'm quite fond of sweet tea, I love Chick-fil-A, I'm a huge fan of Southern Gospel music, I own several Paula Deen cookbooks and I'm a proud member of the National Rifle Association.
Does that make me a bad person?
I was genuinely perplexed by Facebook's censors – befuddled even.
So I decided to investigate Facebook's community standards – which at best – are rather vague. Among its commandments were bans on nudity, bullying, harassment, graphic content, pornography and spam.
For the record, I require all of our followers to wear pants and Miss Paula was not doing anything unladylike with a stick of butter.
It is true that one of my daily postings included some spam – a delicious recipe for a fried spam sandwich.
It's even more puzzling that they would target a patriotic, conservative website like mine when they allow a host of vulgar, violent and pornographic sites to stay in business.
Among the sites I found just this morning:
“F*** Donald Trump”
“F*** Sarah Palin Hoe A** B****
“Tea Party Can Kiss My A**”
“Rush Limbaugh is an Abject A******”
Had I been reading Saul Alinsky's “Rules For Radicals,” wearing a Planned Parenthood ball cap and smoking a joint, Facebook would've left me alone.
Facebook's decision to block me generated quite a bit of outrage. Don't choke on your Fruit Loops, but even the folks over at The Washington Post came to my defense.
And a few hours after banning me, Facebook had a change of heart.
"A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook," they told me in an email. "This was a mistake and we sincerely apologize for this error."
Since that fateful day, I’ve noticed that my page has been subjected to random censorship by the Facebook gods. I’ve received dozens of complaints from readers who tell me my content no longer appears on their pages. In some cases, Facebook won’t allow them to share my postings.
And I’ve lost count of the number of fellow conservative writers whose pages have been blocked, banned or censored.
So I wasn’t all that surprised when a group of former Facebook workers told the tech news website Gizmodo that they put a liberal spin on “Trending Topics” – and routinely censored conservative news.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg strongly denied the allegations.
“Facebook stands for giving everyone a voice,” he wrote in a Facebook posting. “We believe the world is better when people from different backgrounds and with different ideas all have the power to share their thoughts and experiences. That’s what makes social media unique.”
Mr. Zuckerberg has agreed to meet with some conservative newsmakers later this week to address the allegations that Facebook suppressed conservative content.
“The reason I care so much about this is that it gets to the core of everything Facebook is and everything I want it to be,” he wrote. “Every tool we build is designed to give more people a voice and bring our global community together. For as long as I'm leading this company this will always be our mission.”
I really want to believe that Mr. Zuckerberg’s social networking platform is a place where anyone can share anything –a place that gives people a voice -- including people who ascribe to traditional American values.
Because any community that frowns upon the Good Book and sweet tea is a community that violates my personal standards.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/16/my-conservative-page-got-blocked-by-facebook.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
Speech by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos shut down by protesters at DePaul — police and security don’t intervene
By Eugene Volokh May 25
Robby Soave (Reason’s Hit & Run) has more on the incident, with links. He also notes that DePaul demanded $1,000 for security from the College Republicans, who invited Yiannopoulos, as a condition of allowing him to speak. I think universities shouldn’t do that, but instead assure the safety of speakers and students as part of their own responsibility — but if they do charge the money, shouldn’t they at least give the organizers their money’s worth?
The student independent newspaper, DePaulia, has a similar story. One account by a participant (Michael Sitver, writing in an independent blog post at the Huffington Post) who says he talked to the police officers reports that the officers “wanted to do their job, and remove the protesters, but administrators demanded they stand passively and watch.”
The DePaulia article has this reaction from two DePaul student government officials, who suggest that Yiannopoulos should not have been allowed to speak in the first place, and that excluding him would have been “more neutral”:
Others like former Student Government Association senator and to-be EVP of Student Affairs Andrew Willett and to-be senator Michael Lynch said the university should have stepped in beforehand.
“I personally believe the university should not continue with events that are this controversial,” Willett said. “I think they should try to stay a little more neutral. This creates a hostile environment for learning, and our students are not in the best spots right now. Student safety is first and foremost, and this is not productive.”
DePaul University President Dennis H. Holtschneider issued this statement; I was not impressed by it, but you can decide for yourselves what you think:
I am writing from France, where Fr. Udovic and I are leading a mission trip to introduce our trustees to the life and legacy of St. Vincent de Paul. Because today is a free day, a number of us are spending the day in Normandy, touring the museum, walking the famous beaches of the D-Day landings and standing silent before the rows and rows of graves honoring the men and women who gave their lives so others might live in freedom.
I tell you this because I awoke this morning to the reports and online videos of yesterday’s speech by Milo Yiannopoulos and the accompanying protest. I was sorry to see it.
Mr. Yiannopoulos and I share very few opinions. He argues that there is no wage gap for women, a difficult position to maintain in light of government data. As a gay man, he has claimed that sexual preference is entirely a choice, something few if any LGTBQ individuals would claim as their own experience. He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged in modern society — a statement that is immediately suspect when white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry.
Generally, I do not respond to speakers of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ ilk, as I believe they are more entertainers and self-serving provocateurs than the public intellectuals they purport to be. Their shtick is to shock and incite a strong emotional response they can then use to discredit the moral high ground claimed by their opponents. This is unworthy of university discourse, but not unfamiliar across American higher education. There will always be speakers who exploit the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.
Now that our speaker has moved on to UC Santa Barbara and UCLA, we at DePaul have some reflecting and sorting out to do. Student Affairs will be inviting the organizers of both the event and the protest — as well as any others who wish — to meet with them for this purpose. I’ve asked them to reflect on how future events should be staffed so that they proceed without interruption; how protests are to be more effectively assisted and enabled; and how the underlying differences around race, gender and orientation that were made evident in yesterday’s events can be explored in depth in the coming academic year.
As this proceeds, I wish to make a few matters crystal clear.
Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so. Universities welcome speakers, give their ideas a respectful hearing, and then respond with additional speech countering the ideas. I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.
I was alarmed when I watched individual students on both sides intentionally provoking the others with inflammatory language, but I was proud when I saw students — many students — working to calm each other, and at times, even hold people back from hasty decisions. Many of our students understood that protests only work when people conduct themselves honorably. I wish to thank all of them for self-monitoring the crowd’s behavior. The experience could have been a far worse experience had they not done so.
I wish to thank our Student Affairs staff, Public Safety team, Student Center employees, Chicago police and temporary contract safety personnel. They were thrust into an unexpected and challenging situation that we must examine for hard learned lessons. I am grateful that the situation was calmed and dispersed without serious injury to anyone’s person. I know the staff, too, are reflecting on these events and what might be learned for the future.
On behalf of the university, I apologize to the DePaul College Republicans. They deserved an opportunity to hear their speaker uninterrupted, and were denied it.
Here in Normandy, I expected to be moved by the generosity of those who gave their lives on the beaches early on June 6, 1944. I did not expect, however, to be shocked when I realized that most of the soldiers were the same ages as our students today. The rows on rows of white crosses in the American cemetery speak to the selflessness of the human spirit at early adulthood to lay down their lives for a better world.
I realize that many of yesterday’s protesters hold similarly noble goals for a more inclusive world for those traditionally held aside by our society. I realize also that these young soldiers died for all the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. We honor their sacrifice best if we, too, remember and honor all the rights of human freedom, even as we fight for more freedom and justice for all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/25/speech-by-conservative-speaker-milo-yiannopoulos-shut-down-by-protesters-at-depaul-police-and-security-dont-intervene/
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/20/justice-department-replaces-allah-with-god-in-censored-orlando-terrorist-transcript-n2181111
>:(
-
Conservative Speaker Ben Shapiro: ‘This Is How Free Speech Dies’
Aug. 1, 2016
Carly Hoilman
Another university has reportedly banned conservative pundit Ben Shapiro from speaking at a campus event.
The decision was announced Monday in a blog post published on Shapiro’s Daily Wire. In the post, John Minster, vice president of DePaul University’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter, lamented the collapse of free thought and discussion on the increasingly liberal American campus scene.
“Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses, DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time,” the university’s vice president of facilities operations reportedly told YAF in an email last week.
Following the announcement, both Shapiro and YAF provided statements to Minster.
“It’s both pathetic and predictable that the University is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence,” Shapiro said. “This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.”
“If DePaul cannot trust its delicate liberal snowflake students and administrators to allow Ben to speak his mind safely and freely, it has utterly failed in its mission to ‘[foster] a community that welcomes open discourse.’ Make no mistake, any security concerns we face on campuses are 100 percent incited by the censorious, intolerant Left,” YAF said.
Minster cited the decision to ban Shapiro as evidence that the fundamental American values listed in the First Amendment are “under attack” in the realm of higher education.
Shapiro’s former fellow Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was also banned from speaking at DePaul after the conservative provocateur spoke at an on-campus event earlier this year and drew angry crowds of student activists.
It’s not the first time a university tried to block Shapiro from sharing his perceived controversial political views with students. In February, he was banned from speaking at California State University Los Angeles after protesters pressured administrators by deeming Shapiro’s message to be one of racism and intolerance.
Minster concludes his post with a personal account of his first days at DePaul. He described the confidence he felt that “DePaul, while it was likely opposed to most conservative values, would still allow conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro to be heard just the same as they have other speakers like convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh; that DePaul, while undoubtedly liberal, would still uphold the founding values of freedom of speech and expression.”
“I hope I wasn’t wrong,” Minster writes.
The post ends with a plea from DePaul’s YAF chapter, urging the university “to reverse this disgraceful decision.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/01/depaul-university-reportedly-bans-conservative-speaker-ben-shapiro-this-is-how-free-speech-dies/
-
More from the generation of thin-skinned sissies we are breeding at our colleges and universities. It should be the marketplace of ideas, pro and con, not some place where "offensive" viewpoints get censored.
Student body vice president writes a ‘forget Black Lives Matter’ post, and a university erupts
By Cleve R. Wootson Jr.
August 1, 2016
In the emotional hours after five police officers were shot and killed during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas last month, Rohini Sethi vented on Facebook.
“Forget #BlackLivesMatter;” wrote Sethi, the vice president of the Student Government Association at the University of Houston. “More like AllLivesMatter.”
The post was deleted shortly afterward, but not before word spread through the campus of nearly 43,000 students.
Minority student organizations denounced the post as hateful and inflammatory — unbecoming of a student leader elected to represent the entire student body and who receives a stipend from student fees.
In the ensuing days, minority student organizations would call for her to resign or be ousted from office. A hashtag was born: #RemoveRohini.
. . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/01/student-body-vice-president-writes-a-forget-black-lives-matter-post-and-a-university-erupts/?tid=sm_fb
-
Student facing 50 day suspension for saying 'All Lives Matter'
By Todd Starnes
Published August 03, 2016
FoxNews.com
Politically correct tyranny is afoot at the University of Houston.
I was recently made aware of a student at the university who was suspended for 50 days by the student government association and ordered to attend diversity training over a reference she made about the Black Lives Matter crowd. (She can still go to class but she can't participate in student government activities.)
“#ForgetBlackLivesMatter; more like AllLivesMatter,” wrote Rohini Sethi, the vice president of the school’s student government association.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for conservatives!
Ms. Sethi wrote those words last month just a few hours after five Dallas police officers were assassinated.
Her belief that every life matters set off a firestorm of controversy among students – including the Black Student Union.
They were among several predominantly African-American groups who demanded that Ms. Sethi be punished for exercising her First Amendment rights.
“For her to say on her social media ‘forget black lives matter,’ it’s almost as if to say if all of us were to die tomorrow, she wouldn’t care,” BSU president Kadidja Kone told the Washington Post.
“Just for her to say, ‘forget Black Lives Matter,’ is a punch in the stomach, student Nala Hughes told ABC 13 News in Houston.
The 100 Collegiate Men, an organization for black students, also condemned the idea that all lives matter.
“As of today, African American students do not feel welcome, comfortable, represented, valued or even acknowledged at the University of Houston,” read a statement provided to the Post. “Students at the University of Houston want to feel adequately represented. They do not feel that this is being accomplished as long as Rohini Sethi is in office.”
In order to placate the torches and pitchfork mob, the student government association gave SGA President Shane Smith full authority to mete out a punishment.
And Mr. Smith was more than happy to oblige.
According to the Daily Cougar, Ms. Sethi was suspended from government activities for 50 days.
She was also ordered to attend three cultural events each month, write a letter of reflection on her Facebook posting and make a public presentation “detailing the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”
She was also ordered to attend mandatory diversity training – basically a form of ideological conversion therapy.
It’s ironic because I thought the academic lefties were opposed to conversion therapy.
"The First Amendment prevents a person from being jailed by the government for what they say,” Mr. Smith wrote in a statement. “The First Amendment does not prevent people from receiving other consequences for what they say, including workplace discipline."
I suspect had jail been an option, Mr. Smith would’ve tossed Ms. Sethi in county lockup – just to teach her a lesson.
“It is a fair point that one ignorant social media post alone may not warrant such sanctions,” he wrote. “However, serving in a public role means that we are held to a higher standard – and rightfully so.”
Oh, so Mr. Smith is a school yard bully. I’m certain he will grow up to be a fine community organizer.
But while Mr. Smith’s actions are reprehensible, they are not nearly as reprehensible as the actions of the grownups who actually run the University of Houston.
They provided a statement to the Houston Press – trying to distance themselves from the actions of the student government association.
"The University of Houston continues to stand firm in support of free speech and does not discipline students for exercising their Constitutional rights,” the statement read.
That’s true. They just let power-hungry little fascists-in-training do their dirty work.
Such cowardice!
Ms. Sethi did not return messages seeking comment – but she did post a statement on Facebook.
“I disagree with the sanctions taken against me by my SGA because I believe I have done a great deal to better understand the controversy I caused,” she wrote. “I have also apologized for my words because no student should feel as though I do not have their best interests at heart. Even so, I will abide by the sanctions for as long as they are in place.
Ms. Sethi has done nothing to warrant an apology.
What happened to this young lady is despicable and detestable. She was publically shamed and verbally flogged because she believes every life has value.
But such an opinion is no longer allowed at the University of Houston -- where free speech has been strung up by a politically correct lynch mob.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-day-suspension-for-saying-all-lives-matter.html
-
University Program Director Forced to Resign for Pro-Trump Remark
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
NOVEMBER 14, 2016
On Thursday, University of Rochester's Ted Pawlicki was pressured to step down as undergraduate program director of the Department of Computer Science after posting a pro-Trump remark in the school’s anti-Trump and anti-America protest Facebook page following the election. Pawlicki made the grave sin of not only having a differing view than the masses at the upstate New York school, but having the audacity to vocalize it. Moreover, seemingly all other dissent from professors, school officials and students—from the anti-Trump strain—were not only tolerated but encouraged.
On Wednesday, Professor Pawlicki rebutted the school’s anti-American protest with a joke administered via his personal Facebook account. The professor posted the following comment on the school’s “#NotMyAmerica” protest page: “A bus ticket from Rochester to Canada is $16. If this is not your America, then I will pay for your ticket if you promise to never come back.”
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/final_screenshot.jpg)
“I have reported this as a bias incident report,” wrote student Caleb Krieg.
Many other campus snowflakes were also gravely “offended.”
“Shocking, tone-deaf and insensitive to the students that you teach. Shame on you,” wrote another student, Julie DeLuca.
“This is why women and minorities don’t feel welcome in the computer science department,” wrote student Bethany Gardner, although Pawlicki made no connection to women or minorities…?
Perhaps these students should have never left their safe spaces and continued coloring, holding hands and blowing bubbles, or whatever it is that these frail folks do to avoid reality and dissent.
"It was intended to be humorous, actually," Pawlicki told The Democrat and Chronicle. "Moving to Canada (in reaction to presidential election outcomes) has been a joke since the Reagan administration. I didn't intend it to be malicious, certainly. I don't think there's anything malicious about it, either."
"Pawlicki said he had directed the undergraduate computer science program for 18 years and that, 'I love the job.' He said he would continue in his role as a senior lecturer, an untenured teaching faculty position," reports the D&C.
"It was suggested that I step down (as director) by my chair and my dean and I took their advice," said Pawlicki.
Of course, all the anti-Trump dissent at the university was oddly a-okay.
After the apparently devastating and emotionally crippling election loss of Hillary, the school exploded with grief and anti-Trump and anti-America protests. One student who spoke to the Daily Wire, and wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, told us that “liberal professors have been openly voicing their opinions in classrooms this entire week, and even pushing exams back for students who are ‘emotionally hurt’ [by the election].” The University of Rochester President Joe Seligman even sent out an email on Wednesday to assure students "we are a safe place" and the campus sent out notifications offering free counseling for anyone "struggling" with "last night's election."
Below is a screenshot of the hysterical #NotMyAmerica protest email invite sent to students on campus, which paints all Republicans as racist, sexist bigots.
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/anti_america_.jpg)
Screenshot: Twitter
Pawlicki was compelled to repent for his act of blasphemy, issuing an apology letter and stepping down from his position as program director.
“These remarks were ill-considered,” Pawlicki wrote, “and I deeply regret any and all hurt they occasioned.”
“After reflecting on the impact my remarks have had on students, and following consultation with Dr. Wendi Heinzelman, Dean of Hajim School, and Dr. Sandhya Dwarkadas, Chair of Computer Science, I have decided to step down from the position of Undergraduate Program Director for Computer Science,” he said.
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/letter.jpg)
'Screenshot: Twitter
Students are now claiming that Pawlicki has previously made female students feel "unwelcome," although this is has never been brought to his attention before, Pawlicki says.
"His recent Facebook post was unprofessional and upset many students, but what it also did was prompt students to share similar instances in which Pawlicki has shown bias against women," said senior Lance Floto. "Female students have told me they do not feel comfortable in his class or visiting his office hours."
"Some students have claimed they dropped his classes in the past because of his online remarks," reports the Campus Times.
Pawlicki told the Campus Times "that he was unaware of any students who had dropped his classes for that reason."
The Daily Wire reached out to Mr. Pawlicki for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10766/university-professor-steps-down-program-director-amanda-prestigiacomo#
-
Lol at Libfags. What a bunch of losers and vaginas
-
Confrontation/Marxist Anti-Free Speech Tactics start at 2:30
-
University Program Director Forced to Resign for Pro-Trump Remark
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
NOVEMBER 14, 2016
On Thursday, University of Rochester's Ted Pawlicki was pressured to step down as undergraduate program director of the Department of Computer Science after posting a pro-Trump remark in the school’s anti-Trump and anti-America protest Facebook page following the election. Pawlicki made the grave sin of not only having a differing view than the masses at the upstate New York school, but having the audacity to vocalize it. Moreover, seemingly all other dissent from professors, school officials and students—from the anti-Trump strain—were not only tolerated but encouraged.
On Wednesday, Professor Pawlicki rebutted the school’s anti-American protest with a joke administered via his personal Facebook account. The professor posted the following comment on the school’s “#NotMyAmerica” protest page: “A bus ticket from Rochester to Canada is $16. If this is not your America, then I will pay for your ticket if you promise to never come back.”
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/final_screenshot.jpg)
“I have reported this as a bias incident report,” wrote student Caleb Krieg.
Many other campus snowflakes were also gravely “offended.”
“Shocking, tone-deaf and insensitive to the students that you teach. Shame on you,” wrote another student, Julie DeLuca.
“This is why women and minorities don’t feel welcome in the computer science department,” wrote student Bethany Gardner, although Pawlicki made no connection to women or minorities…?
Perhaps these students should have never left their safe spaces and continued coloring, holding hands and blowing bubbles, or whatever it is that these frail folks do to avoid reality and dissent.
"It was intended to be humorous, actually," Pawlicki told The Democrat and Chronicle. "Moving to Canada (in reaction to presidential election outcomes) has been a joke since the Reagan administration. I didn't intend it to be malicious, certainly. I don't think there's anything malicious about it, either."
"Pawlicki said he had directed the undergraduate computer science program for 18 years and that, 'I love the job.' He said he would continue in his role as a senior lecturer, an untenured teaching faculty position," reports the D&C.
"It was suggested that I step down (as director) by my chair and my dean and I took their advice," said Pawlicki.
Of course, all the anti-Trump dissent at the university was oddly a-okay.
After the apparently devastating and emotionally crippling election loss of Hillary, the school exploded with grief and anti-Trump and anti-America protests. One student who spoke to the Daily Wire, and wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, told us that “liberal professors have been openly voicing their opinions in classrooms this entire week, and even pushing exams back for students who are ‘emotionally hurt’ [by the election].” The University of Rochester President Joe Seligman even sent out an email on Wednesday to assure students "we are a safe place" and the campus sent out notifications offering free counseling for anyone "struggling" with "last night's election."
Below is a screenshot of the hysterical #NotMyAmerica protest email invite sent to students on campus, which paints all Republicans as racist, sexist bigots.
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/anti_america_.jpg)
Screenshot: Twitter
Pawlicki was compelled to repent for his act of blasphemy, issuing an apology letter and stepping down from his position as program director.
“These remarks were ill-considered,” Pawlicki wrote, “and I deeply regret any and all hurt they occasioned.”
“After reflecting on the impact my remarks have had on students, and following consultation with Dr. Wendi Heinzelman, Dean of Hajim School, and Dr. Sandhya Dwarkadas, Chair of Computer Science, I have decided to step down from the position of Undergraduate Program Director for Computer Science,” he said.
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/11/letter.jpg)
'Screenshot: Twitter
Students are now claiming that Pawlicki has previously made female students feel "unwelcome," although this is has never been brought to his attention before, Pawlicki says.
"His recent Facebook post was unprofessional and upset many students, but what it also did was prompt students to share similar instances in which Pawlicki has shown bias against women," said senior Lance Floto. "Female students have told me they do not feel comfortable in his class or visiting his office hours."
"Some students have claimed they dropped his classes in the past because of his online remarks," reports the Campus Times.
Pawlicki told the Campus Times "that he was unaware of any students who had dropped his classes for that reason."
The Daily Wire reached out to Mr. Pawlicki for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10766/university-professor-steps-down-program-director-amanda-prestigiacomo#
How anyone can take a job at these places is beyond me. I couldn't live with the stupidity/hypocrisy.
-
Wonder why we don't here about this on our news outlets??? ???
http://archive.is/cftNS (http://archive.is/cftNS)
New Yorker charged in ’Nice-style Truck Attack in Times Square’ terrorism plot - report
A Brooklyn, New York resident has been charged by federal authorities for supporting terrorism, after making online postings supporting ISIS in plotting to commit an attack in Times Square similar to that in Nice, France.
The man has been identified as Mohammed Rafik Naji, 37, a legal US resident originally from Yemen, according to NBC News investigative reporter Tom Winter.
Naji made several online posts in support of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Winter said, citing the federal complaint.
-
How anyone can take a job at these places is beyond me. I couldn't live with the stupidity/hypocrisy.
I was thinking the same thing. Pretty lame. I've got a book called "Liberal Facism" about this very thing.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/university-new-hampshire-professors-call-trump-supporters-expelled/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/university-new-hampshire-professors-call-trump-supporters-expelled/)
Professors want students suspended for silently protesting the anti-Trump protestors, while dressed as Nixon and Harambe.
-
University of Oregon Professors Could Be Fired If They Offend Students
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/05/10584676434_c9fee88d9a_k-640x480.jpg)
by TOM CICCOTTA
29 Dec 2016
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Last week, administrators at the University of Oregon made it clear to professors that they would be disciplined if they offended students on the subjects of race, gender, sexuality, or religion.
This is a concerning new development considering that this new warning from administrators suggests that professors can be disciplined based upon what students subjectively choose to find offensive. Discipline for remarks made by professors is not limited to bigoted remarks or deliberate racism, but rather any incident that a student may find offensive.
According to The Washington Post, a faculty member could be disciplined for something as innocuous as suggesting that there are biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women.
This time it involved someone making herself up as a black man at a costume party (as it happens, doing so in order to try to send an antiracist message). But according to the university’s logic, a faculty member could be disciplined for displaying the Mohammed cartoons, if it caused enough of a furor. Or a faculty member could be disciplined for suggesting that homosexuality may be immoral or dangerous. Or for stating that biological males who view themselves as female should be viewed as men, not as women. Or for suggesting that there are, on average, biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women.
The warning from administrators came as a result of an incident that occurred in the home a University of Oregon law school professor. The professor, Nancy Shurtz, hosted a Halloween party for some of her students and chose to dress up as a character from the recently acclaimed book, “Black Man in a White Coat.” Shurtz’s decision to dress in blackface, despite the book’s anti-racist message, obviously sparked controversy on campus.
According to Eugene Volokh of The Washington Post, the following acts of expression could be considered harassment under the University of Oregon’s new policy:
Sharp criticism of Islam.
Claims that homosexuality is immoral.
Claims that there are biological differences in aptitude and temperament, on average, between men and women.
Rejection of the view that gender identity can be defined by self-perception, as opposed to biology.
Harsh condemnation of soldiering (that would be harassment based on “service in the uniformed services” or “veteran status”).
Condemnation of people who have children out of wedlock (that would be harassment based on “marital … status” and “family status”).
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/29/5818857/
-
Silence opposing viewpoints. A liberal hallmark.
Trump hints that federal funding could be cut after U.C. Berkeley riot
Published February 02, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Trump tweeted early Thursday that if schools like University of California, Berkeley, do not allow free speech, it may cost them federal funding.
The tweet was in response to violent protests that were in response to a planned talk on campus Wednesday by Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial Breitbart News editor. The talk was canceled due to the protests.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
1:13 AM - 2 Feb 2017
The decision was made two hours before the event because a crowd of more than 1,500 had gathered outside the venue, the university said in a statement.
"Of paramount importance this evening was the campus's commitment to ensure the safety and security of those attending the event, the speaker, those who came to engage in lawful protest, as well as members of the public and the Berkeley campus community," it said.
The 32-year-old right-wing provocateur is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and a self-proclaimed internet troll whose comments have been criticized as racist, misogynist, anti-Muslim and white supremacist. He was banned from Twitter after leading a harassment campaign against "Ghostbusters" actress Leslie Jones.
Yiannopoulos' visit to Berkeley was sponsored by the campus Republican club. The university has stressed it did not invite him and does not endorse his ideas but is committed to free speech and rejected calls to cancel the event.
Hundreds of peaceful demonstrators carrying signs that read "Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech" had been protesting for hours before the event.
In the evening, a small group dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts used metal barricades to break windows, threw smoke bombs and flares, used a diesel generator to start a large bonfire outside the building.
"This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers," said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/trump-hints-that-federal-funding-could-be-cut-after-u-c-berkeley-riot.html
-
And here is one of those tolerant liberals pepper spraying a young woman who had the nerve to show up wearing a MAGA hat.
-
And here is one of those tolerant liberals pepper spraying a young woman who had the nerve to show up wearing a MAGA hat.
I'm 85% sure that the hat says "make Bitcoin great again".
Still, she's going to a Milo/Breitbart event at Cal Berkeley. Should have taken her surroundings into account.
EDIT: Yes, Bitcoin
(https://i.reddituploads.com/5c4e13518f3c407d88005af4a360b217?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=fdaea12292afdccd75b70e62a5857652)
-
Wonder why we don't here about this on our news outlets??? ???
http://archive.is/cftNS (http://archive.is/cftNS)
New Yorker charged in ’Nice-style Truck Attack in Times Square’ terrorism plot - report
A Brooklyn, New York resident has been charged by federal authorities for supporting terrorism, after making online postings supporting ISIS in plotting to commit an attack in Times Square similar to that in Nice, France.
The man has been identified as Mohammed Rafik Naji, 37, a legal US resident originally from Yemen, according to NBC News investigative reporter Tom Winter.
Naji made several online posts in support of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Winter said, citing the federal complaint.
great question ::)
http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/man-arrested-for-plotting-terror-attack-on-times-square/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-brooklyn-man-joined-isis-hoped-attack-nyc-article-1.2882425
http://abc7ny.com/news/prosecutors-man-wanted-to-plan-france-style-attack-in-times-square/1618510/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/nyregion/brooklyn-man-arrested-isis.html?_r=0
-
I had never heard of this Milo Yiannopoulos, but after watching this interview, I like him. He really exposes how pervasive liberal censorship can be. Great interview.
-
Yes, we have countless examples of liberal censorship and lame hurt feelings.
But as a man in the middle, I see plenty of close minded conservatives.
Anything Trump says or does is met with almost GOD like approval.
Objectivity and fair minded judgements are the real victims here.
You can leave or actually contribute something of value to this board (besides your opinions).
-
Yes, we have countless examples of liberal censorship and lame hurt feelings.
But as a man in the middle, I see plenty of close minded conservatives.
Anything Trump says or does is met with almost GOD like approval.
Objectivity and fair minded judgements are the real victims here.
Being close minded in itself is not much of a problem: someone worshiping Obama or Trump as god and ignoring their flaws does not cause much harm to others. The problem starts when people actively try to silence others for their views (real or perceived) and resort to violence and destruction.
-
Hundreds of campuses encourage students to turn in fellow students for offensive speech
By ADAM STEINBAUGH • 2/21/17
Universities are the cradle of free speech, where ideologies and ideas clash, where academics and activists can agree, disagree, or be disagreeable. This is particularly true in the United States, where the First Amendment zealously guards against government surveillance and intrusion into free speech.
Yet at hundreds of campuses across the country, administrators encourage students to report one another, or their professors, for speech protected by the First Amendment, or even mere political disagreements. The so-called "Bias Response Teams" reviewing these (often anonymous) reports typically include police officers, student conduct administrators and public relations staff who scrutinize the speech of activists and academics.
This sounds like the stuff of Orwell, although even he might have found the name "Bias Response Team" to be over-the-top.
Over the past year, I surveyed more than 230 such reporting systems for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and asked dozens of schools for records about their Bias Response Teams. What I found is detailed in a new report describing how universities broadly define "bias" to include virtually any speech, protected or not, that subjectively offends anyone. On many campuses, administrators are called upon to referee whether speech is polite.
The threat to expressive rights isn't confined to speech from the Left or the Right. Bias reporting systems are being used to report all kinds of speech.
At Appalachian State University, students reported on one another for chalked messages that were pro-Trump as well as chalked messages calling Trump a "RACIST." The former were reported by students as "hate speech," the latter "politically biased slander" that was "unlawful."
While students at Ohio State University reported each other for comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler, students at Texas Tech were whispering to administrators that the Black Student Union's tweets in support of the Black Lives Matter movement offended them. Meanwhile, the University of Oregon saw it fit to dictate "community expectations" to students who had the audacity to complain about oppression.
Yes, complaining about oppression may bring the Bias Response Team to your dorm room to explain why your views were insufficiently polite, decent, and non-controversial.
These are just a few of the examples we've published so far, and over the next several weeks we plan on publishing more on our website.
What happens when the Bias Response Team is alerted to subversive or offensive speech? Some teams have demonstrated an awareness that a public university cannot (and should not) act to chill protected speech, focusing their efforts instead on supporting students who encounter offensive speech. But others, such as the University of California, San Diego, call upon their lawyers to find "creative" ways to censor offensive speech: in that case, a student newspaper satirizing "safe spaces." (The university is now being sued for these "creative" efforts.)
Many Bias Response Teams respond with what they characterize as an "educational" response. This might sound like a faculty member visiting a student who was reported for racist speech and discussing the Civil Rights movement. But it's not. Rather, it's often an administrator, not an educator, summoning a student or faculty member to a meeting, reprimanding them, and "educating" them about how their words upset someone.
That was the case at the University of Northern Colorado, where an adjunct professor encouraged students to confront views with which they disagreed. When a student sparred with the professor over transgender rights, a debate raging both in the media media and legislative and judicial chambers, the professor was summoned to meet with an administrator, who warned the professor that discussing such issues might result in lengthy investigations.
How will students be able to defend their rights in the legislature or the courts if debating them in the classroom is to be discouraged?
Students face serious instances of harassment, true threats, and other conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. Yet in asking students to report any and all offensive speech, universities risk undermining their commitment to free discourse and debate.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/students-rat-each-other-out-over-speech/article/2615405
-
Protesters seek to disrupt Villanova lecture; 3 removed
Students gather outside the Garey Hall auditorium on the on campus of Villanova University to hear controversial social scientist Charles Murray speak on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
by Maria Panaritis, Staff Writer @panaritism | mpanaritis@phillynews.com
Villanova University public safety officers removed at least three protesters from a Thursday afternoon lecture by Charles Murray, the controversial social scientist accused of being a white nationalist over his writings about race, economic status and intelligence.
A fourth protester left on his own.
The ejections came amid a heavy police presence outside the law school on the Main Line campus, where Murray had been invited to deliver a lecture titled "What Does Trumpism Mean for Liberty in the Long Run?"
Though planned months ago, his visit comes three weeks after a similar talk at Middlebury College in Vermont sparked violence. Demonstrators there swarmed and rocked a car in which and a professor were riding; the professor with him suffered a concussion.
About a dozen protestors gathered inside and outside the hall, and a few dozen students mulled about outside, but it was unclear if they were observing or participating.
At one point, the few outside protesters began shouting so loudly it disrupted Murray's remarks before 120 ticketed guests.
"No Murray! No KKK! No fascist USA !" they chanted.
At one point, Murray grew exasperated.
"Okay folks," Murray said from a lectern, "I'm getting a little pissed at this point."
Murray, 74, is known for a 1994 book, The Bell Curve, that drew controversial lines between race, IQ and socio-economics. Critics have complained that it amounted to "scientific racism."
He forcefully defended himself against such claims at Villanova. He had been invited by the Ryan Center, which says it wants to promote civil, economic, and financial liberty; federalism; and the American Constitution.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Murray-lecture-Villanova-protest.html
-
Protesters seek to disrupt Villanova lecture; 3 removed
Students gather outside the Garey Hall auditorium on the on campus of Villanova University to hear controversial social scientist Charles Murray speak on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
by Maria Panaritis, Staff Writer @panaritism | mpanaritis@phillynews.com
Villanova University public safety officers removed at least three protesters from a Thursday afternoon lecture by Charles Murray, the controversial social scientist accused of being a white nationalist over his writings about race, economic status and intelligence.
A fourth protester left on his own.
The ejections came amid a heavy police presence outside the law school on the Main Line campus, where Murray had been invited to deliver a lecture titled "What Does Trumpism Mean for Liberty in the Long Run?"
Though planned months ago, his visit comes three weeks after a similar talk at Middlebury College in Vermont sparked violence. Demonstrators there swarmed and rocked a car in which and a professor were riding; the professor with him suffered a concussion.
About a dozen protestors gathered inside and outside the hall, and a few dozen students mulled about outside, but it was unclear if they were observing or participating.
At one point, the few outside protesters began shouting so loudly it disrupted Murray's remarks before 120 ticketed guests.
"No Murray! No KKK! No fascist USA !" they chanted.
At one point, Murray grew exasperated.
"Okay folks," Murray said from a lectern, "I'm getting a little pissed at this point."
Murray, 74, is known for a 1994 book, The Bell Curve, that drew controversial lines between race, IQ and socio-economics. Critics have complained that it amounted to "scientific racism."
He forcefully defended himself against such claims at Villanova. He had been invited by the Ryan Center, which says it wants to promote civil, economic, and financial liberty; federalism; and the American Constitution.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Murray-lecture-Villanova-protest.html
LOL @ "scientific racism"
hehe.. scientific facts are racist... amazing
-
Ann Coulter rejects Berkeley's proposal to reschedule her speech
Published April 21, 2017
FoxNews.com
Ann Coulter said no to a proposal by the University of California, Berkeley, that would reschedule her planned speech on campus -- to a date when no formal classes are in session.
"You cannot impose arbitrary and harassing restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right," Coulter told "Hannity" on Thursday night. "None of this has to do with security."
The conservative commentator initially agreed to speak at Berkeley on April 27 after college Republicans invited her, but the school canceled on Wednesday citing threats of rioting and other violence. Still, Coulter said she would show up anyway.
ANN COULTER VOWS TO SPEAK AT BERKELEY AFTER EVENT CALLED OFF
"What are they going to do? Arrest me?" she asked Tucker Carlson that evening.
By Thursday, the university announced it could round up the proper security to let her speak on May 2. The school's academic calendar shows that it falls in a "Reading/Review/Recitation Week" after the end of formal classes but before final exams.
"I'm speaking at Berkeley on April 27th, as I was invited to do and have a contract to do," Coulter tweeted. She also claimed she was unavailable May 2.
NY'S FREE-TUITION PROGRAM BLASTED BY BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT
It was the latest skirmish in a free-speech fight involving conservative voices on college campuses across the country, including at Berkeley. In February, masked rioters at the school smashed windows, set fires, and shut down an appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Last week, the Berkeley College Republicans said threats of violence forced them to cancel a speech by writer David Horowitz. Writer Charles Murray's appearance at Middlebury saw riots last month, and Heather Mac Donald's speech at Claremont McKenna College was streamed online earlier this month after protesters blocked the door to the venue.
Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks told a news conference that police had "very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker," her audience, and protesters if the event goes ahead next Thursday. He urged Coulter to speak at the later date instead, when the university can provide an "appropriate, protectable venue."
The Berkeley College Republicans invited Coulter to speak on the subject of illegal immigration.
Campus spokesman Dan Moguluf said Coulter's promise "to come to the campus come what may" prompted Dirks to launch an expanded search beyond the usual venues for high-profile speakers to find one where officials can ensure safety.
Berkeley has been the site of clashes between far-right and far-left protesters, most recently at a rally last weekend called in support of President Donald Trump in downtown Berkeley.
Mogulof said campus police learned that some of the groups that appeared to be responsible for the violence last weekend and at the Yiannopoulos event "planned to target the appearance of Ann Coulter on campus."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/21/ann-coulter-rejects-berkeleys-proposal-to-reschedule-her-speech.html
-
Bunch of outdoes
-
We all have to understand one thing about the left, or what it really is nowadays, the radical left: they will piggy-back off of genuine popular discontent, take control of and eventually run any method of dissent. They do so not because they really feel for the red spotted owl of North Dakota, but because it gets them "popular support," or a step closer to getting the power.
So it shouldn't come as any surprise that they will do their utmost to silence any critics, including sabotaging anything allowed by the Fifth Amendment.
Remember, ONLY THEM want: 1) peace on earth, 2) an articulate, free and affluent middle class, 3) free education, 4) zero pollution, 5) gay and women rights to be observed, 6) free and effective press/media, et cetera. TO THEM, conservatives are the exact opposite of this, and that is the mistake they keep making here in the US, the mistake they've made in the past around the world that has cost hundreds of millions of human lives and a mistake they will continue to make unless genuine discontent isn't allowed to flow through the proper and much more effective channels.
The censorship methods used by the radical left are essentially the same as the ones used by Stalin's people in the old USSR. It started in the very same manner: They were initially allowed to coexist to as to "save face," then groups of "uncontrolled citizens" (in reality they were government agents) began sabotaging and even killing dissenters and eventually they just killed anyone who uttered anything remotely critical of the status quo.
All in the name of "popular support".
-
Boos drown out Betsy DeVos' speech at Bethune-Cookman graduation
USA TODAY NETWORK Caroline Glenn, Florida Today
May 10, 2017
Education Secretary Betsy Devos delievered the commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman, a historically black university. Video by Caroline Glenn, FLORIDA TODAY
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos struggled to deliver her commencement speech at a historically black college Wednesday, as the crowd drowned out her words with roaring boos.
Her remarks at Bethune-Cookman University on the importance of education were overpowered by calls from the audience to "shut the (expletive) up" and "not a Wildcat," the name of the university's teams.
Jeers from the audience persisted throughout her 20-minute speech, when she was introduced and while she accepted an honorary degree.
More: Petition supported by teachers' unions asks college to disinvite DeVos
At one point, university President Edison Jackson interrupted DeVos to warn students, "If this behavior continues, we can mail the degrees to you." At least one person was escorted out of the arena.
Online petitions managed to collect signatures from about 60,000 people who didn't want DeVos at Bethune-Cookman. A handful of protesters from the NAACP, Florida Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, also flocked to Daytona Beach's convention center, the site of the graduation.
Still, Jackson defended the decision at a news conference before the event.
After an hour delay, during which journalists could not leave the building to speak with students or protesters, Jackson answered only three of four questions.
TomJoyner Foundation @tomjoynerfound
"If this behavior continues, your degrees will be mailed to you. Choose which way you want to go." - @bethunecookman President Jackson says.
7:11 AM - 10 May 2017
The university volunteered one student to speak to the media, but he was quickly whisked away as reporters began asking questions.
"We have always been in the business of making friends, and if you don't have friends, it's very difficult to raise money," Jackson said during a news conference before the ceremony. "Her department controls roughly 80% of Title IV monies, as well as grants. So why wouldn't we want to make friends?"
Protesters from The Dream Defenders, a Florida youth organization working to better the lives of black communities, said DeVos will actually make it harder for Bethune-Cookman graduates to pay back their student loans after she halted an Obama-era program to help students manage federal college loans.
"Betsy DeVos should not be speaking at an HBCU. Betsy DeVos should not be the speaker at any educational institution," Rachel Gilmer, co-director of Dream Defenders, said in reference to DeVos' favoritism for non-traditional public schools.
A group of students stand and turn their backs during
A group of students stand and turn their backs during a commencement speech by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos at Bethune-Cookman University on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, in Daytona Beach, Fla. (Photo: John Raoux, AP)
Protesters said the move polarized what should be a day focused on the graduating students.
"This was not supposed to be a political event," said Keon Williams, a Bethune-Cookman alumnus. "They made this about politics."
More: Trump orders DeVos to get rid of 'overreaching mandates' in schools
In February, President Trump met with leaders from America's historically black colleges and universities when he signed an executive order to move assistance for the institutions from the Department of Education to the White House.
That's where, school officials said, the conversation started to bring DeVos to Bethune-Cookman's graduation. The decision to have DeVos address the some-300 graduating students came under immediate scrutiny.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos spoke at a recent summit in Utah. Video provided by Newsy Newslook
Opponents pointed to DeVos' past comments about HBCUs as the "real pioneers when it comes to school choice. They are living proof that when more options are provided to students, they are afforded greater access and greater quality. Their success has shown that more options help students flourish.”
Critics quickly slammed DeVos' statement, arguing HBCUs were the only choice.
More: After backlash for hailing HBCUs as school choice 'pioneers', DeVos pivots her message
Clifford Porter, assistant vice president for institutional advancement, said while the university is "very aware of the misstatement," he hoped Wednesday's event would be an opportunity to educate DeVos about HBCUs.
Students and alumni also have taken issue with the university's perceived comparison of DeVos to their school's founder, Mary McLeod Bethune, an educator, humanitarian and civil rights activist.
"We couldn't disagree more," Gilmer said.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/10/betsy-devos-bethune-cookman-university-boos/316326001/
-
No doubt emboldened by getting rid of O'Reilly.
Sean Hannity Sees Liberal Attempt To Drive Him Off The Air: ‘This Is A Kill Shot’
The Fox News host defiantly pushes back against critics in a HuffPost interview just as a first advertiser flees.
By Michael Calderone
05/24/2017
As Fox News host Sean Hannity came under fire for fueling a conspiracy theory about a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer, Media Matters on Tuesday ran a straightforward, yet potentially ominous headline for him: “These are Sean Hannity’s advertisers.”
Last month, then-Fox News star and accused sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly saw more than 50 companies quickly flee his show following an advertiser boycott led by Media Matters and other progressive organizations. Hannity tweeted more than a dozen times Wednesday that “liberal fascists” at Media Matters now were targeting him just as Cars.com became the first advertiser to jump ship.
The recent attention being paid to his advertisers, Hannity said in an interview with HuffPost, is an attempt by progressives to silence his conservative voice.
“There’s nothing that I did, nothing that I said, except they don’t like my position politically,” he said. “They’ll try to ratchet up the intensity of their rationale. It does not justify an attempt to get me fired. And that’s what this is. This is an attempt to take me out. This is a kill shot.”
Media Matters president Angelo Carusone told HuffPost his organization isn’t pushing for an advertiser boycott. He said readers turn to the group for information on conservative media figures, and an accurate list of advertisers was relevant to post given the public outcry over Hannity’s coverage of Seth Rich’s slaying.
Conspiracy theorists have claimed the 27-year-old DNC staffer was murdered last summer in Washington in retaliation for being WikiLeaks’ source of party emails later published online. The U.S. intelligence community, though, concluded it was Russian hackers who infiltrated the DNC and not the work of an internal whistleblower. Washington police consider Rich’s murder to have been a botched robbery attempt. And Rich’s parents have asked for people to stop politicizing their son’s death.
But Hannity continued pushing the theory on his radio show Tuesday afternoon even after Fox News’ website retracted a story featuring unproven claims of a link between Rich and WikiLeaks. He later teased a major development coming on his Tuesday night Fox News show. But Hannity said during the broadcast that he would stop speaking about the case at this time out of respect for Rich’s family.
Hannity told HuffPost he received no pressure from Fox News brass or Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox, to back off the story.
“I did it out of my own heart,” he said. “Nobody tells me what to say on my show. They never have and frankly they never will. I’m not that type of person you can say, ‘Go on air and say this.’ That’s been the beauty of Fox News all these years. They leave me alone.”
A year ago, Fox News appeared invincible amid 15 years of rating dominance among cable news networks. But co-founder and chairman Roger Ailes left in disgrace in July following a sexual harassment scandal; he died last week. O’Reilly, the top-rated cable host, swiftly lost his perch in April following a social media-fueled boycott. Co-president Bill Shine, who Hannity personally advocated for on Twitter, was out weeks later.
Carusone said he views Hannity “freaking out” on Twitter as evidence of “palpable fear and anxiety,” given those high-profile departures from Fox News. “I think it illustrates the anxiety he feels,” he said. Still, Carusone also said Hannity was exploiting the opportunity to attack the left.
Last week, Media Matters launched a campaign ― “Know What You’re Sponsoring” ― that’s aimed at making sure “ad buyers know what their clients are sponsoring if they spend their ad dollars with Fox,” according to the group’s release. Carusone said posting the list of Hannity’s advertisers is “a continuation of that conversation,” and pointed out that Media Matters compiled it through publicly available information.
Carusone said the problem with Hannity’s brand right now from an advertiser perspective is not that it’s conservative, but that it’s “completely volatile.”
Hannity said he thinks Media Matters is “being cute” in claiming not to be leading and advertiser boycott.
“There is an attempt, at this moment in time, to absolutely shut down the Fox News Channel and render it, frankly, a shadow of its former self,” said Hannity. “I’m like the last, sole remaining person there from the old guard.”
“I think a lot of this is rooted in that people view that Fox did have an impact, people like me did have an impact in the [2016] election, or why would they waste their time, why would they care?” he said.
Noting that he’s been “advancing a hard-hitting narrative about the media and a hard-hitting narrative about the ‘Destroy Trump’ movement and a hard-hitting narrative about how there is no Russia-Trump collusion,” he said of his critics: “Probably they don’t want me around for the 2018 elections and the 2020 elections. So I do believe if they can shut me down, silence me, there’s political benefits for them.”
Hannity said he’s opposed calls to boycott controversial left-leaning hosts like HBO’s Bill Maher and CBS’s Stephen Colbert, and that if people don’t like what someone is saying on TV they can change the channel or turn off it off.
But pressuring advertisers, he said, can “silence the voice.”
“Maybe they think that they’ll be able to mount my head on a trophy and put it in their living room somewhere,” he said. “But what is the net impact of all of this?”
Conservatives, he said, may react by going “after [MSNBC’s} Rachel Maddow. And then maybe they’ll go after [MSNBC’s] Lawrence O’Donnell. And then maybe they’ll go after [CNN’s] Anderson Cooper.”
Hannity said it’s great to have hosts with views “so diametrically opposed to mine” on competing networks.
“The danger here is so profound in as much as what we’re really saying is, ‘You’d better not cross this line or this line or this ― and the line keeps changing ― or we’re going to shut you down or we’re going to intimidate you.’ I actually think that coming from that side of the aisle it is the greatest hypocrisy ever.”
Still, the controversy that has embroiled Hannity didn’t stem from his long-running conservative views or unapologetic support of President Trump. He’s drawn heavy scrutiny for using his radio and TV platforms to promote a baseless theory about Rich’s death.
Over the past week, Hannity has aired a clip of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeming to imply in a Dutch TV interview that Rich was a source for his organization. Hannity said Assange told him Russia wasn’t the source of the Democratic emails and that he viewed the WikiLeaks chief’s comments to Dutch TV as suggesting Rich was.
Though Hannity at least temporarily backed off the Rich story on Tuesday night, it remains to be seen if enough damage was done from an advertiser standpoint.
Hannity said he’s worked in an environment every day for decades “knowing people want to get me fired.”
“The great thing is, in my heart, I’m at peace,” he said. “I know I did nothing wrong.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-kill-shot_us_5925e4e1e4b0265790f4a432?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
-
LOL - somehow liberals are controlling what Faux News does
how does that work?
-
LOL - somehow liberals are controlling what Faux News does
how does that work?
________________________
Portland Burrito Shop Forced to Close After Getting Hounded for ‘Stealing From Mexico’
heatst.com ^ | May 23, 2017 | William Hicks
Posted on 5/24/2017, 8:09:43 PM by lowbridge
Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly, owners of Portland pop-up shop Kooks Burritos, just wanted to make and sell some really great burritos. So when they were on a trip to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, they “picked the brains” of the local tortilla ladies and brought those recipes back to the States.
“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” Connelly told Willamette Weekly. “They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins. They wouldn’t tell us too much about technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look. We learned quickly it isn’t quite that easy.”
Whelp, apparently this interview sparked an Internet shitstorm, which ended in Kooks Burritos shutting down and the two white women who owned it scrubbing social media of the business’ existence.
Wilgus and Connelly were accused of cultural appropriation by the Internet mob, and even the theft of PoC’s recipes.
(Excerpt) Read more at heatst.com ...
-
Absolutely outstanding commentary.
-
School Photoshopped Trump Shirts Out of Yearbook
-
Shadow banning on Twitter.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=641813.0
-
People who listen to Ben Shapiro speak might need counseling? lol. A generation of hypersensitive sissies.
UConn accused of bias in handling of conservative speaker
Elizabeth Llorente By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News
An appearance Wednesday evening by a conservative speaker has sparked a free speech controversy at the University of Connecticut, whose handling of the event has been slammed as both biased and overzealous.
Ben Shapiro, a political commentator and author whose 2013 book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” was a New York Times bestseller, will be speaking at the invitation of a campus Republican group.
But the university approved the group's request for Shapiro's appearance only after holding a so-called pre-event review process that led to the decision to restrict access to the event, and even offer counseling to students who might be offended by it.
And earlier this month, a school official dashed off an email to students alerting them that Shapiro was appearing, adding that “even the thought of an individual coming to campus with the views that Mr. Shapiro expresses can be concerning and even hurtful.”
Republican student groups and Young America’s Foundation, a national group that has handled Shapiro’s talks around the country, charged the university's action leading up to his appearance were overzealous, and biased against conservatives.
“What we saw with their review process that they subjected this lecturer to was limitations on who could attend -- students and professors – where it could take place, an advance guest list,” said Spencer Brown, spokesman for the Young America’s Foundation. “It’s a frivolous level of restrictions.”
Brown said liberal speakers at UConn were not subject to the same level of scrutiny. He said that a recent speech by Anita Hill, the lawyer and scholar who in 1991 testified about sexual harassment before a Senate committee hearing on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, was treated by college officials much differently. In Hill's case, the university was both supportive, and opened her appearance to the public, said Brown.
It’s a frivolous level of restrictions. College campuses for a long time have gotten away with being indoctrination places for leftists.
- Spencer Brown, spokesman, Young America's Foundation
“College campuses for a long time have gotten away with being indoctrination places for leftists,” Brown told Fox News. “The diversity officer’s email conditioned people to react negatively to opposing ideas.”
Last year, the University of California, Berkeley came under fire by Republicans and conservatives when its executive vice chancellor, Paul Alivisatos, urged that ahead of a planned lecture by Shapiro, students and faculty members seek counseling.
spencer
Spencer Brown, spokesman of Young America's Foundation. (Courtesy of Spencer Brown)
University of Connecticut officials insist they do not discriminate based on political ideology. They have told reporters they decided to implement a review process after a speech titled “It Is O.K. To Be White” last November by conservative commentator Lucian Wintrich ended in a scuffle, after a member of audience snatched the speaker’s notes from the lectern, and then Wintrich grabbed her to retrieve his papers. The woman, Catherine Gregory, an adviser at a community college, was arrested and charged with larceny and disorderly conduct.
College officials say it is easier to hold members of the audience accountable if they limit crowd sizes and other conditions.
In a statement to Fox News, college spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said: “UConn recently updated its event planning review procedures to better ensure that the First Amendment rights of all invited speakers, audience members at their events, and others are respected and protected.”
Asked about the controversial email by the college’s diversity officer, Joelle Murchison, alerting students about Shapiro and describing the event as understandably hurtful, Reitz said: “One issue that’s considered in the course of the pre-event reviews is whether there might be protesters on site, or whether students who disagree with a speaker are aware of ways to express themselves peacefully.”
“In this case, we sent an informational email to a small portion of the student body to let them know of the upcoming event,” Reitz said. “It’s not a ‘warning,’ as it’s been described by some. It’s simply a way to make sure that UConn students know of on-campus programs or services if they want to talk with others about their views.”
Asked if the college has taken similar steps with students who might find events featuring liberal speakers troubling, Reitz said it has. “It’s part of the review process and in fact, the university specifically reached out to the College Republicans about Nathan Robinson’s visit for the same reason,” she said.
New Orleans public defender Robinson will be speaking Wednesday evening at a counter-event, at the invitation of UConn’s Democratic students club. His speech is titled, "Ben Shapiro is not as insightful as he thinks he is."
The procedures are meant to be an objective planning tool to help ensure that events can take place without interruptions or safety issues, and aren’t based on a speaker’s political ideology.
- Stephanie Reitz, spokeswoman, University of Connecticut
Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor and editor-in-chief of conservative news and commentary site The Daily Wire, challenges the approaches many colleges take to his events. Liberal leanings of colleges is, in fact, one of his themes.
At a college speech, he brought along a diaper and said it was for “self-indulgent pathetic children who can’t handle anyone with an opposing point of view.”
It's not just conservatives who challenge the tensions that arise at colleges over controversial speakers. Many First Amendment experts have been watching campus battles over speakers such as Shapiro with concern.
Brookings Institution senior fellow John Villasenor conducted a survey on free speech last year of 1,500 college and university students and found an overwhelming intolerance of people who express opposing views.
A majority, or 62 percent, of Democrats, and 39 percent of Republicans, said it was acceptable to shout down the speaker.
A fifth of the respondents said they agreed with using physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”
A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.
- John Villasenor, senior fellow, Brookings Institution
Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on Twitter @Liz_Llorente.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/24/uconn-accused-bias-in-handling-conservative-speaker.html
-
The beauty of all this is that all these liberal fags will never be competition in the market
People who listen to Ben Shapiro speak might need counseling? lol. A generation of hypersensitive sissies.
UConn accused of bias in handling of conservative speaker
Elizabeth Llorente By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News
An appearance Wednesday evening by a conservative speaker has sparked a free speech controversy at the University of Connecticut, whose handling of the event has been slammed as both biased and overzealous.
Ben Shapiro, a political commentator and author whose 2013 book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” was a New York Times bestseller, will be speaking at the invitation of a campus Republican group.
But the university approved the group's request for Shapiro's appearance only after holding a so-called pre-event review process that led to the decision to restrict access to the event, and even offer counseling to students who might be offended by it.
And earlier this month, a school official dashed off an email to students alerting them that Shapiro was appearing, adding that “even the thought of an individual coming to campus with the views that Mr. Shapiro expresses can be concerning and even hurtful.”
Republican student groups and Young America’s Foundation, a national group that has handled Shapiro’s talks around the country, charged the university's action leading up to his appearance were overzealous, and biased against conservatives.
“What we saw with their review process that they subjected this lecturer to was limitations on who could attend -- students and professors – where it could take place, an advance guest list,” said Spencer Brown, spokesman for the Young America’s Foundation. “It’s a frivolous level of restrictions.”
Brown said liberal speakers at UConn were not subject to the same level of scrutiny. He said that a recent speech by Anita Hill, the lawyer and scholar who in 1991 testified about sexual harassment before a Senate committee hearing on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, was treated by college officials much differently. In Hill's case, the university was both supportive, and opened her appearance to the public, said Brown.
It’s a frivolous level of restrictions. College campuses for a long time have gotten away with being indoctrination places for leftists.
- Spencer Brown, spokesman, Young America's Foundation
“College campuses for a long time have gotten away with being indoctrination places for leftists,” Brown told Fox News. “The diversity officer’s email conditioned people to react negatively to opposing ideas.”
Last year, the University of California, Berkeley came under fire by Republicans and conservatives when its executive vice chancellor, Paul Alivisatos, urged that ahead of a planned lecture by Shapiro, students and faculty members seek counseling.
spencer
Spencer Brown, spokesman of Young America's Foundation. (Courtesy of Spencer Brown)
University of Connecticut officials insist they do not discriminate based on political ideology. They have told reporters they decided to implement a review process after a speech titled “It Is O.K. To Be White” last November by conservative commentator Lucian Wintrich ended in a scuffle, after a member of audience snatched the speaker’s notes from the lectern, and then Wintrich grabbed her to retrieve his papers. The woman, Catherine Gregory, an adviser at a community college, was arrested and charged with larceny and disorderly conduct.
College officials say it is easier to hold members of the audience accountable if they limit crowd sizes and other conditions.
In a statement to Fox News, college spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said: “UConn recently updated its event planning review procedures to better ensure that the First Amendment rights of all invited speakers, audience members at their events, and others are respected and protected.”
Asked about the controversial email by the college’s diversity officer, Joelle Murchison, alerting students about Shapiro and describing the event as understandably hurtful, Reitz said: “One issue that’s considered in the course of the pre-event reviews is whether there might be protesters on site, or whether students who disagree with a speaker are aware of ways to express themselves peacefully.”
“In this case, we sent an informational email to a small portion of the student body to let them know of the upcoming event,” Reitz said. “It’s not a ‘warning,’ as it’s been described by some. It’s simply a way to make sure that UConn students know of on-campus programs or services if they want to talk with others about their views.”
Asked if the college has taken similar steps with students who might find events featuring liberal speakers troubling, Reitz said it has. “It’s part of the review process and in fact, the university specifically reached out to the College Republicans about Nathan Robinson’s visit for the same reason,” she said.
New Orleans public defender Robinson will be speaking Wednesday evening at a counter-event, at the invitation of UConn’s Democratic students club. His speech is titled, "Ben Shapiro is not as insightful as he thinks he is."
The procedures are meant to be an objective planning tool to help ensure that events can take place without interruptions or safety issues, and aren’t based on a speaker’s political ideology.
- Stephanie Reitz, spokeswoman, University of Connecticut
Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor and editor-in-chief of conservative news and commentary site The Daily Wire, challenges the approaches many colleges take to his events. Liberal leanings of colleges is, in fact, one of his themes.
At a college speech, he brought along a diaper and said it was for “self-indulgent pathetic children who can’t handle anyone with an opposing point of view.”
It's not just conservatives who challenge the tensions that arise at colleges over controversial speakers. Many First Amendment experts have been watching campus battles over speakers such as Shapiro with concern.
Brookings Institution senior fellow John Villasenor conducted a survey on free speech last year of 1,500 college and university students and found an overwhelming intolerance of people who express opposing views.
A majority, or 62 percent, of Democrats, and 39 percent of Republicans, said it was acceptable to shout down the speaker.
A fifth of the respondents said they agreed with using physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”
A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.
- John Villasenor, senior fellow, Brookings Institution
Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on Twitter @Liz_Llorente.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/24/uconn-accused-bias-in-handling-conservative-speaker.html
-
The beauty of all this is that all these liberal fags will never be competition in the market
True, except for Ivy League grads, who will continue to run the country.
-
EXCLUSIVE: YouTube Secretly Using SPLC To Police Videos
PETER HASSON
Reporter
02/27/2018
The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.
The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.
The SPLC and other program members help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos.
All of the groups in the program have confidentiality agreements, a spokesperson for Google, YouTube’s parent company, previously told TheDC. A handful of YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers,” including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech — a European organization focused on combatting intolerance — have gone public with their participation in the program. The vast majority of the groups in the program have remained hidden behind their confidentiality agreements.
The SPLC’s close involvement in policing content on YouTube is likely to cause consternation among conservatives who worry that they may not be treated fairly. The left-wing group has consistently labeled pedestrian conservative organizations as “hate groups” and has been directly tied to violence against conservatives in the past. Floyd Lee Corkins, who opened fire at the Family Research Center in 2012, said he chose the FRC for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a “hate group.”
It’s unclear when the SPLC joined YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program. The program goes back to 2012 but exploded in size in recent years amid a Google push to increase regulation of the content on its platforms, which followed pressure from advertisers. Fifty of the 113 program members joined in 2017 as YouTube stepped up its content policing, YouTube public policy director Juniper Downs told a Senate committee in January.
Downs said the third-party groups work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, both of which a Google spokesperson previously confirmed to TheDC.
First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.
“We work with over 100 organizations as part of our Trusted Flagger program and we value the expertise these organizations bring to flagging content for review. All trusted flaggers attend a YouTube training to learn about our policies and enforcement processes. Videos flagged by trusted flaggers are reviewed by YouTube content moderators according to YouTube’s Community Guidelines. Content flagged by trusted flaggers is not automatically removed or subject to any differential policies than content flagged from other users,” said a YouTube spokesperson, who would not specifically comment on the SPLC’s participation in the program.
The SPLC did not return multiple voicemails and emails seeking comment.
The overwhelming majority of the content policing on Google and YouTube is carried out by algorithms. The algorithms make for an easy rebuttal against charges of political bias: it’s not us, it’s the algorithm. But actual people with actual biases write, test and monitor the algorithms.
As noted above, Google’s anonymous outside partners (such as the SPLC) work closely with the internal experts designing the algorithms. This close collaboration has upsides, Google’s representatives have said, such as in combatting terrorist propaganda on the platform.
But it also provides little transparency, forcing users to take Google’s word that they’re being treated fairly.
The SPLC has faced criticism for its cavalier definitions of “hate group” and “extremist.” The organization stoked controversy in 2015 by labeling Dr. Ben Carson, now the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an anti-gay “extremist.” After a backlash, the SPLC reversed its ruling and apologized to Carson.
The organization faced a similarly intense backlash in 2016 for labeling Maajid Nawaz, a respected counter-extremism activist, an “anti-Muslim extremist.” (RELATED: SPLC Says Army Bases Are Confederate Monuments That Need To Come Down)
The Washington Examiner’s Emily Jashinsky noted last year that “the SPLC’s claim to objectivity is nothing less than fraudulent, a reality that informed observers of its practices from both the Left and Right accept.”
“The routine of debunking their supposedly objective classifications occurs like clockwork each time a major outlet makes the mistake of turning to them when reporting on the many conservative thinkers and nonprofits the group absurdly designates as hateful.”
The SPLC has faced tough criticisms not just from conservatives but from the mainstream press as well.
“At a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation,” Politico Magazine’s Ben Schreckinger wrote last year.
Bloomberg columnist Megan McArdle similarly noted last year that the SPLC commonly lumps in principled conservatives alongside actual racists and extremists and warned of the possibility that tech companies could rely on the SPLC’s misleading definitions.
“Given the increasing tendency of powerful tech companies to flex their muscle against hate groups,” she wrote, “we may see more and more institutions unwittingly turned into critics or censors, not just of Nazi propaganda, but also of fairly mainstream ideas.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/27/google-youtube-southern-poverty-law-center-censorship/
-
College Student Booted Out of Class for Saying 'There Are Only Two Genders'
03-13-2018
CBN News
A student was kicked out of a Christianity class at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania recently when he questioned the instructor's teaching and said there are only two genders.
Lake Ingle, a senior religious studies major, was barred from the class after he questioned Professor Alison Downie during her lecture titled "Christianity 481: Self, Sin, and Salvation," according to a report from the website Campus Reform.
The professor showed a 15-minute TED Talk to the class by transgender and ex-pastor Paula Stone Williams. In the video, Williams discussed "mansplaining," 'sexism from men," and "male privilege." The instructor then asked the women in the class to share their thoughts.
Ingle waited, and when no one responded, Ingle said he objected to the use of one woman's experience in which they were considered to be reality. He also talked about the official view of biologists who claim there are only two biological genders. He also disputed the "gender wage gap," according to the website.
"It was during my objection that Dr. Downie attempted to silence me because I am not a woman," he said.
Downie then asked Ingle to leave the class and not come back. The class is a required course he needs to complete in order to graduate at the end of this semester.
Ingle received a letter from IUP Provost Timothy Moerland on March 2, informing him he had been barred from the class according to the university's Classroom Disruption policy.
The student has been charged with "Disrespectful objection to the professor's class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; and making a disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor's personal prejudice."
Ingle was told by the university he must apologize to the professor for each offense and apologize to the class for his behavior after which he must listen as the professor or any student shares how they felt during Ingles "disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28."
Ingle said Downie violated his First Amendment rights.
"It is my belief that the instructor's decision to file these sanctions is an attempt to bully me into redacting my views, making it a matter of free speech," Ingle told Campus Reform.
Ingle also told the website that he will be defending his First Amendment rights to the university's Academic Integrity Board, which will determine whether he will be allowed to resume attending class regularly, or be forced to graduate late. He has retained an attorney to represent him.
"The censorship on college campuses is an issue I have tried to take head-on in many of my courses as well as offering the opposing, conservative view that many classroom discussions beg for," he said.
The matter is scheduled to be heard by the board on March 19.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/march/college-student-booted-out-of-class-for-saying-there-are-only-two-genders
-
College Student Booted Out of Class for Saying 'There Are Only Two Genders'
03-13-2018
CBN News
A student was kicked out of a Christianity class at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania recently when he questioned the instructor's teaching and said there are only two genders.
Lake Ingle, a senior religious studies major, was barred from the class after he questioned Professor Alison Downie during her lecture titled "Christianity 481: Self, Sin, and Salvation," according to a report from the website Campus Reform.
The professor showed a 15-minute TED Talk to the class by transgender and ex-pastor Paula Stone Williams. In the video, Williams discussed "mansplaining," 'sexism from men," and "male privilege." The instructor then asked the women in the class to share their thoughts.
Ingle waited, and when no one responded, Ingle said he objected to the use of one woman's experience in which they were considered to be reality. He also talked about the official view of biologists who claim there are only two biological genders. He also disputed the "gender wage gap," according to the website.
"It was during my objection that Dr. Downie attempted to silence me because I am not a woman," he said.
Downie then asked Ingle to leave the class and not come back. The class is a required course he needs to complete in order to graduate at the end of this semester.
Ingle received a letter from IUP Provost Timothy Moerland on March 2, informing him he had been barred from the class according to the university's Classroom Disruption policy.
The student has been charged with "Disrespectful objection to the professor's class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; and making a disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor's personal prejudice."
Ingle was told by the university he must apologize to the professor for each offense and apologize to the class for his behavior after which he must listen as the professor or any student shares how they felt during Ingles "disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28."
Ingle said Downie violated his First Amendment rights.
"It is my belief that the instructor's decision to file these sanctions is an attempt to bully me into redacting my views, making it a matter of free speech," Ingle told Campus Reform.
Ingle also told the website that he will be defending his First Amendment rights to the university's Academic Integrity Board, which will determine whether he will be allowed to resume attending class regularly, or be forced to graduate late. He has retained an attorney to represent him.
"The censorship on college campuses is an issue I have tried to take head-on in many of my courses as well as offering the opposing, conservative view that many classroom discussions beg for," he said.
The matter is scheduled to be heard by the board on March 19.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/march/college-student-booted-out-of-class-for-saying-there-are-only-two-genders
Student Banned From Christian Theology Course Allowed Back In Class
ROB SHIMSHOCK
Education Reporter
03/20/2018
A university announced Monday that it would allow a student back in a Christian theology course after he was booted upon saying there were only two genders.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania President Michael Driscoll permitted student Lake Ingle to re-enter the course and indefinitely suspended the student’s academic integrity board hearing. The school had kicked Ingle out of a Christian theology course after the student asserted the existence of only two genders.
“To help ensure that a positive learning environment is maintained, I have asked a senior faculty member with significant experience in the First Amendment and a long career as a successful classroom teacher to join the class as a monitor and a mentor for all,” Driscoll said at a Monday press conference.
Ingle objected to the existence of more than two genders, as well as to what he described as “anecdotal accounts” of “male privilege” and “mansplaining” in a Feb. 28 class. He also refuted the gender wage gap. Indiana University of Pennsylvania kicked the student out of the course following these remarks. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech nonprofit, said it would be “highly inappropriate” if IUP suspended Ingle only because of his views.
“I have decided to indefinitely pause the formal university process without resolution,” the president stated. “To foster behaviors leading to a constructive learning environment, I have asked Assistant to the President for Social Equity, Dr. Pablo Mendoza, to facilitate discussions among members of the class. If these steps do not yield positive results, I reserve the option to restart the university’s formal processes.”
“Though I am curious how the Academic Integrity Board would have ruled, I am thankful I can continue the course and graduate on time,” Ingle remarked in a Facebook post. “So, I am considering this a victory.”
Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Dr. Everett Piper, author of Not a Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth, offered Ingle the chance to take Christian theology at OWU while the student was barred from the course.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/20/student-banned-from-course-allowed-back/
-
Someone with stones. About time.
MyPillow Ignores Liberal Outrage, Refuses to Pull Ads from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News Show
by WARNER TODD HUSTON
3 Apr 2018
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has taken to Twitter to assure customers that he will not be pulling his advertising from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show despite the liberal outrage over her feud with anti-gun Parkland kid David Hogg.
As one company after another rushed to announce an end to advertising on The Ingraham Angle, Lindell stepped forward to tell the world that he won’t abandon Laura.
In a tweet seemingly aimed at Sean Hannity, the company’s CEO and founder insisted, “I did not take my advertising down from @IngrahamAngle and @FoxNews, nor do I intend to. @seanhannity.”
Mike Lindell
@realMikeLindell
I did not take my advertising down from @IngrahamAngle and @FoxNews, nor do I intend to. @seanhannity
7:32 AM - Apr 2, 2018
42.1K
25.3K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ingraham got crosswise with anti-gun Parkland student David Hogg when she made a fairly innocuous joke about how the teenager was whining over being turned down by several colleges he applied to attend.
Laura Ingraham
✔
@IngrahamAngle
David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.) https://www.dailywire.com/news/28770/gun-rights-provocateur-david-hogg-rejected-four-joseph-curl …
5:45 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Gun Rights Provocateur David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges At Which He Applied
David Hogg, a self-appointed spokesman for a generation, revealed on Tuesday that four universities he has applied to have rejected his application.
dailywire.com
22.2K
53.8K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
But, in reply, Hogg hyperbolically went after Ingraham’s livelihood, publishing a list of her advertisers and urging his followers to pepper the companies with complaints about their connection to Ingraham.
David Hogg
✔
@davidhogg111
Pick a number 1-12 contact the company next to that #
Top Laura Ingraham Advertisers
1. @sleepnumber
2. @ATT
3. Nutrish
4. @Allstate & @esurance
5. @Bayer
6. @RocketMortgage Mortgage
7. @LibertyMutual
8. @Arbys
9. @TripAdvisor
10. @Nestle
11. @hulu
12. @Wayfair
3:30 PM - Mar 28, 2018 · Washington, DC
129K
78.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Over the next few days, Ingraham’s advertisers began to abandon her for daring to “attack a child.” She quickly apologized for slapping at the student. In yet another tweet she wrote:
Laura Ingraham
✔
@IngrahamAngle
Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David...(1/2)
7:06 AM - Mar 29, 2018
12.6K
45.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Hogg refused to accept Ingraham’s apology and again took to Twitter to urge his acolytes to keep pressuring the Fox host’s advertisers:
David Hogg
✔
@davidhogg111
I 100% agree an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough. I will only accept your apology only if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight. It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children. https://twitter.com/fred_guttenberg/status/979423447859318786 …
9:06 AM - Mar 29, 2018 · Arlington, VA
112K
43.3K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Make of this what you will, but the next day Ingraham announced that she was taking a vacation. On the heels of that announcement, Fox News reiterated that it fully supports Ingraham and will not be punishing her or removing her from the air.
“We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts,” Jack Abernethy, co-president of Fox News, said in a statement on Monday.
“We look forward to having Laura Ingraham back hosting her program next Monday when she returns from spring vacation with her children,” he added.
The list of advertisers announcing that they pulled ads from the Ingraham Angle includes Jenny Craig, Nutrish, Hulu, TripAdvisor, Wayfair, Expedia, Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson, and Office Depot.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/03/mypillow-ignores-liberal-outrage-refuses-to-pull-ads-from-laura-ingrahams-fox-news-show/
-
Facebook reconsiders 'unsafe for community' tag on pro-Trump Diamond and Silk videos after Fox & Friends appearance
By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News
Social media stars and Trump voters say Facebook is shutting down conservative voices.
Facebook is reconsidering classifying videos produced by Diamond and Silk, two of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters, as "unsafe to the community" after the dynamic duo went on Fox News' morning show asking why the embattled social media giant had labeled them as such.
In a statement to Fox News, a Facebook spokesperson said: "We are aware of this issue. We are reaching out to the creators of Diamond & Silk to try and resolve this matter.”
After being deemed "unsafe to the community" by Facebook's public policy team, Lynnette "Diamond" Hardaway and Rochelle "Silk" Richardson went on Fox & Friends and said they were provided with no reason why their videos were labeled as unsafe.
"They gave us no rationale," the sisters said on Sunday. "The only thing they told us is that we are unsafe for the community. We are two women of color, how are we unsafe? We don’t sell drugs, we don’t belong to no gangs. It’s offensive, it’s appalling, it taints our brand. Why are you censoring two black women? Why are you not allowing our viewers to view our content?"
The social media stars added that the labeling started seven months ago, when they "noticed that there was a pause on our page, one day we were doing good and then it just dropped. People were not receiving notifications, our posts were not showing up on their feed."
They also noted that though Facebook is a "private entity," they are "open to the public."
The two outspoken commentators, who are sisters, describe themselves as "biological sisters from North Carolina standing with the silent majority" and President Trump's "most outspoken & loyal supporters."
When originally reached for comment by Fox News why the videos from the duo were labeled as "unsafe to the community," a Facebook spokesperson said that the company's policy team had concerns about their online rhetoric and deemed them as unsafe.
This latest Facebook kerfuffle comes as CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives Monday on Capitol Hill for a series of expected private meetings with lawmakers -- ahead of his much-anticipated testimony this week on how the social media giant allowed a data-mining company to get personal information from at least 87 million users.
The 33-year-old billionaire, who co-founded Facebook from his Harvard dorm room in 2004, has been in full damage-control mode since reports surfaced in recent weeks that Cambridge Analytica, a political data-mining firm affiliated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, may have used ill-gotten user data to try to influence elections.
Zuckerberg is set to meet early Monday afternoon with Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, the top Democrat on the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, which will hear Zuckerberg's testimony Tuesday afternoon.
Fox News' Christopher Carbone and the AP contributed to this story. Follow Chris Ciaccia on Twitter @Chris_Ciaccia
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/facebook-reconsiders-unsafe-for-community-tag-on-pro-trump-diamond-and-silk-videos-after-fox-friends-appearance.html
-
Facebook Bans Image of Jesus for ‘Excessively Violent Content’
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/04/San-Damiano-Cross-640x480.png)
San Damiano CrossScreenshot
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.
4 Apr 2018
Facebook has rejected an advertisement by a Catholic college for an online theology program, declaring that the ad contained “shocking, sensational, or excessively violent content” because of the image of a medieval crucifix.
On Good Friday, the Franciscan University of Steubenville tried to publish a series of Facebook advertisements for an online program in theology, catechetics, and evangelization. The copy for one of the ads included an image of the San Damiano cross, a medieval icon depicting Christ crucified, which is associated with the Franciscan order, which runs the college.
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/04/San-Damiano-cross.jpg)
According to the university’s web communications director, Tom Crowe, Facebook rejected the ad, stating: “Your image, video thumbnail or video can’t contain shocking, sensational, or excessively violent content.”
The original 12th-century San Damiano cross, located at the Basilica of St. Clare in Assisi, Italy, is famous for its association with Saint Francis of Assisi and the order he founded. In the year 1206, Francis was praying before this image, which at the time was hanging in the church of San Damiano, when he is said to have received the commission from Jesus to “rebuild my Church.”
In an email to The College Fix, Crowe said that Facebook had rejected the university’s ads before, but not because the content was too “violent.” The reason given was simply because they contained too much text: “Facebook only allows 20 percent of an image used in an ad to be covered with words and rejects images with more than that.”
Crowe said this was “the first time an image of Christ crucified has been rejected” by Facebook when the university submitted a design like this.
In his blog post, Crowe noted the irony of Facebook’s rejection of an image of Christ crucified on Good Friday, the day when Christians commemorate his crucifixion and death. Christ was “despised and rejected of man,” Crowe observed.
The image is indeed “too shocking, too sensational” in a theological sense, which made the timing of Facebook’s rejection “so poignant,” he said.
Facebook “couldn’t have fulfilled the Scriptures better if they tried, and that, more than anything else, is what I tried to convey in my quick blog post about it on Friday,” he said in his email. “It really isn’t a matter of religious bigotry, in my opinion, it’s one of the world, in its ignorance and self-importance, with its sense of how God ought to act, being shocked and disgusted by how God does, in fact, act.”
One of the professors from Franciscan University, Benjamin Wiker, told The College Fix there was “no way” that this happened by accident. He did, however, thank Facebook rhetorically “for the free advertising” for the university by flagrantly rejecting an ad on religious grounds.
Wiker said that the rejection of the ad was consistent with Facebook behavior, citing a blogger who runs the website Passion of Christ who had an ad rejected by Facebook because it contained images from Christ’s passion.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/04/facebook-bans-image-jesus-excessively-violent-content/
-
A somewhat objective commentary on huffingtonpost. Surprising. Glad facebook got exposed over this attempted censorship.
Who Are Diamond And Silk?
And why did they come up so much at Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings? Read on.
By Sara Boboltz
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5ace768e1e0000fb077b13c1.png?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
Conservative commenters Diamond (left) and Silk appear in a photo posted to Facebook on April 6.
DIAMOND AND SILK
POLITICS 04/11/2018
Members of Congress managed to ask Mark Zuckerberg several questions about Diamond and Silk during the Facebook founder’s testimony on Capitol Hill this week.
And now, an answer to your question: Who?
Diamond and Silk are famous on the internet ― so you may not have heard of them in real life.
Billing themselves as President Donald Trump’s “most outspoken and loyal supporters,” the sisters have earned a following by posting fervid videos of their conservative views to social media.
During Trump’s 2016 campaign they expressed support for his rhetoric on controversial issues including race and immigration through their videos and Fox News appearances. They ended up traveling around the country to stump for him as representatives of a very small group of black, female Trump supporters.
Hailing from North Carolina, the sisters ― real names Lynette Hardaway (Diamond) and Rochelle Richardson (Silk) ― have shown an enthusiasm for pretty much everything Trump does that appears unmatched by any in the Republican establishment.
The duo’s most popular video on YouTube to date is an August 2015 defense of Trump after then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked during a candidate debate about the misogynistic language he used on Twitter. It has 1.7 million views. On Facebook, a broad defense of Trump posted in November 2015 has earned 1.9 million views.
Despite their popularity and the fact they’ve now been posting for years, Facebook earlier this month deemed their page ― which counts more than 1.4 million likes ― as “unsafe to the community.”
The sisters in a post said they had been corresponding with Facebook since September because they believed the site had throttled their reach and was not sending out notifications to fans when they had new content. On April 6, they found out why, and were told the decision was “final.”
View image on Twitter
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZEGdRJW4AwfZeq.jpg)
Diamond and Silk®
✔
@DiamondandSilk
Just so you know, we will always have our Presidents back.
"Don't Get It Twisted!"
(Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
5:36 AM - Mar 24, 2018
18.8K
6,928 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
In a statement issued Monday, Facebook said the message Diamond and Silk received about their content was “inaccurate,” and the company “looks forward” to speaking with the sisters about the problem.
Which brings us to Congress.
As Zuckerberg sat answering questions on Cambridge Analytica ― the research group accused of exploiting user data to help Trump’s 2016 campaign ― multiple lawmakers used the moment to bring up Facebook’s imbroglio with Diamond and Silk, alleging censorship.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) inquired about bias by Facebook on Tuesday, followed by Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday.
“Diamond and Silk are not terrorism,” Blackburn told Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg responded by saying his team had “made an enforcement error, and we’ve already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/who-are-diamond-and-silk_us_5ace5c08e4b0648767764365
-
Zuckerberg responded by saying his team had “made an enforcement error, and we’ve already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”
Except what about the 1000's of people who say the same thing... but don't have that kind of pull for one reason or another..
Only reason this is a story is because they are in a position to do something about it..
-
Good. Censorship fail.
Laura Ingraham Holds On To Time Slot Lead In Return To Cable News
SCOTT MOREFIELD
Reporter
04/14/2018
Fox News host Laura Ingraham maintained her show’s position as the number one cable news program in its time slot in her first week back since a pre-planned Easter vacation.
According to Mediaite, “The Ingraham Angle” averaged 2.69 million viewers last week, with Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Last Word” on MSNBC coming in at close second with 2.6 million. Bringing up the rear was CNN’s “Tonight,” with 1.29 million watchers.
One high note for MSNBC, however, was the 25-54 demo, which edged Ingraham’s show by 7,000 viewers — 596,000 to 559,000.
The good news comes for Ingraham after Parkland survivor and gun control activist David Hogg, along with Media Matters, had hoped to drive her from the airwaves because of a tweet the Fox News host had made about Hogg’s college application rejections. While several companies did cave in to the pressure to pull their advertising from Ingraham’s show, others, notably including My Pillow, stood firm. Additionally, Ace Hardware decided to keep their advertising on the show, reversing course on their previous decision to pull.
Meanwhile, Fox News has stuck with their host since the beginning of the ad boycott. Fox News co-president Jack Abernathy told Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement that his network “cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/14/laura-ingraham-return-to-cable-news/
-
Good little puppet.
Parkland Student Activist David Hogg Teases Another Boycott: ‘Stay Tuned’
“Going to announce another boycott this week,” Florida high schooler tweets on Monday
Jon Levine
April 16, 2018
Parkland, Florida shooting survivor David Hogg announced Monday that he would launch another boycott sometime later this week following his successful campaign against Fox News host Laura Ingraham.
“Going to announce another boycott this week… Stay tuned,” the high school senior tweeted along with a gif of a nervous Kermit the Frog.
. . . .
https://www.thewrap.com/parkland-student-activist-david-hogg-teases-another-boycott-stay-tuned/
-
More from the little puppet.
David Hogg calls for boycott of top investment firms over links to gunmakers
BY AVERY ANAPOL - 04/17/18
Parkland, Fla., shooting survivor David Hogg is calling for a boycott of two major investment management companies over their ties to gun manufacturers.
Hogg, who has become a prominent gun control activist after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February, urged his social media followers to make their feelings known to BlackRock and Vanguard.
Hogg was the focus of national media attention earlier this month after he sparked an advertiser boycott of Fox News host Laura Ingraham.
Ingraham drew criticism after posting a tweet mocking Hogg for being rejected from four colleges. In response, Hogg tweeted out a list of companies who advertised on her show.
In the weeks following the spat, more than 20 companies pulled their advertisements from “The Ingraham Angle.” Ingraham apologized to Hogg, but he refused to accept, saying that she was only trying to save her advertisers.
BlackRock and Vanguard, along with several other companies, have faced scrutiny over their investments in gun manufacturers in the wake of the shooting. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earlier this year named them in a letter calling for gun company shareholders to demand change in the arms industry after the shooting.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/383606-parkland-survivor-calls-for-boycott-of-top-investment-firms-over
-
Good. Censorship fail.
Laura Ingraham Holds On To Time Slot Lead In Return To Cable News
SCOTT MOREFIELD
Reporter
04/14/2018
Fox News host Laura Ingraham maintained her show’s position as the number one cable news program in its time slot in her first week back since a pre-planned Easter vacation.
According to Mediaite, “The Ingraham Angle” averaged 2.69 million viewers last week, with Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Last Word” on MSNBC coming in at close second with 2.6 million. Bringing up the rear was CNN’s “Tonight,” with 1.29 million watchers.
One high note for MSNBC, however, was the 25-54 demo, which edged Ingraham’s show by 7,000 viewers — 596,000 to 559,000.
The good news comes for Ingraham after Parkland survivor and gun control activist David Hogg, along with Media Matters, had hoped to drive her from the airwaves because of a tweet the Fox News host had made about Hogg’s college application rejections. While several companies did cave in to the pressure to pull their advertising from Ingraham’s show, others, notably including My Pillow, stood firm. Additionally, Ace Hardware decided to keep their advertising on the show, reversing course on their previous decision to pull.
Meanwhile, Fox News has stuck with their host since the beginning of the ad boycott. Fox News co-president Jack Abernathy told Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement that his network “cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/14/laura-ingraham-return-to-cable-news/
Bum showing us he still hasn't got a fucking clue what the definition of censorship is
-
HERE’S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN A TRUMP SUPPORTER BECAME A ‘COMMIE CAMP’ COUNSELOR
07/28/2018
Rob Shimshock | Education Reporter
A 20-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump resigned from her position as a counselor at a summer camp known as “Commie Camp,” she told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive interview.
Gabriella Mamet said she resigned as a counselor at Camp Kinderland in Tolland, Massachusetts, after nearly a month of Trump-bashing, Black Lives Matter chants and hostility from campers. Progressive film director Katie Halper coined Kinderland “Commie Camp” in a 2013 documentary.
“They didn’t really mention how political of a camp it was in the phone interview or anything,” Mamet told TheDCNF. “I went on their website and I thought it was pretty much a normal camp and when I got there during orientation it was kind of surprising at how political it was.”
The 20-year-old worked at the camp from the June 28 orientation until she quit July 22. Camp Kinderland assigned her to 14- and 15-year-old campers. Her campers allegedly wanted to know the Trump supporter’s views on political issues, but Mamet was not comfortable sharing them.
Camp Kinderland is a “multicultural summer camp and community that honors our progressive secular Jewish roots through our commitment to economic, racial, and social justice,” according to its mission statement. “Kinderland’s summer programming and year around activities integrate progressive values with arts, recreation, and activism in a compassionate and caring environment.”
Campers were “attacking me for my political views and just saying that they would feel threatened with me as their counselor,” Mamet said. “They were saying that they felt threatened by me as a counselor and not knowing my views on gun control … they said to my face all Trump supporters are bad people. They’re racist, homophobic and we don’t want them at our camp.”
She said the staff had a meeting following a July 20 article in TheDCNF showcasing the nearly 50 Antifa flags campers had designed. Mamet said staff members were instructed not to use social media at the meeting. (RELATED: Kids At Summer ‘Commie Camp’ Design Antifa Flags)
Aside from Antifa flag-making, Mamet said campers participated in an event called “Peace Olympics.”
There are “five teams and every team gets an issue and my particular team was Black Lives Matter,” she said. “We would have to make chants about Black Lives Matter and chants in favor of that particular thing. … Some of the chants they made were attacking Trump. ‘No more Trump, no more Pence. We don’t need a bigger fence.'”
Campers “were justifying the police officers being shot [in Ferguson],” Mamet, whose father is a police officer, explained to TheDCNF. “They were basically saying that it was okay for the police officers to be shot because people were so angry.”
Mamet was supposed to switch bunks on the day she resigned, due to what she felt was hostility from her campers.
“The program director came and talked to the campers about why I was moving and I wanted it to be clear that I was moving because the way they were treating me. But the program director told the campers it was just because I was needed somewhere else,” Mamet said. “They weren’t doing anything to hold [the campers] accountable because they were obviously just trying to keep their money.”
Camp Kinderland did not respond to a request for comment.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/28/trump-supporter-commie-camp-counselor/
-
https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=58817
Unbelievable.
-
NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets
The Hill ^ | 08/02/18 | Joe Concha
Posted on 8/2/2018, 2:46:24 PM by yesthatjallen
The New York Times stood by its decision to hire technology writer Sarah Jeong to its editorial board despite the emergence of racially insensitive tweets she had posted a few years ago.
Jeong was hired by The Times on Wednesday, but the newspaper soon received strong backlash from social media and some conservative outlets after tweets emerged in which the technology writer made racially insensitive comments.
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong, 49, said in a tweet from 2014 that has since deleted.
“Dumbass f–ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” Jeong said in another 2014 tweet.
A third tweet posted by Jeong in 2014 said: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
The Times said in a statement on Thursday that it stood by its decision to hire Jeong, adding it had reviewed the writer's social media accounts prior to her hiring, while calling the content of the tweets "unacceptable."
"We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done covering the internet and technology at a range of respected publications," The Times said.
The Times added that Jeong, as a "young Asian woman," had been the "subject of frequent online harassment," and that "for a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers."
The newspaper added that Jeong knows "now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it."
Meanwhile, Jeong, in the Times statement, expressed regret for the tweets.
"I engaged in what I thought of at the time of counter-trolling. While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers," she said.
"These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again." The Times response comes after conservative outlets and social media slammed the paper for condoning "racist" remarks.
"Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets" read a headline in National Review. Meanwhile, The Federalist posted a story with the headline "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets," while Daily Caller said: "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS."
Jeong also faced criticism from social media for her posts.
Twitter has become a controversial social media platform in the current political climate, with high-profile journalists saying they might leave the platform after tweets attacking them and family members.
-
NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets
The Hill ^ | 08/02/18 | Joe Concha
Posted on 8/2/2018, 2:46:24 PM by yesthatjallen
The New York Times stood by its decision to hire technology writer Sarah Jeong to its editorial board despite the emergence of racially insensitive tweets she had posted a few years ago.
Jeong was hired by The Times on Wednesday, but the newspaper soon received strong backlash from social media and some conservative outlets after tweets emerged in which the technology writer made racially insensitive comments.
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong, 49, said in a tweet from 2014 that has since deleted.
“Dumbass f–ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” Jeong said in another 2014 tweet.
A third tweet posted by Jeong in 2014 said: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
The Times said in a statement on Thursday that it stood by its decision to hire Jeong, adding it had reviewed the writer's social media accounts prior to her hiring, while calling the content of the tweets "unacceptable."
"We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done covering the internet and technology at a range of respected publications," The Times said.
The Times added that Jeong, as a "young Asian woman," had been the "subject of frequent online harassment," and that "for a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers."
The newspaper added that Jeong knows "now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it."
Meanwhile, Jeong, in the Times statement, expressed regret for the tweets.
"I engaged in what I thought of at the time of counter-trolling. While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers," she said.
"These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again." The Times response comes after conservative outlets and social media slammed the paper for condoning "racist" remarks.
"Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets" read a headline in National Review. Meanwhile, The Federalist posted a story with the headline "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets," while Daily Caller said: "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS."
Jeong also faced criticism from social media for her posts.
Twitter has become a controversial social media platform in the current political climate, with high-profile journalists saying they might leave the platform after tweets attacking them and family members.
Look at those tweets.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/lZON-ty7W3aW3OiekpqswjovcbGsWivWeiWAu0YDUlQ.png?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=640&s=0fe00ee809b00118f099ea99144bf725)
-
Look at those tweets.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/lZON-ty7W3aW3OiekpqswjovcbGsWivWeiWAu0YDUlQ.png?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=640&s=0fe00ee809b00118f099ea99144bf725)
:o
-
:o
If it was a white guy or republican - forget it - the guy would be burned at the stake.
-
If it was a white guy or republican - forget it - the guy would be burned at the stake.
Truth.
-
Facebook Suspends Brigitte Gabriel for ‘Hate Speech’
By Corinne Weaver | August 16, 2018
In its aim to be politically correct, Facebook has determined that criticizing an accused terrorist counts as hate speech.
According to Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Act for America, Facebook suspended her personal page for posting a comment about the suspected terrorist arrested at a compound in New Mexico. She tweeted that the post was taken down for “hate speech.”
Her post, which included a photo, stated:
“This is the smile of a sick and depraved Muslim terrorist who is back on the streets (on bail) after training children to shoot up schools. The judge who allowed this to happen should be removed from their post ASAP. If he harms anyone while on bail, the blood is on their hands.”
She posted the same message to Twitter, which did not find it inappropriate for its page.
Act for America has been targeted again and again by the anti-conservative group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its supposed anti-Muslim policy. It’s a “national security grassroots organization” that has more than 750,000 members and 12,000 activists who help to “educate, engage, and mobilize citizens and elected officials to impact legislative outcomes to protect America.” Gabriel’s group focuses on radical Islamic terrorism. However, the SPLC has translated its mission to mean “anti-Muslim,” even though a practicing Muslim spoke at ACT’s 2016 conference.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/corinne-weaver/2018/08/16/facebook-suspends-brigitte-gabriel-hate-speech
-
Astronaut Scott Kelly apologizes for praising Winston Churchill. What For?
American Thinker ^ | 10/08/2018 | Rick Moran
Posted on 10/8/2018, 11:58:32 AM by SeekAndFind
Scott Kelly is a NASA astronaut. That says a lot about him right there. To be selected as an astronaut, you must be the best of the best – smart, fearless, and psychologically sound.
So why does Kelly sound like an idiot here?
Washington Examiner:
Scott Kelly, a retired American astronaut with multiple space flights under his belt, apologized Sunday after quoting Winston Churchill and calling the 20th century British prime minister "one of the greatest leaders of modern times."
"Did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill. My apologies. I will go and educate myself further on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support. My point was we need to come together as one nation. We are all Americans. That should transcend partisan politics," Kelly wrote on Twitter in the evening.
Right the first time, Scotty. In 1940, Churchill took a battered, beaten nation after the British army was kicked out of France and rallied his people to resist the Nazi onslaught. Certainly, Hitler helped a lot by making several key blunders. But as a demonstration of peerless leadership, there are few modern examples to match Churchill.
So calling Churchill "one of the greatest leaders of modern times" is a no-brainer. It is a statement supported by history and the facts.
Yossi Gestetner tried to give Kelly a spine:
You are disgracing yourself here. Please stop bending to the will of deranged online trolls.— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) October 7, 2018
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-
Make no mistake the hardcore leftist libs lose me, when they vilify a bona fide hero like Churchill .
BUT the Trump crowd loses me even more with their actions and ideals.
In fact, most of the most hot button issues are of little interest to me.
My main concern is: health care ( Insurance) costs, wages, pensions , environmental regs, etc.
I'm a lot more concerned about Toxic crap in our air and water then I am bathroom use for some drag queen. ;)
Democrat mindset is having it both ways regardless of the math/facts.
Dem feelings: Free healthcare for everyone!
Reality: Hey, why is it so expensive now and deductibles for people that actually pay going up every year?
Dem feelings: Enact $15 min wage,..and don't touch my pension!
Reality: Force unskilled and first time jobs to go to robots and if not raise prices to cover artificial wage floor(killing demand of the product/service). Structure pie in the sky pensions based on unlimited growth models running them into the red and unable to pay out.
Dem feelings: Save the earth from the evil companies!
Force USA companies to be the only ones following choking enviro laws and pay all the world's carbon taxes for 30 years while everyone else pays dick....killing profits and market share. Let China and others pollute at will but never mention it.
-
Democrat mindset is having it both ways regardless of the math/facts.
Dem feelings: Free healthcare for everyone!
Reality: Hey, why is it so expensive now and deductibles for people that actually pay going up every year?
Dem feelings: Enact $15 min wage,..and don't touch my pension!
Reality: Force unskilled and first time jobs to go to robots and if not raise prices to cover artificial wage floor(killing demand of the product/service). Structure pie in the sky pensions based on unlimited growth models running them into the red and unable to pay out.
Dem feelings: Save the earth from the evil companies!
Force USA companies to be the only ones following choking enviro laws and pay all the world's carbon taxes for 30 years while everyone else pays dick....killing profits and market share. Let China and others pollute at will but never mention it.
Spot on!
I'm a lot more concerned about Toxic crap in our air and water then I am bathroom use for some drag queen. ;)
Then you are part of the problem.
-
Spot on!
Then you are part of the problem.
People say we shouldn't stereotype by race but do you know any race that has as many idiots in its ranks as ours? Ask any black, asian, or hispanic, and the majority vote for the same party for the same reasons. Whites are all over the place. Half of them are retarded and watch CNN and protest the front steps of the SCOTUS, and the other half support the best President in American history. I don't get it.
-
People say we shouldn't stereotype by race but do you know any race that has as many idiots in its ranks as ours? Ask any black, asian, or hispanic, and the majority vote for the same party for the same reasons. Whites are all over the place. Half of them are retarded and watch CNN and protest the front steps of the SCOTUS, and the other half support the best President in American history. I don't get it.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. Our race is constantly trying to challenge each other to one up each other. Whether that is one upping on a small scale like doing a better job than your co-worker or one upping in politics, each side believes they are right and the dems are trying desperately to one up the winning side.
-
Stereotypes exist for a reason. Our race is constantly trying to challenge each other to one up each other. Whether that is one upping on a small scale like doing a better job than your co-worker or one upping in politics, each side believes they are right and the dems are trying desperately to one up the winning side.
we're also the only folks that make it our business to defend and worry about other folks who don't look like us
when's the last time blacks or jews or asians held a rally in the name of white women or working class white men or disabled vets
ya, cuz it never happens
but we're the first at the border to cry for illegal babies and to set up 'die-ins' in front of police stations when some dindu gets shot for pulling out a gun on a cop
::)
-
we're also the only folks that make it our business to defend and worry about other folks who don't look like us
when's the last time blacks or jews or asians held a rally in the name of white women or working class white men or disabled vets
ya, cuz it never happens
but we're the first at the border to cry for illegal babies and to set up 'die-ins' in front of police stations when some dindu gets shot for pulling out a gun on a cop
::)
I wouldn't include myself in "we", but yeah, white people are far too concerned with progressing other races while holding each other down.
-
‘I Stand For The Flag, I Kneel At The Cross’: Allegheny Co. Democratic Party Chair Forced To Resign Amid Controversy
By Jon Delano
October 10, 2018
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Mark Salvas says he was forced to resign over two social media posts, one that he posted a year ago and one that his wife posted in July.
“I was asked by the chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party to resign my position due to the controversy that was taking place on social media, and I did,” Salvas told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Wednesday. “It’s never easy when people you have never met accuse you of things and call you names, and you’ve never met them.”
mark salvas I Stand For The Flag, I Kneel At The Cross: Allegheny Co. Democratic Party Chair Forced To Resign Amid Controversy
(Photo Credit: KDKA)
A former Marine and Gulf War veteran, Salvas was just hired in September as executive director of the county party, long after he posted a picture of his wife and him on Facebook with the words, “I stand for the flag, I kneel at the cross.”
“I’m not ashamed of my patriotism, not one bit. I fought for this country. I think I have a right to have a voice and be patriotic,” says Salvas.
But he says NFL players can take a knee.
“That’s part of what the flag stands for. It gives them the right to do that,” says Salvas.
But Salvas chooses to stand.
Salvas: “I stand for the flag, I kneel for the cross.”
Delano: “No apologies?”
Salvas: “Not at all. Not at all.”
But some on social media called that inappropriate for a Democratic party leader, including a second post from Salvas’ wife asking for support for their close friends, the family of officer Michael Rosfeld, who is accused of killing Antwon Rose II.
“What happened to Antwon Rose was a tragedy. I don’t think anybody doubts that. I think we can all agree on that. A young man lost his life and that’s a shame,” says Salvas. “Officer Rosfeld, Michael Rosfeld, is as close to me and my family as anyone could be. I have known that young man since he was literally 3-years-old. They are family to us.
Salvas says, like the Rose family, the Rosfeld family is struggling with the tragedy.
“They have been there for us in hard times, and my wife and I felt it was necessary to be there for them because family backs family,” he said.
KDKA’s Jon Delano Reports:
But Pennsylvania Rep. Ed Gainey says that post offended an important segment of the Democratic Party.
“To put that up on Facebook was, to me, insensitive, also to African Americans, who, as you know, have backed the Democratic Party for quite a long time, and everybody knows that it was insensitive,” said Gainey. “If you’re going to be executive director of the Democratic Party, you have to be sensitive to things like that.”
Party officials would not comment on Salvas’ forced resignation, saying it was a personnel matter, but state Rep. Jake Wheatley added that once you become a party official your personal views have to be put aside.
“As an official, he has to be very careful and sensitive that his words and his posts are not necessarily just his. They are reflective of the party in its entirety,” noted Wheatley.
Gainey, who knows Salvas, says Salvas is not a racist.
Salvas has a bi-racial child and African Americans in his family.
For his part, Salvas says he believes the party is still a big tent party.
“There’s a place for all of us and all of our views,” he said.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/10/10/allegheny-county-democratic-party-chair-resigns/
-
F THESE COMMUNISTS!!!
‘I Stand For The Flag, I Kneel At The Cross’: Allegheny Co. Democratic Party Chair Forced To Resign Amid Controversy
By Jon Delano
October 10, 2018
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Mark Salvas says he was forced to resign over two social media posts, one that he posted a year ago and one that his wife posted in July.
“I was asked by the chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party to resign my position due to the controversy that was taking place on social media, and I did,” Salvas told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Wednesday. “It’s never easy when people you have never met accuse you of things and call you names, and you’ve never met them.”
mark salvas I Stand For The Flag, I Kneel At The Cross: Allegheny Co. Democratic Party Chair Forced To Resign Amid Controversy
(Photo Credit: KDKA)
A former Marine and Gulf War veteran, Salvas was just hired in September as executive director of the county party, long after he posted a picture of his wife and him on Facebook with the words, “I stand for the flag, I kneel at the cross.”
“I’m not ashamed of my patriotism, not one bit. I fought for this country. I think I have a right to have a voice and be patriotic,” says Salvas.
But he says NFL players can take a knee.
“That’s part of what the flag stands for. It gives them the right to do that,” says Salvas.
But Salvas chooses to stand.
Salvas: “I stand for the flag, I kneel for the cross.”
Delano: “No apologies?”
Salvas: “Not at all. Not at all.”
But some on social media called that inappropriate for a Democratic party leader, including a second post from Salvas’ wife asking for support for their close friends, the family of officer Michael Rosfeld, who is accused of killing Antwon Rose II.
“What happened to Antwon Rose was a tragedy. I don’t think anybody doubts that. I think we can all agree on that. A young man lost his life and that’s a shame,” says Salvas. “Officer Rosfeld, Michael Rosfeld, is as close to me and my family as anyone could be. I have known that young man since he was literally 3-years-old. They are family to us.
Salvas says, like the Rose family, the Rosfeld family is struggling with the tragedy.
“They have been there for us in hard times, and my wife and I felt it was necessary to be there for them because family backs family,” he said.
KDKA’s Jon Delano Reports:
But Pennsylvania Rep. Ed Gainey says that post offended an important segment of the Democratic Party.
“To put that up on Facebook was, to me, insensitive, also to African Americans, who, as you know, have backed the Democratic Party for quite a long time, and everybody knows that it was insensitive,” said Gainey. “If you’re going to be executive director of the Democratic Party, you have to be sensitive to things like that.”
Party officials would not comment on Salvas’ forced resignation, saying it was a personnel matter, but state Rep. Jake Wheatley added that once you become a party official your personal views have to be put aside.
“As an official, he has to be very careful and sensitive that his words and his posts are not necessarily just his. They are reflective of the party in its entirety,” noted Wheatley.
Gainey, who knows Salvas, says Salvas is not a racist.
Salvas has a bi-racial child and African Americans in his family.
For his part, Salvas says he believes the party is still a big tent party.
“There’s a place for all of us and all of our views,” he said.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/10/10/allegheny-county-democratic-party-chair-resigns/
-
we're also the only folks that make it our business to defend and worry about other folks who don't look like us
when's the last time blacks or jews or asians held a rally in the name of white women or working class white men or disabled vets
ya, cuz it never happens
but we're the first at the border to cry for illegal babies and to set up 'die-ins' in front of police stations when some dindu gets shot for pulling out a gun on a cop
::)
Very good points
Sadly the whites who have succumbed to the brainwashing / liberalism
Do such stupid things & cant even recognise they are behaving oddly.
They don't even question why other races aren't protesting & crying for
whats happening to the white folks - Mental illness in the extreme.
-
Atlanta’s former fire chief sues the city, says he was fired because of religious beliefs
By Abby Ohlheiser
February 18, 2015
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2015-01-24/AP/Gay_Rights_States-01f36.jpg&w=1484)
Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, third from right, observes a moment of prayer as religious groups rally to support him in January. (David Goldman/AP file)
The standoff between former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran and the city that used to employ him escalated on Thursday, when Cochran’s attorneys announced that they have filed a federal lawsuit.
The suit accuses the city of firing Cochran because of his religious beliefs, violating his constitutional rights.
Cochran’s case has become a focal point in a larger national debate over public religious expression protections and the civil rights of LGBT Americans.
Cochran, who is an evangelical Christian, was terminated in January after a city investigation pertaining to his self-published book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked,” a Bible study-style text that covers a range of his personal religious beliefs. In one section of the book, Cochran called “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” a “sexual perversion” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.”
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said in January that Cochran’s firing was over his “judgment and management skills,” and that “Cochran’s personal religious beliefs are not the issue.” The city had suspended Cochran in November, after questioning whether the book’s passages on homosexuality violated the city’s non-discrimination policy.
But that is not at all how Cochran and his growing number of supporters see things.
“To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement released with news of the lawsuit. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me.”
The complaint, provided by Cochran’s lawyers, claims: “Defendants fired Cochran solely because he holds religious beliefs concerning same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct that are contrary to the Mayor’s and the City’s views on these subjects.”
It adds: “Cochran, and other City employees who agree with Cochran’s religious views regarding same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, are under a constant state of threat of the City taking adverse action against them — up to and including termination — if they express those views inside and outside of work.”
In an administrative federal discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last month, Cochran stated: “I have been discriminated against because of my religion — Christian.”
Last week, six members of Georgia’s congressional delegation wrote a letter to Mayor Reed in support of Cochran’s reinstatement. “Your action against Chief Cochran appears to violate fundamental principles of free speech and religious freedom,” it reads. “The only way Chief Cochran could avoid his views would be to disown his religion.”
The letter, written by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) and co-signed by five other Republican members of Congress, adds: “Atlanta itself engaged in an act of discrimination.”
Cochran’s case has become a rallying point for several conservative religious groups that believe some laws and policies designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination are a violation of religious liberty protections. Those groups include the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is legally representing Cochran; the Faith and Freedom Coalition; the Family Research Council; and the Georgia Baptist Convention.
“The idea that the government can force public servants to surrender their First Amendment rights is outrageous,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said at a mid-January religious freedom rally at the Georgia State Capitol, according to the Christian Post. “If a government will fire someone for their religious beliefs, no beliefs are safe from government regardless of how sacred those beliefs may be. Mayor Reed is sending a very clear message that Christians must check their faith at the door of public service.”
On its Web site, the Alliance Defending Freedom takes the position that same-sex marriage is “the most prominent and pressing danger to fundamentally altering marriage, as it undermines the good that marriage provides society” — and that “those who believe in marriage,” by which the group means those who believe in heterosexual marriage only, “are politically, culturally, and legally persecuted for those beliefs.”
Cochran’s dismissal has also hovered in the background of a pair of controversial religious liberty bills currently being considered in the Georgia legislature.
The city has the support of LGBT rights groups such as Georgia Equality and Lambda Legal, along with the Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, which released a statement commending Reed for Cochran’s termination. “Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” it reads.
Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in January that “the fact that Mayor Reed lost confidence in Kelvin Cochran’s ability to do his job is completely unsurprising, and his decision to terminate Cochran was right, fair and in the best interest of all Atlanta’s residents.
“People of faith take their religious convictions with them to the workplace every day, but Cochran’s unprofessional and irresponsible conduct was completely unrelated to his personal convictions.”
Jenna Garland, a spokeswoman for Mayor Reed, said Wednesday that the city of Atlanta would “rigorously defend” itself against Cochran’s legal actions and is “confident that the decision to terminate Mr. Cochran was both the right thing to do and fully legal.”
The city also disagreed with Cochran’s version of the story on several major points, as it has done in the past.
In the compliant and in previous statements, Cochran has said that he sought the permission of Nina Hickson, the City of Atlanta Ethics Officer, before publishing the book. He says he was told that “so long as the subject matter of the book is not the city government or fire department he could write the book.”
Garland, the mayor’s spokeswoman, countered in a lengthy January statement that “Mr. Cochran was told that the City Code required him to get the approval of the Board of Ethics before publishing his book, something he admits he never did.”
Cochran has also said, both in the complaint and in his previous administrative discrimination filing, that “the [city] investigation revealed zero instances of discrimination by me against any other employee of the city.”
“What he was actually told was that his distribution of a book about his beliefs within his department had caused his employees to question his ability to continue to lead a diverse workforce,” Garland’s January statement reads, adding that the city believes Cochran’s overall conduct before and during the investigation “reflected poor judgment and failure to follow clearly defined work protocols.”
“The City of Atlanta remains a place where all people, including those who share Mr. Cochran’s beliefs, are equally valued and respected,” Garland added on Wednesday. “However, religious beliefs cannot shield any employee from the consequences of poor judgment and insubordination.”
Both sides of the matter do agree that Cochran distributed his book to several Atlanta fire employees during his tenure.
Cochran’s complaint says that the fire chief distributed the book to “10 AFRD employees who he knew were Christians,” and who had requested copies of the book; to “approximately 3-5 additional employees who approached him and requested a copy of the book”; and to “three command level AFRD employees” who “previously shared their Christian faith with him.”
In its report on the matter, the city says that Cochran distributed the book to at least nine employees, three unsolicited.
Based on interviews with multiple city employees, the city’s report concluded that “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book. There also is general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”
Again, Cochran disagreed. “During this time frame, Cochran’s book caused no disruption with any city practices or procedures or in the workplace at all,” the complaint argues.
In the complaint, Cochran asks for compensatory damages, reinstatement to his old job and a pair of declarations from the city stating that it violated his constitutional rights.
The complaint also asks for the city to “stop enforcing their policies…and practice of allowing adverse employment actions against Cochran and other City employees for expressing protected religious messages about marriage and sexuality when those messages are about matters of public concern.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/18/with-growing-national-support-for-his-cause-atlantas-former-fire-chief-sues-the-city-over-his-dismissal/
Atlanta to Pay $1.2 Million to Former Fire Chief After Firing Him for His Biblical Beliefs
10-16-2018
Steve Warren
The City of Atlanta, Georgia has agreed to pay former fire chief Kelvin Cochran, $1.2 million after a Federal District Court ruled in December 2017 that the city's policies which led to Cochran's termination were unconstitutional.
The city council voted on Monday to pay the former fire chief, recognizing he had been unjustly treated. Cochran is represented by attorneys with the Alliance For Defending Freedom (ADF).
Cochran's career had been about protecting others. For 30 years, he did that as a firefighter. He served as the US Fire Administrator under President Barack Obama and led the City of Atlanta to attain the highest level of fire and rescue preparedness for the first time in its history.
But that came to an end in 2015, when the City of Atlanta fired him because he wrote a men's devotional book in his spare time – a book that briefly mentions his views on a biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality.
As CBN News reported, the city did not approve of Chief Cochran's book. After a 30-day suspension without pay, in order to complete "sensitivity training," and an investigation into his conduct (which showed he had never discriminated against anyone in the fire department), his career came to an end in Atlanta.
This led Cochran to embark on a three-year legal battle that he says was never just about him.
"The government can't force its employees to get its permission before they engage in free speech. It also can't fire them for exercising that First Amendment freedom, causing them to lose both their freedom and their livelihoods," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot in a press release. "We are very pleased that the city is compensating Chief Cochran as it should, and we hope this will serve as a deterrent to any government that would trample upon the constitutionally protected freedoms of its public servants."
Now all government employees benefit from his win, according to the ADF. They no longer have to worry about losing their jobs if they choose to engage in their First Amendment rights outside of work – even if the government does not approve of their viewpoints.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/october/atlanta-to-pay-1-2-million-to-former-fire-chief-after-violating-his-first-amendment-freedoms
-
EXCLUSIVE: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES DEBATED BURYING CONSERVATIVE MEDIA IN SEARCH
11/29/2018 | INVESTIGATIVE GROUP
Peter Hasson | Reporter
Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
“Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban
Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.
The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.
Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.
Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.
“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.
Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.
“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.
“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued. (RELATED: Google Search Labels Republican Women ‘Enablers’)
“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”
Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures.
One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.
“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.
“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.
“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.
“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.
“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.
“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.
“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.
“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.
Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.
Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.
Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.
A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.
“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.
“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”
The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.
After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.
A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”
WATCH:
Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.
“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.
“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.
“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.
Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”
Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.
Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.
Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/google-censorship-conservative-media/
-
Liberals unleash torrent of abuse on Savannah Guthrie for daring to interview teen from Covington altercation
They're angry anyone would let him speak at all
Carlos Garcia
JANUARY 22, 2019
Savannah Guthrie was excoriated by liberals online after she announced that she had interviewed one of he teens in the mega-viral confrontation between Covington Catholic High School students and a Native American activist.
The confrontation in Washington D.C. at the Lincoln Memorial has become a flashpoint between critics of President Donald Trump and his supporters after competing narratives emerged from various videos of the event.
Guthrie teased the interview with Nicholas Sandmann from her social media account.
Savannah Guthrie
✔
@SavannahGuthrie
Sitting down with Nicholas Sandmann - the student at the center of the protest controversy at the Lincoln Memorial. Airs tomorrow on @TODAYshow
8,600
8:56 AM - Jan 22, 2019
39.4K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The interview will air on the "Today Show" on Wednesday, but the angry blowback is already being blasted out at the show and at Guthrie.
Liberal activist Amy Siskind immediately called for a boycott of the show and for her followers to attack the sponsors of the network.
"The definition of privilege," Siskind tweeted. "Who has a PR firm? This is disgusting - shame on you @TODAYshow and @SavannahGuthrie!"
"If we can organize boycotting Trump's Oval Office address," she added in a second tweet, "we can certainly orchestrate a boycott of @TODAYshow and @SavannahGuthrie for at least week! Who's in?"
Amy Siskind 🏳️🌈
✔
@Amy_Siskind
Replying to @Amy_Siskind
Hey everyone-
If we can organize boycotting Trump’s Oval Office address, we can certainly orchestrate a boycott of @TODAYshow and @SavannahGuthrie for at least week! Who’s in?
3,052
10:56 AM - Jan 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,346 people are talking about this
"Also if anyone can compile a list of @TODAYshow sponsors," she added, "have a lot of followers here and on Facebook who would like to do an organized boycott."
Others, like Robert Littal of Black Sports Online, accused Guthrie of supporting white supremacy with the interview.
Robert Littal
✔
@BSO
Replying to @SavannahGuthrie @TODAYshow
Imagine if a black kid would have done something disrespectful to a white woman that went viral, I doubt they would be getting the Today Show love. This is white supremacy and media working together.
239
1:07 PM - Jan 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
88 people are talking about this
"This is white supremacy and media working together," he claimed.
"Hey @SavannahGuthrie and @TODAYshow, I'm really looking forward to your interview with Phillips since I know you're not just going to platform a white supremacist without hearing the other side," tweeted Allison Kilkenny sarcastically.
Allison Kilkenny
✔
@allisonkilkenny
Hey @SavannahGuthrie and @TODAYshow, I’m really looking forward to your interview with Phillips since I know you’re not just going to platform a white supremacist without hearing the other side
27
10:25 AM - Jan 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
17 people are talking about this
"This is shameful," tweeted Kellee Terrell. "You and NBC ought to be ashamed. You all would never give this kind of space to Black, Brown or Indigenous teens."
Kellee Terrell
✔
@kelleent
Replying to @SavannahGuthrie @TODAYshow
This is shameful. You and NBC ought to be ashamed. You all would never give this kind of space to Black, Brown or Indigenous teens.
24
1:46 PM - Jan 22, 2019
https://www.theblaze.com/news/liberals-unleash-torrent-of-abuse-on-savannah-guthrie-for-daring-to-interview-teen-from-covington-altercation
-
Instagram Purges Photo of Elizabeth Warren Claiming ‘American Indian’ Race on Professional Document
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/02/GettyImages-1076221868-640x480.jpg)
CAMBRIDGE, MA - DECEMBER 31: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), addresses the media outside of her home after announcing she formed an exploratory committee for a 2020 Presidential run on December 31, 2018 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Warren is one of the earliest potential candidates to make an official announcement in what …Scott Eisen/Getty; Inset: Washington Post
6 Feb 2019
Facebook’s photo-sharing platform Instagram recently deleted a post of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Texas Bar registration form on which she states that she is an “American Indian.” The Platform called a photo of Warren’s registration “harassment or bullying.”
GOP national spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany took to Twitter recently to call out another social media platform — Facebook’s photo-sharing website Instagram. In her Twitter post, McEnany claims that Instagram deleted a post she made which featured a copy of Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Texas Bar registration form in which she states that she is an “American Indian.”
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Kayleigh McEnany
✔
@kayleighmcenany
I have been warned by @instagram and cannot operate my account because I posted an image of Elizabeth Warren’s Bar of Texas registration form via @washingtonpost.
I’m warned that I am “harassing,” “bullying,” and “blackmailing” her.
(See below!)
7,051
6:56 AM - Feb 6, 2019
5,862 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Instagram included a number of its community guideline rules in its message to McEnany informing her that they had deleted her post. The guidelines state that the social media site removes content that “targets private individuals to degrade or shame them.”
The rules further state that the social media site removes “content with personal information shared to harass or blackmail people,” however, any personal information such as Warren’s home address at the time of signing the bar registration had already been redacted in McEnany’s post.
Finally, Instagram notes that the website has a “zero tolerance policy when it comes to posts or threats to post intimate images of others.” It’s safe to say that McEnany’s post did not violate this particular rule in any way, however, the post was still removed by Instagram. Breitbart News has reached out to Instagram for comment on this issue and the platform’s decision to remove McEnany’s post but has not received a reply at the time of the writing of this article.
Breitbart News reported on Warren’s Bar of Texas registration form this week, with reporter Joshua Caplan stating:
The Washington Post obtained the registration card, which was previously undisclosed, during an open records request. As the Post noted, the card was handwritten using blue ink and signed by Warren. The card shows Warren wrote “American Indian” for her “race” and is dated April 1986. A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Democrat did not dispute the card’s authenticity, according to the newspaper.
…
In a brief statement with the Post, Warren once again apologized for claiming Native American heritage.
“I can’t go back,” she said. “But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/06/instagram-purges-photo-of-elizabeth-warren-claiming-american-indian-race-on-professional-document/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1sMjoGltY4FI_OiegGkGGI4tX0W_RorX9E-_jFdIwg_ugu92FJBK-DIyw&fbclid=IwAR1yJjpMteUjwtC3HOvtd_9q9mDZwCkbPAj4yfJoElFC0II1jZZkayCJXe4&fbclid=IwAR009xhb7fsFgfDaCilfigjkInC6e_bdxo_CAE5y1z3EIdtqx0jXw_wft1M
-
Instagram Purges Photo of Elizabeth Warren Claiming ‘American Indian’ Race on Professional Document
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/02/GettyImages-1076221868-640x480.jpg)
CAMBRIDGE, MA - DECEMBER 31: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), addresses the media outside of her home after announcing she formed an exploratory committee for a 2020 Presidential run on December 31, 2018 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Warren is one of the earliest potential candidates to make an official announcement in what …Scott Eisen/Getty; Inset: Washington Post
6 Feb 2019
Facebook’s photo-sharing platform Instagram recently deleted a post of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Texas Bar registration form on which she states that she is an “American Indian.” The Platform called a photo of Warren’s registration “harassment or bullying.”
GOP national spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany took to Twitter recently to call out another social media platform — Facebook’s photo-sharing website Instagram. In her Twitter post, McEnany claims that Instagram deleted a post she made which featured a copy of Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Texas Bar registration form in which she states that she is an “American Indian.”
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Kayleigh McEnany
✔
@kayleighmcenany
I have been warned by @instagram and cannot operate my account because I posted an image of Elizabeth Warren’s Bar of Texas registration form via @washingtonpost.
I’m warned that I am “harassing,” “bullying,” and “blackmailing” her.
(See below!)
7,051
6:56 AM - Feb 6, 2019
5,862 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Instagram included a number of its community guideline rules in its message to McEnany informing her that they had deleted her post. The guidelines state that the social media site removes content that “targets private individuals to degrade or shame them.”
The rules further state that the social media site removes “content with personal information shared to harass or blackmail people,” however, any personal information such as Warren’s home address at the time of signing the bar registration had already been redacted in McEnany’s post.
Finally, Instagram notes that the website has a “zero tolerance policy when it comes to posts or threats to post intimate images of others.” It’s safe to say that McEnany’s post did not violate this particular rule in any way, however, the post was still removed by Instagram. Breitbart News has reached out to Instagram for comment on this issue and the platform’s decision to remove McEnany’s post but has not received a reply at the time of the writing of this article.
Breitbart News reported on Warren’s Bar of Texas registration form this week, with reporter Joshua Caplan stating:
The Washington Post obtained the registration card, which was previously undisclosed, during an open records request. As the Post noted, the card was handwritten using blue ink and signed by Warren. The card shows Warren wrote “American Indian” for her “race” and is dated April 1986. A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Democrat did not dispute the card’s authenticity, according to the newspaper.
…
In a brief statement with the Post, Warren once again apologized for claiming Native American heritage.
“I can’t go back,” she said. “But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/06/instagram-purges-photo-of-elizabeth-warren-claiming-american-indian-race-on-professional-document/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1sMjoGltY4FI_OiegGkGGI4tX0W_RorX9E-_jFdIwg_ugu92FJBK-DIyw&fbclid=IwAR1yJjpMteUjwtC3HOvtd_9q9mDZwCkbPAj4yfJoElFC0II1jZZkayCJXe4&fbclid=IwAR009xhb7fsFgfDaCilfigjkInC6e_bdxo_CAE5y1z3EIdtqx0jXw_wft1M
More media protecting their leftist agenda.
-
More media protecting their leftist agenda.
seriously.. just freakin' imagine for a second
if the exact same thing happened but it was a high ranking or even well known republican
-
Yale editor chillingly urges fellow Yalies to act as a 'Stasi' to monitor white males
American Thinker ^ | Monica Showalter
Posted on 2/8/2019, 11:03:00 AM by RoosterRedux
At the Yale Daily News, East Germany had nothing on the paper's opinion editor, Isis Davis-Marks.
The Nazi SS had nothing. The Castroite Cuban turbas had nothing. Mao's cultural revolution had nothing.
Here's what Davis-Marks has in mind for Yale college kids:
Everyone knows a white boy with shiny brown hair and a saccharine smile that conceals his great ambitions. He could be in Grand Strategy or the Yale Political Union. Maybe he’s the editor-in-chief of the News. He takes his classes. He networks. And, when it comes time for graduation, he wins all the awards.
One day, I’ll turn on the television — or, who knows, maybe televisions will be obsolete by this point — and I’ll see him sitting down for his Senate confirmation hearing.
...
So here we have the lovely state of affairs at Yale University, which gave this mediocrity - after a clearly cossetted upbringing among the elites - an admission slot.
She's urging her fellow students to follow white males around, monitor them, spy on them, screenshot them, and document everything they do, in the hopes of ruining their careers at some point 30 years further down the line.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-
Yale editor chillingly urges fellow Yalies to act as a 'Stasi' to monitor white males
American Thinker ^ | Monica Showalter
Posted on 2/8/2019, 11:03:00 AM by RoosterRedux
At the Yale Daily News, East Germany had nothing on the paper's opinion editor, Isis Davis-Marks.
The Nazi SS had nothing. The Castroite Cuban turbas had nothing. Mao's cultural revolution had nothing.
Here's what Davis-Marks has in mind for Yale college kids:
Everyone knows a white boy with shiny brown hair and a saccharine smile that conceals his great ambitions. He could be in Grand Strategy or the Yale Political Union. Maybe he’s the editor-in-chief of the News. He takes his classes. He networks. And, when it comes time for graduation, he wins all the awards.
One day, I’ll turn on the television — or, who knows, maybe televisions will be obsolete by this point — and I’ll see him sitting down for his Senate confirmation hearing.
...
So here we have the lovely state of affairs at Yale University, which gave this mediocrity - after a clearly cossetted upbringing among the elites - an admission slot.
She's urging her fellow students to follow white males around, monitor them, spy on them, screenshot them, and document everything they do, in the hopes of ruining their careers at some point 30 years further down the line.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Then do the same to her & those like her
No doubt she’d find something to complain about then.
-
Watch as Leftist Arizona Students Surround U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Harass Them, Chase Agents Off Campus
By Nick Arama|March 22nd, 2019|
https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconservatives/2019/03/22/watch-as-leftist-arizona-students-surround-u-s-border-patrol-agents-harass-them-chase-agents-off-campus-2/
-
Chick-fil-A banned from second airport in two weeks
"Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity," a company spokeswoman said.
April 4, 2019
By Janelle Griffith
For the second time in two weeks, Chick-fil-A has been blocked from opening a location at an airport.
Plans for a Chick-fil-A restaurant at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport in New York were nixed late last week, a New York state lawmaker said.
Democratic Assemblyman Sean Ryan of Buffalo said the airport's food vendor notified him that they would not add a Chick-fil-A restaurant to the food court.
Ryan applauded the decision, saying that the owners of the fast-food chain have a history of supporting and funding anti-LGBTQ organizations.
“The views of Chick-fil-A do not represent our state or the Western New York community, and businesses that support discrimination have no place operating in taxpayer-funded public facilities,” he said in a statement.
In late March, the San Antonio City Council voted against allowing Chick-fil-A to open a restaurant at San Antonio International Airport, over what it called the company's "legacy of anti-LGBT behavior."
Earlier last month, ThinkProgress published a report based on newly released tax filings that claimed Chick-fil-A donated $1.8 million to anti-LGBTQ groups in 2017, including one that allegedly bars employees from "homosexual acts."
Chick-fil-A did not immediately return a request for comment from NBC News on Thursday.
The company said last week that it has been transparent on its website about its youth- and education-focused giving and that it does not have a political or non-inclusive agenda.
"Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity," a company spokeswoman said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/chick-fil-banned-second-airport-two-weeks-n991016?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR1IyFGE9nndjfFMGabPpy0OGPFFQnmlS75SjaEA71RSqRqZbfjB5FvDKeU
-
"Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity," a company spokeswoman said.
Actions speak much louder than words. The spokeswoman has been either set up or she's not too bright. I hear they have good chicken. ;)
-
"Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity," a company spokeswoman said.
Actions speak much louder than words. The spokeswoman has been either set up or she's not too bright. I hear they have good chicken. ;)
Most people could care less about their stance on LGBTXYZ. What most care about is pulling up to the drive thru at lunch, 30-40 cars ahead of you(not exaggerating), but still getting your order in 5 minutes or less. And the people they hire hustle, are friendly and go out of their way to get it right. And as an added bonus, the food is great for a fast food joint. All this does is hurt those airports food courts and deprive passengers of a tasty chicken sandwich.
-
Liberalism is a miserable proselytizing religious 24/7 pursuit. They just can’t give it up.
-
Most people could care less about their stance on LGBTXYZ. What most care about is pulling up to the drive thru at lunch, 30-40 cars ahead of you(not exaggerating), but still getting your order in 5 minutes or less. And the people they hire hustle, are friendly and go out of their way to get it right. And as an added bonus, the food is great for a fast food joint. All this does is hurt those airports food courts and deprive passengers of a tasty chicken sandwich.
Well said and probably true. Guess I am one of a very few people who've never had a meal from that place. They only have two locations in Oregon. Guess they figured they would not get much business in our 'liberal' state. :)
-
Most people could care less about their stance on LGBTXYZ. What most care about is pulling up to the drive thru at lunch, 30-40 cars ahead of you(not exaggerating), but still getting your order in 5 minutes or less. And the people they hire hustle, are friendly and go out of their way to get it right. And as an added bonus, the food is great for a fast food joint. All this does is hurt those airports food courts and deprive passengers of a tasty chicken sandwich.
In socialism the airport would be forced to put in a chik fil a.
-
STUDENT STANDS AGAINST LIBERAL MOB DEMANDING THOMAS JEFFERSON STATUE BE REMOVED
04/03/2019 | EDUCATION
Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter
Campus Reform correspondent and Hofstra University student Richard Caldwell petitioned to keep a Thomas Jefferson statue on campus after a group of protesters attempted to have it removed.
“Last March, around this exact same time, there was a big issue about this and we made the counter-petition. I made the counter-protest, and we had meetings with the administrators, and after three months of debate they decided that the statue was going to stay up,” Caldwell told “Fox & Friends” Wednesday.
“Now, all of a sudden, it seems to be an issue again, but I believe this issue has already been solved seeing as how they already decided they wanted to keep it up.” (RELATED: Thomas Jefferson Statue Branded With ‘Racist + Rapist’ On His Birthday)
WATCH:
Caldwell said his love of history was the driving force behind his involvement and that Jefferson’s shortcomings aren’t a valid excuse to erase him from existence.
“I’m a history major, so I love history and I study it very closely,” he said. “Thomas Jefferson was a great man. He wrote the Declaration of Independence. He instilled many of the ideals of freedom and equality that we use in our society today, and we also have to acknowledge that he had the past history of slavery, which we look back and say it was horrible today, but at the time it was normal.”
“If you remove the statue, you remove the conversation about it — you remove the history about it,” he continued. “And the only way that we could move forward from the past is talking about history and acknowledging things happened, while also looking at the greater picture and seeing all the good that he did.”
Hofstra released a statement in response to the renewed protests:
“After the conversations a year ago with a variety of stakeholders about the Thomas Jefferson statue on campus, Hofstra University’s president announced in May 2018 that the statue will remain where it is,” the statement read.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/03/students-thomas-jefferson-statue/
-
Good. Grow a pair and stop trying to silence opposing viewpoints.
Students Try To Get Famous Professor Fired; University President Smacks Them
By JAMES BARRETT
April 22, 2019
Over the course of the last two weeks, two university presidents have issued strong rebukes of attempts by activist students to fire or silence high-profile university professors with whom they ideologically disagree. Last Tuesday, the president of George Mason University issued a statement to the students calling for the firing of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh informing them that while it may be "painful" to some of them, standing behind their three-year contract with Kavanaugh as a teacher is "very, very important for the integrity of the university." A few days earlier, the president of the Unversity of the Arts told activists that they would not be allowed to "suppress" free speech on his campus by ousting long-time faculty member and famous "anti-feminist feminist" Camille Paglia.
Paglia has come under fire from her fellow progressives for pushing back against the transgender and #MeToo movements, resulting in a student-led petition for her to be fired by the University of the Arts (UArts). But in an open letter to students, faculty, and staff posted on April 10, UArts President David Yager made painfully clear that the activists weren't going to be allowed to silence Paglia (h/t John Sexton).
Yager begins by "re-affirm[ing] the University’s core values, and our commitment to rigorous critical inquiry in support of our mission of Advancing Human Creativity": "Our core value on integrity and diversity is clear: we are a supportive community committed to individual and artistic integrity and inclusion," he states. "We promote and respect self-expression, a wide range of ideas and diversity in all its forms."
That core value, he suggests, is under pressure by the increasing lack of civility in debate and by those who seek to "suppress" speech with which they disagree. "Unfortunately, as a society we are living in a time of sharp divisions—of opinions, perspectives and beliefs—and that has led to decreased civility, increased anger and a 'new normal' of offense given and taken," he writes. "Across our nation it is all too common that opinions expressed that differ from another’s—especially those that are controversial—can spark passion and even outrage, often resulting in calls to suppress that speech."
But, Yager stresses, that "simply cannot be allowed to happen."
"I firmly believe that limiting the range of voices in society erodes our democracy," he continues. "Universities, moreover, are at the heart of the revolutionary notion of free expression: promoting the free exchange of ideas is part of the core reason for their existence."
Yager then underscores the importance of defending the "open interchange of opinions and beliefs" and "fostering a climate conducive to respectful intellectual debate that empowers and equips our students to meet the challenges they will face in their futures." These values, he suggests, are particularly important in art schools.
"Artists over the centuries have suffered censorship, and even persecution, for the expression of their beliefs through their work," he writes. "My answer is simple: not now, not at UArts."
"Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' 1927 advice still holds true today: that the remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike is more speech and not enforced silence," Yager adds. The school must defend free speech while also promoting civil speech and showing "respect for others and the value of civil discourse." (Read the full letter here.)
Paglia has since responded to the letter, praising it as an "eloquent statement affirming academic freedom was a landmark in contemporary education" and expressing her hope that it will be "a turning point in how American colleges and universities deal with their rampant problem of compulsory ideological conformity."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46260/students-try-get-famous-professor-fired-university-james-barrett?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
-
Poynter pulls blacklist of 'unreliable' news websites after backlash
BY JOE CONCHA - 05/03/19
The Poynter Institute has apologized for publishing a list of 515 news websites it deemed "unreliable" after backlash from readers and on social media regarding "weaknesses in the methodology" used by the nonprofit publication.
The index was compiled from “fake news” databases curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at University of Southern California, Merrimack University, PolitiFact, Snopes and data designer Chris Herbert. Publications originally on the list included the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon.
"Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others," Poynter managing editor Barbara Allen wrote in an explanation behind the piece that was pulled off the site on Thursday.
“We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication,” Allen added. “We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards."
Allen said that Poynter launched the audit to test the veracity of the list and that while it felt that many of the sites "did have a track record of publishing unreliable information," the review also "found weaknesses in the methodology."
"We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report," she said in the statement.
The language in the original story also called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites selected for the list.
"Fake news is a business. Much of that business is ad-supported,” Poynter researcher Barrett Golding wrote in the report. “Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.”
Reaction on Twitter was swift, which included criticism from journalists whose publication were included on the list.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/441959-poynter-pulls-blacklist-of-unreliable-news-websites-after-backlash
-
Poynter pulls blacklist of 'unreliable' news websites after backlash
BY JOE CONCHA - 05/03/19
The Poynter Institute has apologized for publishing a list of 515 news websites it deemed "unreliable" after backlash from readers and on social media regarding "weaknesses in the methodology" used by the nonprofit publication.
The index was compiled from “fake news” databases curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at University of Southern California, Merrimack University, PolitiFact, Snopes and data designer Chris Herbert. Publications originally on the list included the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon.
"Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others," Poynter managing editor Barbara Allen wrote in an explanation behind the piece that was pulled off the site on Thursday.
“We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication,” Allen added. “We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards."
Allen said that Poynter launched the audit to test the veracity of the list and that while it felt that many of the sites "did have a track record of publishing unreliable information," the review also "found weaknesses in the methodology."
"We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report," she said in the statement.
The language in the original story also called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites selected for the list.
"Fake news is a business. Much of that business is ad-supported,” Poynter researcher Barrett Golding wrote in the report. “Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.”
Reaction on Twitter was swift, which included criticism from journalists whose publication were included on the list.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/441959-poynter-pulls-blacklist-of-unreliable-news-websites-after-backlash
I looked but could not find the list, any list that excluded CNN, MSNBC etc is a fake news itself.
-
I looked but could not find the list, any list that excluded CNN, MSNBC etc is a fake news itself.
Good luck with that.
-
Police: Arsonist Set Pro-Life Poster on Fire at Western Washington University
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/03/Pro-life-protesters-640x480.jpg)
Anti-abortion protesters attend the March for Life on January 25, 2013.Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
ALANA MASTRANGELO7 May 20192
An arsonist at Western Washington University set fire to a pro-life poster on Saturday that had been promoting an upcoming speaking event featuring Kristan Hawkins, the president of the pro-life student group, Students for Life of America.
A poster promoting an upcoming speaking event featuring the president of Students for Life of America was set on fire at Western Washington University (WWU), according to a statement by the national organization, adding that campus police are investigating the incident as an act of arson, stating that the fire was “intentionally set.”
“Threats and intimidation of violence should not be tolerated at a university that values free speech,” said Karlie Lodjic, the president of the Students for Life chapter at Western Washington University, “Hawkins’ speech is open to the public and everyone is invited to come and debate and share their beliefs during the Q&A.”
“Yet, these vandals chose to take out their frustration at the mere presence of dissenting points of views by committing an act of arson,” added the student, who also noted that the promotional poster had been put up on the Environmental Sciences building on April 25.
By May 4, just a little over one week after the poster was initially put up, the university’s “Campus Advisory” sent an email informing the campus community that a poster had been set on fire, which had also damaged the wall of the building, and that campus police are investigating the incident as arson.
“University Police were notified of a fire on the outside of the Environmental Studies Building,” read the email obtained by Students for Life of America, “Officers arrived to find that the fire, which had been put out, appeared to be intentionally set by lighting a poster attached to the outside wall on the southeast corner of the building.”
“Someone finally lit that stupid poster on fire,” said one user on Twitter, sharing an image of what appeared to be the arson’s aftermath, in which flames could still be seen on the wall of the building, as well as on a nearby trash can, and one individual hovering over what appears to be a poster on the ground, with the corners of it in flames.
“We strongly condemn this act of violence and intimidation,” said Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins, “We challenge anyone who disagrees with us to come hear the presentation on Thursday instead of resorting to cowardly acts of violence.”
Hawkins is set to speak at WWU on Thursday, May 9, as the final stop for her spring 2019 semester speaking tour, entitled, “Lies Feminists Tell.”
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/07/police-arsonist-set-pro-life-poster-on-fire-at-western-washington-university/
-
An ARSONIST?? Really?? An arsonist??/ Come on Dos--it was a fucking PAPER POSTER.
“Someone finally lit that stupid poster on fire,” said one user on Twitter I like the way this guy thinks! I'm gonna find him and follow him on Twitter.
I (obviously) think a woman has the right to choose. Religion and more importantly the -LAW- shouldn't get involved.
I can't believe somebody wrote an entire article about a nothing event. What's worse you chose to sensationalize it here.
Boring --non event---nothing to see here--or as you would say Dos:
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o6Ztip1Hq0NNGfqyk/giphy.gif)
:: YAWN ::
-
An ARSONIST?? Really?? An arsonist??/ Come on Dos--it was a fucking PAPER POSTER.
“Someone finally lit that stupid poster on fire,” said one user on Twitter I like the way this guy thinks! I'm gonna find him and follow him on Twitter.
I (obviously) think a woman has the right to choose. Religion and more importantly the -LAW- shouldn't get involved.
I can't believe somebody wrote an entire article about a nothing event. What's worse you chose to sensationalize it here.
Boring --non event---nothing to see here--or as you would say Dos:
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o6Ztip1Hq0NNGfqyk/giphy.gif)
:: YAWN ::
These kinds of fascist tactics may not bother you, but those of us who care about freedom of expression, particularly in a place that is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, are rightly very concerned.
-
So ur saying your MORE upset at the concept of stifling free speech than you are with this being an anti-abortion gathering?
If so, you are absolutely correct.
But these things happen all the time. There are tons of examples of free speech being squashed like this.
-
So ur saying your MORE upset at the concept of stifling free speech than you are with this being an anti-abortion gathering?
If so, you are absolutely correct.
But these things happen all the time. There are tons of examples of free speech being squashed like this.
I didn't say any such thing. I posted the article to show further evidence of liberal censorship of opposing viewpoints.
Yes, liberal censorship of opposing viewpoints happens all the time. There are tons of examples of it in this thread.
-
TWITTER SUSPENDS ANOTHER PROMINENT USER FOR STATING BASIC TRUTHS ABOUT TRANSGENDERISM
05/17/2019 | TECH
Rachel Stoltzfoos | Staff Reporter
Twitter locked Heritage Foundation Media Director Greg Scott out of his account Thursday over a tweet he wrote criticizing men who identify as women and compete in women’s sports.
Scott was notified Thursday that his tweet noting the biological differences between the sexes violated Twitter rules against “hateful conduct,” and his account had been suspended. The tweet that caused Scott’s suspension was in reference to a biological male athlete who was banned from competing in a women’s powerlifting competition.
“He is not ‘stuck on the sidelines,'” Scott wrote. “The whole ‘I was astonished’ act is tired and dishonest. If any competitive sport highlights the differences [between] men & women that EVERYONE KNOWS ARE REAL, it is powerlifting.”
. . . .
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/17/twitter-suspends-transgenderism/
-
EXCLUSIVE: Facebook Includes Candace Owens On ‘Hate Agents’ List
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/04/Candace-Owens-Testifies-640x480.jpg)
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 09: Candace Owens of Turning Point USA testifies during a House Judiciary Committee hearing discussing hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism on Capitol Hill on April 9, 2019 in Washington, DC. Internet companies have come under fire recently for allowing hate groups on their …Zach Gibson/Getty Images
ALLUM BOKHARI 17 May 2019
Facebook maintains a list of “hate agents” for monitoring and potential termination, according to a source inside the company. Among the names reportedly on the “hate agent” list? Star pundit and black conservative activist Candace Owens.
According to the source, a Facebook employee who spoke exclusively to Breitbart News, the spreadsheet of “hate agents” that includes Owens was posted to an internal employee discussion group initially founded by Brian Amerige, the former Facebook engineer who quit the company over concerns about political intolerance.
The source claimed that the spreadsheet includes the names of prominent right-wing and alternative media figures who were recently banned from the platform.
Candace Owens is also included in the spreadsheet, in a separate category marked “extra credit.”
A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed to Breitbart News that the list exists, and did not deny that Owens’ name appears on it, but believes that there has not yet been an investigation into her.
The spokeswoman also confirmed that the “hate agents” list, which was created in April, was related to the high-profile bans of alternative media figures (including Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer) that occurred on May 2nd.
Breitbart’s source was able to obtain a partial screenshot of the spreadsheet before the current owner of the discussion group began locking people out in response to the internal leak.
The partial screenshot reveals that Owens’ name is indeed on the list, along with the instruction for Facebook employees to “look into” her “after we’re done with the above designation analysis.”
The spreadsheet also appears to track with Owens has or is associated with any “affiliated hate entities.”
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/05/HateAgents.png)
The source agreed that the “extra credit” category refers to individuals that Facebook has not yet banned, but is likely to investigate for potential “hate speech” violations and potential banning.
This exclusive story was sent to Breitbart News on the same day that Owens “mistakenly” received seven-day suspension from Facebook for criticizing liberal attitudes towards African-Americans, a topic frequently raised by Owens in her public appearances.
Her post called on Black Americans to “wake up to the great liberal hoax,” and recognize that “liberal supremacy” is currently a greater threat to black Americans than white supremacy.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6xJLPkV4AUA36R.jpg)
Candace Owens
✔
@RealCandaceO
Dear @realDonaldTrump,
My @facebook page has been suspended for 7 days for posting that white supremacy is not a threat to black America, as much as father absence and & liberal policies that incentivize it, are.
I am censored for posting the poverty rates in fatherless homes.
50.5K
5:08 AM - May 17, 2019
27.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
For this post, Owens received a 7-day ban from Facebook. Facebook has since reversed the ban, stating that they restored her post and removed the block on her account “after confirming that the content didn’t violate our policies.”
In a comment to Breitbart News, a Facebook spokeswoman said:
“As we said earlier today, we mistakenly applied a temporary block to Candace Owens’ account that we have since restored. We recently announced a group of people that we removed from our services for violating our policies. Candace Owens was not one of those people.”
Previous leaks from Facebook have exposed how the platform developed a “deboosting algorithm”designed to covertly suppress (or “shadowban”) certain content-creators on the platform, making their posts less likely to appear on the feeds of users. According to a Facebook insider who spoke to Project Veritas, this code has been used against prominent conservatives on the platform.
Facebook’s recent censorship surge comes amid pressure from foreign governments to clamp down on hate speech. A recent conference of world leaders dubbed the “Christchurch Call for Action” saw the leaders of France, Canada, Germany, Britain and New Zealand among others demanding crackdowns against “violent extremism” on the internet.
The White House refused to co-sign the call for action, citing free speech concerns – but Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and a number of other tech companies were quick to put their names to the declaration.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/17/exclusive-facebook-includes-candace-owens-on-hate-agents-list/
-
Twitter Suspends Erick Erickson for Mocking Elizabeth Warren
ALLUM BOKHARI
31 May 2019
Twitter has locked the account of conservative evangelical pundit Erick Erickson over a post mocking Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren for her false claims of significant Native American ancestry.
Erickson, the former editor-in-chief and CEO of RedState, joked on Twitter that Warren is set to introduce a “Wrecking American Prosperity Under Marxism or WAMPUM act,” a boomer-humor dig at the Democrat contender’s widely mocked claims of Native American ancestry. (A Wampum is a traditional Native American decoration made of beads).
For this, Twitter locked Erickson out of his account for 12 hours. In its message to Erickson, Twitter said his account had been locked for “hateful conduct.”
View image on Twitter
Patterico
✔
@Patterico
.@EWErickson is suspended from Twitter for 12 hours for making a "wampum" joke about Elizabeth Warren. (See below.) But his point was not to mock her for being an American Indian, but for *falsely claiming* to be one.
606
7:17 AM - May 31, 2019
457 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“[Erick Erickson] is suspended from Twitter for 12 hours for making a “wampum” joke about Elizabeth Warren. (See below.)” wrote Patrick Frey, author of the long-running conservative blog Patterico. “But his point was not to mock her for being an American Indian, but for *falsely claiming* to be one.”
JD Rucker
✔
@JDRucker
This is Twitter violating its own hateful conduct policy by harassing @EWErickson because they disagreed with his politics. It was a joke, and not an exceptionally provocative one by an stretch of the imagination. It’s outrageous. https://noqreport.com/2019/05/31/erick-erickson-hit-twitter-harmless-joke-elizabeth-warren/ …
34
6:10 AM - May 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Erick Erickson hit by Twitter for harmless joke about Elizabeth Warren
It’s no secret that Twitter generally supports, protects, and panders to Democrats. The progressive social network unabashedly limits, shadow-bans, suspends, and often completely bans conservative...
noqreport.com
51 people are talking about this
“This is Twitter violating its own hateful conduct by harassing [Erickson] because they disagreed with his politics,” wrote JD Rucker, editor-in-chief of conservative news site NOQ Report. “It was a joke, and not an exceptionally provocative one by any stretch of the imagination. It’s outrageous.”
Twitter’s decision to lock the account of another prominent conservative figure comes on the heels of the platform’s suspension of Eoin Lenihan, a researcher who recently exposed connections between the violent far-left Antifa movement and mainstream journalists on Twitter. Lenihan also analyzed the coverage of those journalists, finding that the majority of them either outright praised the violent movement or refrained from criticizing it.
Twitter said that Lenihan was suspended for violating Twitter’s rules, but the platform did not specify which one. The platform did not add any additional comments about Erickson’s suspension beyond the reason stated in the message about “hateful conduct” sent the conservative pundit.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/31/twitter-suspends-erick-erickson-for-mocking-elizabeth-warren/
-
TWITTER SUSPENDS ANOTHER PROMINENT USER FOR STATING BASIC TRUTHS ABOUT TRANSGENDERISM
05/17/2019 | TECH
Rachel Stoltzfoos | Staff Reporter
Twitter locked Heritage Foundation Media Director Greg Scott out of his account Thursday over a tweet he wrote criticizing men who identify as women and compete in women’s sports.
Scott was notified Thursday that his tweet noting the biological differences between the sexes violated Twitter rules against “hateful conduct,” and his account had been suspended. The tweet that caused Scott’s suspension was in reference to a biological male athlete who was banned from competing in a women’s powerlifting competition.
“He is not ‘stuck on the sidelines,'” Scott wrote. “The whole ‘I was astonished’ act is tired and dishonest. If any competitive sport highlights the differences [between] men & women that EVERYONE KNOWS ARE REAL, it is powerlifting.”
. . . .
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/17/twitter-suspends-transgenderism/
BFD
No one has a constitutional right to tweet and nothing is stopping this idiot from making his own website and posting his opinions
No different than how you and others censors this site at your whim only you guys don't even bother to state the alleged rule that someone has broken and of course we all see the stated rules broken every day on this board with nothing done.
All "censorship" at a whim and totally fine because no one has a constitutional right to post on this board or anywhere on the web when someone else is setting the rules
At least Twitter has the balls to state what rules are broken. Then again, that hardly takes balls...does it?
-
When Trump blocked some users on Twitter, the courts decided that it was unconstitutional that a government official, like the President, did that to people on a designated public forum. Now that Cortez blocked someone on Twitter, will the same standard apply to her or will it somehow change and now all of a sudden Twitter became a private company and not a public forum? Will it also apply to any public official with a social media presence?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blocked a conservative news outlet on Twitter, and legal experts say that could be unconstitutional
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blocked the right-wing media outlet The Daily Caller from following her on Twitter account last week — a decision some legal experts say may have violated the First Amendment.
The Daily Caller's account tweeted at Ocasio-Cortez last Thursday disputing a comment she made about her Green New Deal resolution. Ocasio-Cortez responded by blocking The Daily Caller from following or reading her tweets.
Last year, a federal court in New York found that President Donald Trump's practice of blocking critics on Twitter — and thus preventing them from interacting with his account — was unconstitutional. The court held that when the president and other public officials use online forums like Twitter for government business, they transform them into public forums subject to First Amendment protections.
Trump appealed the ruling, arguing that he tweets in his personal capacity, rather than as an extension of the federal government. But judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unconvinced by that argument during a March hearing. One asked why Trump's actions weren't "a quintessential First Amendment violation."
And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that a local elected official in Virginia violated the First Amendment when she blocked a constituent on Facebook for 12 hours.
https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-blocks-daily-caller-twitter-unconstitutional-2019-6
-
Los Angeles Lakers' Moritz Wagner apologizes for liking tweet defending George Zimmerman
By Ryan Gaydos | Fox News
Los Angeles Lakers rookie Mortiz Wagner apologized Wednesday for appearing to like a tweet that defended George Zimmerman over the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012.
Wagner’s Twitter account showed he had liked a tweet that read: “Zimmerman killed a man who bigger than him after said man attacked him unprovoked and pounded his head into pavement ‘mma style.’ He has to sign ‘racist paraphernalia’ because the Black community he had volunteered his time to help prior to the incident tried to ruin him…”
TMZ Sports took a screenshot of the tweet. The tweet has since-been unliked.
Wagner, who is from Germany and played college basketball at Michigan, later tweeted an apology over his social media activity.
“I’d like to apologize and say I genuinely have no idea how that tweet was liked from my account,” Wagner wrote. “I would never purposely like something so terrible, and I’m sorry to anyone I hurt.”
Moe Wagner
✔
@moritz_weasley
I’d like to apologize and say I genuinely have no idea how that tweet was liked from my account. I would never purposely like something so terrible, and I’m sorry to anyone I hurt.
3,469
5:33 PM - Jun 18, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
706 people are talking about this
Wagner has also been linked to trade talks. ESPN reported the Lakers are shopping him, Jemerrio Jones and Isaac Bonga in hopes to clear salary to have more money to sign a superstar in the summer.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/los-angeles-lakers-moritz-wagner-apologizes-for-liking-george-zimmerman-tweet
-
This Project Veritas / google stuff is very interesting.
-
This Project Veritas / google stuff is very interesting.
Yep.
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
by Staff Report June 24, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
-
Yep.
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
by Staff Report June 24, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
It was interesting while it lasted. ::)
Google pulls videos accusing it of election manipulation from YouTube... which it owns
Google’s video platform YouTube is apparently no place for content that accuses the tech giant of
political bias and election meddling. An expose based on a sting operation was taken down by the
company a day after its release. The online behemoth found itself in the crosshairs of Project Veritas,
a conservative action group that purports to expose pro-liberal biases at various American organizations
through sting operations and by publishing leaked material. Its report on Monday claimed that Google
deliberately tweaks its search algorithms to promote liberal agendas that it favors, and that this is
intended to help “prevent the next Trump situation” in the upcoming elections.
YouTube, the world’s most popular video sharing platform, which is owned by Google, soon took down
the videos that were uploaded by Project Veritas, its head James O’Keefe reported. The footage was
removed “due to a privacy claim by a third party,” a message now tells anyone trying to view it.
https://www.rt.com/usa/462619-google-removes-veritas-report/
-
Antifa in Portland attacked and blooded a journalist.
It's on film...….cops were there and did nothing.
It's all over twitter.
Not a hint on CNN's front page.
-
Antifa in Portland attacked and blooded a journalist.
It's on film...….cops were there and did nothing.
It's all over twitter.
Not a hint on CNN's front page.
I saw this. It was a politically motivated, racist attack on an innocent Asian-American journalist trying to do his job. Portland is also where the police allowed the mob of antifa-cucks to attack the old man in his car.
-
When Trump blocked some users on Twitter, the courts decided that it was unconstitutional that a government official, like the President, did that to people on a designated public forum. Now that Cortez blocked someone on Twitter, will the same standard apply to her or will it somehow change and now all of a sudden Twitter became a private company and not a public forum? Will it also apply to any public official with a social media presence?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blocked a conservative news outlet on Twitter, and legal experts say that could be unconstitutional
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blocked the right-wing media outlet The Daily Caller from following her on Twitter account last week — a decision some legal experts say may have violated the First Amendment.
The Daily Caller's account tweeted at Ocasio-Cortez last Thursday disputing a comment she made about her Green New Deal resolution. Ocasio-Cortez responded by blocking The Daily Caller from following or reading her tweets.
Last year, a federal court in New York found that President Donald Trump's practice of blocking critics on Twitter — and thus preventing them from interacting with his account — was unconstitutional. The court held that when the president and other public officials use online forums like Twitter for government business, they transform them into public forums subject to First Amendment protections.
Trump appealed the ruling, arguing that he tweets in his personal capacity, rather than as an extension of the federal government. But judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unconvinced by that argument during a March hearing. One asked why Trump's actions weren't "a quintessential First Amendment violation."
And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that a local elected official in Virginia violated the First Amendment when she blocked a constituent on Facebook for 12 hours.
https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-blocks-daily-caller-twitter-unconstitutional-2019-6
Typical double standard. "Rules for thee but not for me".
First Amendment group asks AOC to unblock Twitter users with opposing views
A First Amendment group is asking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to unblock Twitter users who had different political viewpoints from her.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called the practice "unconstitutional" and urged the freshman congresswoman to stop barring those with opposing viewpoints, a plea similar to one it made to President Trump.
The group called the congresswoman's personal @AOC account a "public forum."
"You use the account as an extension of your office to share information about congressional hearings, to explain policy proposals, to advocate legislation, and to solicit public comment about issues relating to government," the letter stated. "The @AOC account is important to you as a legislator, to your constituents, and to others who seek to understand and influence your legislative decisions and priorities."
As of Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez had 5.3 million followers on Twitter while her official congressional account, @RepAOC, boasted 188,000 followers. The group noted the congresswoman had the right to block users who post threatening speech.
In response, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that fewer than 20 accounts were blocked for ongoing harassment and none were within her constituency.
"Harassment is not a viewpoint. Some accounts, like the Daily Caller, posted fake nude photos of me & abused my comments to spread it. No one is entitled to abuse," she posted.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-first-amendment-group-unblock-twitter-users-opposing-views
-
Kansas University faculty wants Chick-fil-A banned from campus for fears of 'safety,' 'mental well being'
By Caleb Parke | Fox News
Despite being closed on Sunday, Chick-fil-A is still the third largest fast food chain in the country. But there's growing liberal backlash against its conservative Christian values, and its philanthropic support. Shouldn't a business be able to donate to the cause of their choice? Christopher Hale and Shane Idleman are here to debate this growing religious freedom conflict.
A few Kansas University faculty members are not fans of allowing Chick-fil-A to be served on campus because they believe the chain violates "safety and inclusion".
The faculty council, filled with "extreme frustration," wants America's favorite restaurant removed from campus for being a "bastion of bigotry" after KU administrators relocated a Chick-fil-A from a basement to "prime real estate" on campus to the Memorial Union. But worse yet, to the council, is the "Chick-fil-A Coin Toss" at the start of the Jayhawks' football home games.
“The culture of Chick-fil-A fosters hate and discrimination on multiple levels,” the Sexuality & Gender Diversity Faculty and Staff Council wrote in a two-page letter, accusing university leaders of being "more concerned about money and corporate sponsorship than the physical, emotional, and mental well being of marginalized and LGBTQ people."
While the fast-food chain is celebrated for its exceptional customer service, it has come under fire several times after its president and CEO, Dan Cathy, publicly supported traditional marriage in 2012 and opponents have accused Chick-fil-A of being anti-LGBTQ for its charitable giving to the Family Research Council and Salvation Army, to name a few.
The faculty group added: “The arrival of Chick-fil-A in this building is insulting, counterproductive and unacceptable."
In response, the College Republicans on campus started a petition for students, alumni, and concerned citizens to send to Chancellor Doug Girod.
"Tell our university administration that our community wants Chick-fil-A on this campus," the conservative group wrote.
Katie Batza, an associate professor of women and gender studies, told the Kansas City Star that hundreds "will boycott or protest" but lamented that the request was "falling on deaf ears."
Interim Provost Carl Lejuez sent an email to faculty and staff, however.
“Moving forward, I believe it is important to have thoughtful discussion and deliberation when we enter into contracts. In the future, we will do so in a manner that is transparent and informed by our commitment to affirm diversity and to be a welcoming and inclusive campus,” the email said, according to the University Daily Kansas.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chick-fil-a-kansas-university-campus
-
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ted-cruz-chicago-mayor-gun-control-132318569.html
"Chicago Mayor Tells Ted Cruz To 'Keep Our Name Out Of Your Mouth' About Gun Control"
WONDER WHY?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ted-cruz-chicago-mayor-gun-control-132318569.html
"Chicago Mayor Tells Ted Cruz To 'Keep Our Name Out Of Your Mouth' About Gun Control"
WONDER WHY?
LMAO, then the dumb broad is to stupid to realize she makes herself look like an idiot by posting a chart about 60% of guns coming in from out of state.
In the same tweet, she posted a graph showing how nearly 60% of the illegal firearms that were recovered in the city between 2013 and 2016 actually came from outside Illinois.
So she makes herself look twice as bad showing that gun control doesn't work since criminals don't follow laws.
-
Kansas University faculty wants Chick-fil-A banned from campus for fears of 'safety,' 'mental well being'
By Caleb Parke | Fox News
Despite being closed on Sunday, Chick-fil-A is still the third largest fast food chain in the country. But there's growing liberal backlash against its conservative Christian values, and its philanthropic support. Shouldn't a business be able to donate to the cause of their choice? Christopher Hale and Shane Idleman are here to debate this growing religious freedom conflict.
A few Kansas University faculty members are not fans of allowing Chick-fil-A to be served on campus because they believe the chain violates "safety and inclusion".
The faculty council, filled with "extreme frustration," wants America's favorite restaurant removed from campus for being a "bastion of bigotry" after KU administrators relocated a Chick-fil-A from a basement to "prime real estate" on campus to the Memorial Union. But worse yet, to the council, is the "Chick-fil-A Coin Toss" at the start of the Jayhawks' football home games.
“The culture of Chick-fil-A fosters hate and discrimination on multiple levels,” the Sexuality & Gender Diversity Faculty and Staff Council wrote in a two-page letter, accusing university leaders of being "more concerned about money and corporate sponsorship than the physical, emotional, and mental well being of marginalized and LGBTQ people."
While the fast-food chain is celebrated for its exceptional customer service, it has come under fire several times after its president and CEO, Dan Cathy, publicly supported traditional marriage in 2012 and opponents have accused Chick-fil-A of being anti-LGBTQ for its charitable giving to the Family Research Council and Salvation Army, to name a few.
The faculty group added: “The arrival of Chick-fil-A in this building is insulting, counterproductive and unacceptable."
In response, the College Republicans on campus started a petition for students, alumni, and concerned citizens to send to Chancellor Doug Girod.
"Tell our university administration that our community wants Chick-fil-A on this campus," the conservative group wrote.
Katie Batza, an associate professor of women and gender studies, told the Kansas City Star that hundreds "will boycott or protest" but lamented that the request was "falling on deaf ears."
Interim Provost Carl Lejuez sent an email to faculty and staff, however.
“Moving forward, I believe it is important to have thoughtful discussion and deliberation when we enter into contracts. In the future, we will do so in a manner that is transparent and informed by our commitment to affirm diversity and to be a welcoming and inclusive campus,” the email said, according to the University Daily Kansas.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chick-fil-a-kansas-university-campus
Man I just don’t have too many words for this story, other than those folks are retards.
-
Police charity event on hold after chief withdraws because Republicans were invited: report
By Brie Stimson | Fox News
Fox News Flash top headlines for Oct. 1 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com
A charity event planned in honor of an officer killed in a 2018 mass shooting at a country music bar in in Southern California has been postponed indefinitely -- reportedly because a police chief didn't want Republicans invited.
The Blue Bowl, a charity flag football game, was intended to raise money for the family of fallen Ventura County Sgt. Ron Helus as well as other officers killed in the line of duty, FOX 11 of Los Angeles reported.
Helus died last Nov. 7, when a 28-year-old suspect allegedly attacked the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, killing a total of 13 people and wounding about a dozen others. The suspect died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, authorities have said.
Thousands of dollars had already been raised for fallen officers' families, but the money is now being returned to donors because Thousand Oaks Police Chief Tim Hagel reportedly withdrew the police department because Trump supporters would be speaking at the event.
'Wow, are you kidding me?'
"He basically said over and over in the conversation, 'This is not Trump country, that slogan 'Make America Great' is not favorable, popular, within 1,200 square miles,' that we don’t want Republicans here. I could not believe it,” Mike Randall, vice president of the Fallen Officers Foundation, said, according to FOX 11.
“'The only thing,' and I quote, 'the only thing you [could have done to make] this worse, Mike, was to invite Dick Cheney and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.'
"And I went, 'Wow, are you kidding me?"
Both Democrats and Republicans were invited to the event. Gov. Gavin Newsom's public safety liaison, Trump supporter Scott Baio, who attended Helus’ church, and Trump-supporting singer Joy Villa were all scheduled to attend.
He also said Democratic Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin was upset that her former opponent had been invited.
He added that Hagel told him to get rid of the Republican speakers or the police department would withdraw. They finally did pull out.
"He goes, 'Yeah, this ain’t gonna work for us,' I said, 'You’re not gonna support this with the honor guard?' And he goes, 'No, we’re not bringing the honor guard. We’re not coming. We’re not going to be there, not supporting it'," said Randall.
'This is not OK. This is prejudice.'
The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department issued a statement, saying:
"The 'Blue Bowl' event was represented as a charitable flag football tournament to raise funds for the family of Sergeant Ron Helus. An event that would honor Ron’s memory and provide support to his wife Karen and son Jordan. As the event began to materialize, we became concerned with the behavior of some of the organizers of the event. Although I believe the organizers had good intentions, the event was moving in a direction we no longer felt comfortable supporting.”
Singer Villa called the chief's response "disgusting."
"This is not OK. This is prejudice, hello?" she said. "You’re shutting down an event because of the way conservatives think, because I support the president? This is disgusting, I’m appalled, and in all my years being an out conservative, I’ve never seen something so despicable like this.”
"You’re shutting down an event because of the way conservatives think, because I support the president? This is disgusting."
— Joy Villa, singer who supports President Trump
Randall added, "Ron Helus was a true hero, he saved lives that night. Did he run in and go, 'Are you Republican or Democrat or independent, I need to know before I help you?' No they don’t. ... You’ve messed with the wrong person, you’ve messed with the wrong founder, you’ve messed with the wrong foundation," FOX 11 reported.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fallen-officers-charity-event-on-hold-after-police-chief-withdraws-becuase-republicans-were-invited-report
-
And this woman wants to be POTUS??
Kamala Harris Makes Case For Twitter To Ban Donald Trump
“Of all the things, why that?” Harris was asked.
By Lee Moran
10/16/2019
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Tuesday likened President Donald Trump’s “irresponsible” and “erratic” Twitter habits to “a 2-year-old with a machine gun.”
“He doesn’t understand the power of his words or his actions and the way that they will actually impact and could end other human beings’ lives,” the California senator told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes in an interview following the televised Democratic debate.
During the debate, Harris called on Twitter to suspend Trump’s account. It led to some sparring with her 2020 rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who disagreed. Harris was widely panned for, in a segment about the power of big tech, very narrowly focusing on the fact that Twitter hasn’t banned the president from tweeting.
Hayes asked Harris afterward why “of all the things,” Trump’s violations of the social media platform’s terms of service mattered.
“Ask the whistleblower, ask members of the United States Congress, ask the people who are prepared to testify about this president’s lawlessness and obstruction of justice,” Harris replied. “Ask the people and the families in El Paso, when that shooter admitted in his manifesto that he was influenced by Donald Trump’s tweets.”
“Donald Trump has 65 million followers on Twitter and we have to take seriously the weaponization of this platform by the president and the need, therefore, of a private corporation to be held accountable to say he has abused the terms and it could result literally in a threat to safety of human beings who are participating in the process of justice,” Harris continued.
She later clarified “what we’re talking about, because this can go into some abstract, law school debate but the reality of it is, we are talking about Donald Trump weaponizing Twitter in a way that could result in real consequence, including death, and we have to take that seriously.”
Check out the interview here:
All In with Chris Hayes
✔
@allinwithchris
WATCH: Kamala Harris on Trump's rhetoric on Twitter: "He is like a 2-year-old with a machine gun. He doesn't understand the power of his words or his actions." #inners
Embedded video
3,851
5:55 PM - Oct 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,466 people are talking about this
Twitter on Tuesday confirmed its approach to dealing with world leaders in a blog post. “We focus on the language of reported Tweets and do not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of the content or its intent,” the company said.
“Presently, direct interactions with fellow public figures, comments on political issues of the day, or foreign policy saber-rattling on economic or military issues are generally not in violation of the Twitter Rules,” it added. “However, if a Tweet from a world leader does violate the Twitter Rules but there is a clear public interest value to keeping the Tweet on the service, we may place it behind a notice that provides context about the violation and allows people to click through should they wish to see the content.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-twitter-ban-donald-trump_n_5da6c978e4b02253a2fa9c09
-
Colorado State Students Try to Ban Turning Point USA Event for ‘Creating Unsafe Spaces’
ALANA MASTRANGELO 23 Oct 2019
Colorado State University (CSU) student and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) chapter president Gabby Brown told Breitbart News that leftists had tried to get her group’s event featuring TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., and Kimberly Guilfoyle banned for “creating unsafe spaces” on campus. Brown spoke to SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow in a Wednesday interview for the show’s weekly TPUSA campus report.
“There has been a lot of what [the school] deems bias-related incidents on our campus recently,” said Brown, who mentioned that some students — who had no affiliation with TPUSA — had posted photos in “blackface” makeup, and that in a separate incident, an anonymous vandal had drawn a swastika on a building.
“And somehow,” continued Brown, “Turning Point USA has been conflated with those things, which is completely untrue and unfounded. None of our students were involved in any of those things.”
One reason for the wrongful conflation was likely due to the university’s president, Joyce McConnell, who bizarrely sent an email to the entire CSU student body in which she compared Kirk and his organization to “blackface” and a swastika.
Subsequently, students had become outraged Brown’s event featuring Kirk, Trump Jr., and Guilfoyle as speakers on Tuesday.
Listen below:
“We came out and said that those things were horrible, and we have nothing to do with that,” said Brown, “but because we’re a conservative organization on campus, a lot of people are just willing to loop us in with any of the horrible things that happen on campus, because they want to silence us.”
“When Charlie Kirk got on stage last night, he made it clear that Turning Point USA is not involved in those things, and we do not stand for racism,” continued Brown, adding that students had nonetheless arrived before the event to protest.
“There were petitions signed by students, trying to get us kicked off campus for creating ‘unsafe spaces,'” said Brown, “and there were many groups who began to really target us for exercising our right of free speech and bringing speakers, who, otherwise students would never hear their viewpoints on this campus.”
Brown added that while some of the protests were silent, others were not, as individuals clad in all black began chanting “hey hey, ho ho, Turning Point has got to go.”
“There was some communication sent out by the university, which directly conflated us with those bias-related incidents,” added Brown, in reference to the email sent by the university president last month.
“It absolutely is exhausting to deal with the lunacy of the tactics that are used on campus,” said Brown, “but without a group like Turning Point USA on campus, it wouldn’t really be as possible as it is today, so we’re grateful to have Turning Point on our campus.”
According to a Turning Point USA spokesperson, the university’s president has since apologized privately to Brown for potentially putting innocent students in harm’s way.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/10/23/colorado-state-students-try-to-ban-turning-point-usa-event-for-creating-unsafe-spaces/
-
Watch: University of Michigan Student Destroys Turning Point USA Recruiting Table
ALANA MASTRANGELO 31 Oct 2019
A student at the University of Michigan approached a group of Turning Point USA students and activists and began stealing the entirety of the organization’s supplies — even the cookies and hot chocolate — before dismantling the group’s recruiting table. The incident was caught on video.
Student members of Turning Point USA were once again harassed at their college for espousing conservative views. The latest incident, which follows a series of instances of harassment and intimidation against conservatives across the country, happened last week at the University of Michigan, where a student approached TPUSA members and began stealing all of their supplies, completely disrupting their recruiting drive.
A large portion of the incident was caught on video by University of Michigan senior and TPUSA chapter president Austin McIntosh. The video was then posted to the school’s TPUSA group’s Facebook page on Thursday.
Watch below:
“Recording me don’t make me feel no type of way, so you can keep doing it,” said the vandal to TPUSA members as he walked to a nearby trash can to dispose of the group’s stolen cookies and signs — just moments after dumping a bowl of lollipops on the ground.
“It’s against the law to steal,” said TPUSA field representative Monika Konrad to the student as he destroyed one of their signs, which simply read, “Free Speech #FreeTheFirst.”
“You know, it’s also against the law to hate speech,” stated the vandal, as he threw the TPUSA sign into the trash.
“It’s not hate speech,” Konrad contested.
“What were we doing that was hateful?” added McIntosh. “Did you see the calm conversation I was having with someone who doesn’t agree with me?”
“You know what I saw?” responded the vandal, who then oddly began listing off volume titles of the Japanese manga series, JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure.
The vandal proceeded to utter nonsensical remarks to himself as he walked back to the TPUSA table to steal more of the group’s materials. He then attempted to pop their giant “free speech ball,” but abandoned his endeavor upon realizing that the beach ball was not easy to destroy.
“It’s not deflating quick enough,” the student muttered to himself, as he yet again made his way back to the TPUSA table to steal more items from the conservative students.
“Keep up the class, man,” said McIntosh.
“I will, that’s what I’m here for,” quipped the vandal, as he threw away a bag of TPUSA pins, which read, “I <3 [love] America.”
“I hope next time you table, I can come up to you and talk to you and have a very calm conversation with you,” said McIntosh, implying that despite the vandal’s behavior, he was still willing to engage in civil dialog in the future.
“I don’t give two shits,” responded the student, as he tore up the group’s “Free Hot Chocolate” sign.
Near the end of the video, the vandal had successfully disposed of every single item on the TPUSA recruiting table.
“If you touch my items, I swear, I will call the police,” said Konrad, in reference to one last remaining box of cookies that she had managed to salvage during the debacle, as well as a few of her personal items.
“Call them,” dared the student thief. “Go ahead, just call them. You aren’t calling them. Use the phone to call them.”
Moments after the spectacle had concluded, the conservative students called the police.
“When campus police arrived, I pointed him out and he fled into a building, where police lost him inside,” said McIntosh to Breitbart News, adding that upon walking into his next class, he recognized the aggressor as a University of Michigan student.
“We are literally classmates,” he said, adding that the student left the room about ten minutes, after the individual realized that he and McIntosh were in the same class.
McIntosh said that his group was simply promoting free speech and giving out hot chocolate, in an attempt to strike up conversations with fellow students on campus, in the hopes of recruiting new TPUSA members.
“It’s unfortunate that [fellow students] do not respect our right to freedom of speech,” said McIntosh. “This is further proof of campus culture attempting to silence conservative voices, and once again, shows the intolerance of the left.”
The student added that despite the group being harassed, his members remain dedicated to continuing their involvement with TPUSA on campus.
“Our things can be replaced, and we will be back to spreading the conservative message that the University of Michigan desperately campus needs,” said McIntosh. “If anything, this has made our members more willing to do events on campus.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/31/watch-university-of-michigan-student-destroys-turning-point-usa-recruiting-table/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/10/31/greta-thunberg-calls-on-facebook-to-censor-her-critics/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3C5aRULNutbUwrt0Hf1OkF6840BV9qeMncyVci_DE_HgorhiDtxD86mzI
;)
-
Facebook Removes News Reporting, Mention of Alleged ‘Whistleblower’s’ Identity
ALLUM BOKHARI8 Nov 2019
Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies.
For example, on Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following statement:
Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
Breitbart News is currently the 68th-most visited site in the United States according to Alexa, and the 13th most-engaged Facebook publisher in the world according to NewsWhip.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and the Western Journal. Saagar Enjeti, Chief Washington Correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, One America News host Jack Posobiec, and TownHall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
It isn’t only conservatives reporting on Ciaramella. New York Magazine and HuffPost contributor Yashar Ali identified Ciaramella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet. Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources. Facebook’s requirement to revise its policy on Ciaramella appears to already have been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/08/facebook-removes-any-news-reporting-on-or-even-mention-of-who-the-whistleblower-is-alleged-to-be/
-
AOC is still blocking critics on Twitter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have apologized to and unblocked former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind on Twitter, but the socialist from Queens doesn’t seem to have any intention of offering an online olive branch to others on her blacklist.
Five individuals or entities blocked by Ocasio-Cortez tell The Post they remain in the digital dog house, unable to see or interact with the Congresswoman’s tweets from their accounts — and they want out.
“I reached out to … her former chief of staff Saikat [Chakrabarti] asking to be unblocked and I never heard back,” Harry Cherry, a 20-year-old conservative Twitter user and former journalist told The Post.
“The First Amendment of the United States requires it,” said Rep. Niraj Antani, a conservative state lawmaker in Ohio who is also blocked.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/aoc-is-still-blocking-critics-on-twitter/
-
University of Florida student president is being impeached over a Donald Trump Jr. speech
By Eric Levenson, CNN
November 14, 2019
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191114122416-trump-jr-university-of-florida-exlarge-169.jpg)
Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle were paid $50,000 in student fees to speak at the University of Florida on October 10, 2019.
(CNN)In a reflection of the federal government in miniature, the student body president of the University of Florida is facing impeachment for allegedly abusing his power to benefit a Trump.
The move to impeach stems from an October 10 speech from Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle as part of his "Triggered" book tour at the University Auditorium in Gainesville. The UF's ACCENT Speakers Bureau paid the couple $50,000 in student activity fees for the speech.
Two weeks later, the school newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, published emails between UF student body president Michael Murphy and Caroline Wren, a finance official for Donald Trump's reelection campaign, in which they discussed the speech.
That coordination, some students say, violates a student body rule saying that no student activity funds should be used in support of, or against a political party.
The impeachment resolution filed by five student senators on Tuesday says Murphy "abused his power to advance a particular political party at the expense of the students he should represent." A total of 107 people, including a mix of school senators, UF students and alumni, also signed the resolution.
"This seems to be an obvious violation," said Ben Lima, one of the UF senators leading the impeachment charge.
In all, the episode mirrors what's going on in Washington, DC: a president facing impeachment after being accused of using his powers to benefit a particular political party, amid a backdrop of a sharply divided political atmosphere.
Murphy and Wren have denied wrongdoing. A UF spokesman said that Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle did not campaign during the paid speech.
"UF's policy regarding campaign appearances on campus is in alignment with state and federal law regarding campaign appearances on campus," the university said. "Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle were advised about UF's policy prior to their appearance and did not engage in campaign activities during the event."
The October speech was part of Trump Jr.'s tour for his book "Triggered," yet it bore elements of a campaign-style rally, including effusive praise for President Trump and video from the event shows. Guilfoyle -- a Trump campaign senior advisor and Trump Jr.'s girlfriend -- introduced him by slamming politicians in the "swamp" and praising Trump Jr. and his father.
"God bless the Trump family, God bless President Trump, God bless our veterans, our law enforcement and our first responders, and God bless all of you for fighting for this country. God bless America and Donald Trump Jr.," she said, leading to chants of "U-S-A."
Trump Jr. then delivered his speech even as some of those in the crowd attempted to yell over him.
The emails between Murphy and Wren, released from an alumna to The Alligator in late October, show that Wren, a national financial consultant for Trump Victory, a fundraising committee, personally asked Murphy to bring Trump Jr. to campus.
"We met at my house on the 4th of July," Wren wrote in a Sept. 10 email. "I wanted to follow up with you regarding a speaking engagement at the University of Florida for Donald Trump Jr."
How impeachment works
Murphy responded the next day saying he'd "love to hop on a phone call" to discuss it, The Alligator reported.
Wren has not responded to a CNN request for comment. In a statement to The New York Times, she said that she was not representing the Trump campaign when she emailed Murphy and that she had forgotten to remove her "Trump Victory" signature.
Murphy, who did not respond to a CNN request for comment, told The Alligator that he told Wren on the phone that he wanted to bring Trump Jr. for a non-campaign event. Wren then connected him to Trump Jr.'s booking agent to plan the event, he said.
Murphy also said his staff reached out to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and non-campaign staff for an event, but his non-campaign staff declined, The Alligator reported.
The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment.
The $50,000 price tag was not out of the ordinary for Florida's speaker series. Rapper Pitbull was paid $130,000, "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary was paid $95,000, and comedian Hasan Minhaj received $78,000 for their respective speeches, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
And like in the federal government, actually removing a student president at UF would require an overwhelming majority that will be difficult to attain.
As explained in the UF student government constitution, the student body president can be impeached if two-thirds of the school senators elected in the spring vote to do so. The president would then be suspended until he faces a trial by the school senators elected in the fall, who can convict him and remove him from office with a three-fourths vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/us/donald-trump-jr-florida-impeachment/index.html
-
Good grief. It's a friggin chicken sandwich.
Chick-Fil-A Food Truck Triggers Oregon Students, Sparks Walkout
By Emily Zanotti
DailyWire.com
NOVEMBER 14TH, 2019
Chicken nuggets, french fries, and a fried chicken sandwich are arranged for a photograph during an event ahead of the grand opening for a Chick-fil-A restaurant in New York, U.S., on Friday, Oct. 2, 2015. Chick-fil-A, the Southern chicken-sandwich chain that has drawn both controversy and copycats over the years, has finally arrived in New York. The company will open a 5,000-square-foot (465-square-meter), three-level restaurant in Manhattan's Garment District that will be the chain's largest location in the nation.Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Around 100 students walked out of West Linn High School in Oregon last week in protest of the school’s decision to allow a Chick-fil-A food truck to sell chicken sandwiches during one of the school’s football games, among other microaggressions they said were making LGBT students feel “unsafe.”
“West Linn High School’s Gay-Straight Alliance organized the walkout and says the current culture at the school is not safe for LGBTQ+ students. They posted to Instagram saying students are being harassed in sports games and in classrooms,” local news station KATU reported.
The Chick-fil-A food truck was, apparently, the most egregious example of harassment, but a transgender student’s car was also vandalized with the word, “queer.”
“We walked out to show our student pride,” Billie Henderson, the student whose car was targeted, told the local public ration station. “To show that despite everything we’ve been through, we are still proud of who we are, and we won’t back down and we won’t make exceptions for anyone.”
“A group of counterprotesters also walked out of classes wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and waving American flags and Chick-fil-A bags,” the Washington Times reported.
The school’s public information officer, Andrew Kilstrom, could not confirm any specific incidents of harassment but said that there have been issues in the past, and the school continues to work to promote a culture of inclusion.
“The West Linn-Wilsonville School District takes all matters of school safety seriously, and diligently investigates and addresses all potential safety concerns,” he added. “That includes bullying or cyberbullying.”
West Linn High School noted that they did not approve of the walkout, though they do encourage students to speak their minds.
It’s not clear what prompted the Oregon school to invite Chick-fil-A to sell food on campus during sporting events, but the chicken sandwich chain has drawn protests from LGBTQ rights activsts across the country since 2012, when LGBTQ rights groups discovered that Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy is opposed to same-sex marriage and has donated to socially conservative organizations. Activists have staged protests against Chick-fil-A in a number of states, often to no avail. New store openings are typically marked by long lines and extended waits for the famous sandwich.
In some rare cases, activists have been able to prevent new Chick-fil-A locations from opening, typically in airports.
West Linn High School football boosters typically invite a number of vendors to sell food at football games over the course of the season, and the sports program receives a cut of the proceeds, the Washington Times reports. “The school said the Chick-fil-A food truck will remain at the football games throughout the season, but it will reconsider its vetting process moving forward.”
District staff, additionally, are working with the affected students to address their concerns.
The students do appear to have gotten at least temporary results with their walkout. The same local news organization, KATU, reported earlier this week that the Chick-fil-A food truck and and the company’s food cart were conspicuously absent from last friday’s sporting event.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/chick-fil-a-food-truck-triggers-oregon-students-sparks-walkout?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
-
Good grief. It's a friggin chicken sandwich.
Chick-Fil-A Food Truck Triggers Oregon Students, Sparks Walkout
By Emily Zanotti
DailyWire.com
NOVEMBER 14TH, 2019
Chicken nuggets, french fries, and a fried chicken sandwich are arranged for a photograph during an event ahead of the grand opening for a Chick-fil-A restaurant in New York, U.S., on Friday, Oct. 2, 2015. Chick-fil-A, the Southern chicken-sandwich chain that has drawn both controversy and copycats over the years, has finally arrived in New York. The company will open a 5,000-square-foot (465-square-meter), three-level restaurant in Manhattan's Garment District that will be the chain's largest location in the nation.Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Around 100 students walked out of West Linn High School in Oregon last week in protest of the school’s decision to allow a Chick-fil-A food truck to sell chicken sandwiches during one of the school’s football games, among other microaggressions they said were making LGBT students feel “unsafe.”
“West Linn High School’s Gay-Straight Alliance organized the walkout and says the current culture at the school is not safe for LGBTQ+ students. They posted to Instagram saying students are being harassed in sports games and in classrooms,” local news station KATU reported.
The Chick-fil-A food truck was, apparently, the most egregious example of harassment, but a transgender student’s car was also vandalized with the word, “queer.”
“We walked out to show our student pride,” Billie Henderson, the student whose car was targeted, told the local public ration station. “To show that despite everything we’ve been through, we are still proud of who we are, and we won’t back down and we won’t make exceptions for anyone.”
“A group of counterprotesters also walked out of classes wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and waving American flags and Chick-fil-A bags,” the Washington Times reported.
The school’s public information officer, Andrew Kilstrom, could not confirm any specific incidents of harassment but said that there have been issues in the past, and the school continues to work to promote a culture of inclusion.
“The West Linn-Wilsonville School District takes all matters of school safety seriously, and diligently investigates and addresses all potential safety concerns,” he added. “That includes bullying or cyberbullying.”
West Linn High School noted that they did not approve of the walkout, though they do encourage students to speak their minds.
It’s not clear what prompted the Oregon school to invite Chick-fil-A to sell food on campus during sporting events, but the chicken sandwich chain has drawn protests from LGBTQ rights activsts across the country since 2012, when LGBTQ rights groups discovered that Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy is opposed to same-sex marriage and has donated to socially conservative organizations. Activists have staged protests against Chick-fil-A in a number of states, often to no avail. New store openings are typically marked by long lines and extended waits for the famous sandwich.
In some rare cases, activists have been able to prevent new Chick-fil-A locations from opening, typically in airports.
West Linn High School football boosters typically invite a number of vendors to sell food at football games over the course of the season, and the sports program receives a cut of the proceeds, the Washington Times reports. “The school said the Chick-fil-A food truck will remain at the football games throughout the season, but it will reconsider its vetting process moving forward.”
District staff, additionally, are working with the affected students to address their concerns.
The students do appear to have gotten at least temporary results with their walkout. The same local news organization, KATU, reported earlier this week that the Chick-fil-A food truck and and the company’s food cart were conspicuously absent from last friday’s sporting event.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/chick-fil-a-food-truck-triggers-oregon-students-sparks-walkout?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Soft ass bitches being raised these days.
-
Soft ass bitches being raised these days.
Right? A generation of sissies.
-
Hey Bum
Here is some actual censorship for you to get upset about
Apparently in America no one is allowed to use the public airwaves to report facts that are not flattering to The Dear Leader
Conservative radio host says his show was abruptly canceled because he criticized Trump
New York (CNN Business)Conservative radio host Craig Silverman says that for three hours every Saturday, he wanted to talk about the facts of the Trump impeachment case. But as he was doing that on November 16, Silverman was abruptly taken off the air in the middle of his show.
Silverman says the station, owned by the conservative Salem Media Group, didn't like his criticism of President Donald Trump. The station appears to have since removed the website for Silverman's show — the link to it now reroutes to a "404 Error" page.
"I was frustrated that we couldn't talk about the facts of the impeachment case and it all came to a head as I was excoriating Donald Trump on my show yesterday," Silverman told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.
Silverman has hosted the "Craig Silverman Show" on 710 KNUS in Denver on Saturday mornings for nearly five years. He is also a partner at a local law firm, a former chief deputy district attorney in Denver and, in 2016, was a Trump voter. But Silverman had recently begun to change his tune when it came to Trump, just as the inquiry into the White House's interactions with Ukraine's leader heats up. Earlier this week, the first of the public hearings to be held in the impeachment inquiry were held in Washington.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/media/salem-denver-radio-host-canceled-reliable-sources/index.html
-
Hey Bum
Here is some actual censorship for you to get upset about
Apparently in America no one is allowed to use the public airwaves to report facts that are not flattering to The Dear Leader
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/media/salem-denver-radio-host-canceled-reliable-sources/index.html
Are the other examples not actual censorship? ???
-
Right? A generation of sissies.
Below are some statistics about West Linn High School.
Or, they are part of a generation of progressive young people willing to stand up for what they believe in. I did not know about the walkout until you posted this, but I'm proud to be a part of a community of people who care about LGBTQ issues. The West Linn School District is one of two school districts which are considered the best in Oregon.
West Linn High School serves 1,809 students in grades 9-12.
The percentage of students achieving proficiency in Math is 71% (which is higher than the Oregon state average of 42%) for the 2016-17 school year. The percentage of students achieving proficiency in Reading/Language Arts is 92% (which is higher than the Oregon state average of 55%) for the 2016-17 school year.
The student:teacher ratio of 24:1 is higher than the Oregon state level of 20:1.
Minority enrollment is 20% of the student body (majority Hispanic), which is lower than the Oregon state average of 37%.
It is interesting to me that some people support business owners that illegally discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other minority people, but they don't support people who legally are discriminate about which business they choose to support. -Seems hypocritical.
Chick-fil-A is facing renewed scrutiny over its charitable donations after tax returns showed that the chain donated $1.6 million to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and $150,000 to the Salvation Army in 2017.
The Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes have been criticized for their historical opposition to same-sex marriage and for reportedly excluding LGBT individuals from leadership positions.
Business Insider
Kate Taylor May 15, 2019
-
Prime, how does Chick Fil-a discriminate against people?
-
It is interesting to me that some people support business owners that illegally discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other minority people, but they don't support people who legally are discriminate about which business they choose to support. -Seems hypocritical.
When did Chick-Fil-A start doing this? I am shocked! How are they still in business!? Please post some examples, Prime.
-
Are the other examples not actual censorship? ???
No, it's only censorship when is happens to a liberal, cocksucking piece of shit. ::)
-
It is interesting to me that some people support business owners that illegally discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other minority people, but they don't support people who legally are discriminate about which business they choose to support. -Seems hypocritical.
When did Chick-Fil-A start doing this? I am shocked! How are they still in business!? Please post some examples, Prime.
Yes, examples please.
-
Horrible decision. Never cave to the mob. The mob will never be satisfied until the person/business is destroyed.
Chick-fil-A will stop donating to the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes — and people are furious
Published: Nov 19, 2019
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/chick-fil-a-will-stop-donating-to-the-salvation-army-and-fellowship-of-christian-athletes-and-people-are-furious-2019-11-18
-
Are the other examples not actual censorship? ???
Never rely on the Village Idiot to get the facts right. She is always wrong.
Silverman was not fired but was taken off air because of his decision to move forward with appearing on a competing station over management's objections, Salem Media Group General Manager and VP Brian Taylor said late Sunday - a statement Silverman said he interprets as KNUS backtracking to avoid violating a contract that requires 30 days' notice before termination.
"We have never told Mr. Silverman the position to take on Trump and impeachment," Taylor said in an email to The Washington Post. "Our hosts have the freedom to express their opinions on current events based on their own personal conviction. That goes for all of our hosts, including Mr. Silverman. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue."
Radio station disputes host's story of firing
Derek Hawkins, Kim Bellware and Hannah Knowles, The Washington Post
Published November 18, 2019
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/A-radio-host-who-has-been-critical-of-Trump-says-14842799.php
-
Prime, how does Chick Fil-a discriminate against people?
The Chick-fil-A controversy stems from the millions of dollars the fast-food chain has donated to anti-LGBT and hate groups over the years, and to President Dan Cathy’s hostile remarks against marriage equality.
-
Never rely on the Village Idiot to get the facts right. She is always wrong.
Silverman was not fired but was taken off air because of his decision to move forward with appearing on a competing station over management's objections, Salem Media Group General Manager and VP Brian Taylor said late Sunday - a statement Silverman said he interprets as KNUS backtracking to avoid violating a contract that requires 30 days' notice before termination.
"We have never told Mr. Silverman the position to take on Trump and impeachment," Taylor said in an email to The Washington Post. "Our hosts have the freedom to express their opinions on current events based on their own personal conviction. That goes for all of our hosts, including Mr. Silverman. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue."
Radio station disputes host's story of firing
Derek Hawkins, Kim Bellware and Hannah Knowles, The Washington Post
Published November 18, 2019
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/A-radio-host-who-has-been-critical-of-Trump-says-14842799.php
Nice attempt and spin by you and CYA by the Salem Media Group General Manager
I'm sure many idiot such as yourself actually belive this
-
When did Chick-Fil-A start doing this? I am shocked! How are they still in business!? Please post some examples, Prime.
Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A's CEO, made comments in 2012 about the company's belief and support of the "the biblical definition of the family unit."
Keep in mind that I commented on the disparity between businesses discriminating against certain groups by refusing service and people boycotting certain businesses because of their views. Simply put. if a company can refuse to serve someone because they are gay, gay people should have the right to not patronize these companies. I'
That I've not eaten at Chick-fil-A has nothing to do with their views or supposedly former views on homosexuality. The only location near me is in Clackamas Promenade which is not a place where I have reason to go to.
In the latests news West Linn High School will reportedly allow the Chick-fil-A food truck to remain at the school's football games for the remainder of the season. IMO this is a good decision on the part of the school administration. Rather than staging a walkout in protest, students should express their views by not purchasing Chick-fil-A sandwiches. If the company has too little or no business, they'll leave of their own accord. It's a basic majority rules example.
-
Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A's CEO, made comments in 2012 about the company's belief and support of the "the biblical definition of the family unit."
So he either has had a change of heart about his beliefs regarding LGBT or he has decided that he loves money more than his "god"
I wonder which one it is?
-
So he either has had a change of heart about his beliefs regarding LGBT or he has decided that he loves money more than his "god"
I wonder which one it is?
I think you'd need to know him personally in order to determine this.
-
I think you'd need to know him personally in order to determine this.
not really
I think it's pretty obvious he's still a fundie but just cherishes money more than his religious beliefs
-
Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A's CEO, made comments in 2012 about the company's belief and support of the "the biblical definition of the family unit."
Keep in mind that I commented on the disparity between businesses discriminating against certain groups by refusing service and people boycotting certain businesses because of their views. Simply put. if a company can refuse to serve someone because they are gay, gay people should have the right to not patronize these companies. I'
That I've not eaten at Chick-fil-A has nothing to do with their views or supposedly former views on homosexuality. The only location near me is in Clackamas Promenade which is not a place where I have reason to go to.
In the latests news West Linn High School will reportedly allow the Chick-fil-A food truck to remain at the school's football games for the remainder of the season. IMO this is a good decision on the part of the school administration. Rather than staging a walkout in protest, students should express their views by not purchasing Chick-fil-A sandwiches. If the company has too little or no business, they'll leave of their own accord. It's a basic majority rules example.
You cited no examples of the company "illegally discriminating against the LGBTQ community and other minority people." This all boils down to the head of the company supporting traditional marriage. Just like Obama, Hillary Clinton, most of the Democrat party, and the overwhelming majority of the country did till very recently.
This "cancel culture" is terrible. The left is as intolerant as Radical Islamists.
-
Horrible decision. Never cave to the mob. The mob will never be satisfied until the person/business is destroyed.
Chick-fil-A will stop donating to the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes — and people are furious
Published: Nov 19, 2019
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/chick-fil-a-will-stop-donating-to-the-salvation-army-and-fellowship-of-christian-athletes-and-people-are-furious-2019-11-18
And like I said . . .
LGBTQ groups still unhappy with Chick-fil-A: 'Further transparency is needed'
By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 19, 2019
LGBTQ activists are still unhappy with Chick-fil-A after the fast-food chain announced Monday it was ending donations to The Salvation Army and other Christian charities following years of backlash.
Chick-fil-A caused a stir after announcing it would no longer donate to Fellowship of Christian Athletes, The Salvation Army or Paul Anderson Youth Homes following years of criticism for donating to faith-based groups that support traditional marriage. The move sparked the ire of conservatives, who accused the chicken chain of caving to the outrage mob, but it turns out liberals aren’t exactly satisfied with the news either.
“Chick-fil-A Still Isn’t LGBTQ-Friendly, Despite Pledge on Donations,” reads a headline by The Advocate magazine. “Remember, Chick-fil-A isn’t LGBTQ-friendly yet,” reads another by LGBTQ Nation.
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., wants Chick-fil-A to update its corporate anti-discrimination policy to also include protections for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“At HRC, we always encourage companies to ensure that their giving is in line with LGBTQ-inclusive values,” Beck Bailey, director of workplace equality at the HRC Foundation, told The Advocate. “And while this is an important step for Chick-fil-A, the company still does not have workplace protections and policies that are fully inclusive of LGBTQ people. We look forward to the day when Chick-fil-A’s commitment to welcoming all is reflected in their workplace policies and practices by including explicit sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections.”
GLAAD expressed similar concerns, demanding that Chick-fil-A also “unequivocally speak out against the anti-LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents.”
“If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families,” GLAAD’s Drew Anderson said in a statement. “Chick-Fil-A investors, employees, and customers can greet today’s announcement with cautious optimism, but should remember that similar press statements were previously proven to be empty.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/19/lgbtq-groups-still-unhappy-with-chick-fil-a-furthe/
-
not really
I think it's pretty obvious he's still a fundie but just cherishes money more than his religious beliefs
I don’t believe that to be true. I think he’s backing down to do damage control in the overly PC climate of today. He’s not discriminating against anybody. I believe he doesn’t want the backlash and is protecting the folks who own franchises.
-
You cited no examples of the company "illegally discriminating against the LGBTQ community and other minority people." This all boils down to the head of the company supporting traditional marriage. Just like Obama, Hillary Clinton, most of the Democrat party, and the overwhelming majority of the country did till very recently.
This "cancel culture" is terrible. The left is as intolerant as Radical Islamists.
So what? Do you often insert language which changes the meaning of what folks are discussing? As far as I know, nobody here has said anything about Chick-Fil-A doing anything illegal. -Not sure where you got that from, but you quoted it never-the-less. As far as I can see, all the company did was support some supposedly anti LGBTQ charities/organizations. Something that some people seem to have a hard time forgetting about. There's nothing illegal in that. Also, this conversation is about Chick-Fil-A and not the Democratic party, Clinton or Obama.
-
So what? Do you often insert language which changes the meaning of what folks are discussing? As far as I know, nobody here has said anything about Chick-Fil-A doing anything illegal. -Not sure where you got that from, but you quoted it never-the-less. As far as I can see, all the company did was support some supposedly anti LGBTQ charities/organizations. Something that some people seem to have a hard time forgetting about. There's nothing illegal in that. Also, this conversation is about Chick-Fil-A and not the Democratic party, Clinton or Obama.
Bruh. Seriously? YOU said it.
It is interesting to me that some people support business owners that illegally discriminate against the LGBTQ community and other minority people, but they don't support people who legally are discriminate about which business they choose to support. -Seems hypocritical.
-
The Chick-fil-A controversy stems from the millions of dollars the fast-food chain has donated to anti-LGBT and hate groups over the years, and to President Dan Cathy’s hostile remarks against marriage equality.
So if you don't support faggotry, that means you hate it ??? Saying a marriage is between a man and a woman is against marriage equality? Don't you whiny bitch ass liberals have anything better to do than nitpick for things to cry about? Really?
-
We live in a very soft society that can't discern what is important anymore. They keep the public docile with cheap food, cell phones, air conditioning and unlimited entertainment.
-
not really
I think it's pretty obvious he's still a fundie but just cherishes money more than his religious beliefs
I disagree. I have 3 Chick-Fil-A’s within 5 miles of my house. All, as well as all other Chick-fil-A’s have one common theme. They are all closed on Sundays. So if it’s about money and not religion, why close on the holy day? Sunday?
-
We live in a very soft society that can't discern what is important anymore. They keep the public docile with cheap food, cell phones, air conditioning and unlimited entertainment.
Really?
Would you be comfortable with your 8 year old daughter sharing a bathroom with a 65 year old dude in a dress and a wig?
-
Really?
Would you be comfortable with your 8 year old daughter sharing a bathroom with a 65 year old dude in a dress and a wig?
Where did you infer that from? And leave Mr. Prime outta this. ;D
-
Where did you infer that from? And leave Mr. Prime outta this. ;D
I'm 75 years old, bald and wear pants. JPJ did leave me out of this.
-
Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/05/19
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Donald Trump. After all, Alexander Hamilton that impeachment would often occur in an environment of “agitated passions.” Yet I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides.
In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense “rancor and rage” and “stifling intolerance” that blinds people to opposing views. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.
Some of the most heated attacks came from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Eric Swalwell of California attacked me for defending my client, Judge Thomas Porteous, in the last impeachment trial and noted that I lost that case. Swalwell pointed out that I said Porteous had not been charged with a crime for any conduct, which is an obviously material point for any impeachment defense.
Not all Democrats supported such scorched earth tactics. One senior Democrat on the committee apologized to me afterward for the attack from Swalwell. Yet many others relished seeing my representations of an accused federal judge being used to attack my credibility, even as they claimed to defend the rule of law. Indeed, Rachel Maddow lambasted me on MSNBC for defending the judge, who was accused but never charged with taking bribes, and referring to him as a “moocher” for the allegations that he accepted free lunches and whether such gratuities, which were not barred at the time, would constitute impeachable offenses.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank expanded on this theme of attacking my past argument. Despite 52 pages of my detailed testimony, more than twice the length of all the other witnesses combined, on the cases and history of impeachment, he described it as being “primarily emotional and political.” Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”
But I was not speaking of an impeachment then. It was a discussion of the separation of powers and the need for Congress to fight against unilateral executive actions, the very issue that Democrats raise against Trump. I did not call for Obama to be impeached, but that is par for the course in the echo chamber today in which the facts must conform to the frenzy. It was unsettling to see the embrace of a false narrative that I “contradicted” my testimony from the Clinton impeachment, a false narrative fueled by the concluding remarks of Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York quoting from my 1998 testimony. Notably, neither Swalwell nor Nadler allowed me to respond to those or any other attacks. It was then picked up eagerly by others, despite being a demonstrably false narrative.
In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an opinion piece I wrote for the Washington Post five years ago, I said, “While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable,” and it could include “serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.”
That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.
However, rather than address the specific concerns I raised over this incomplete record and process, critics have substituted a false attack to suggest that I had contradicted my earlier testimony during the Clinton impeachment. They reported breathlessly that I said in that hearing, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” What they left out is that, in my testimony then and again this week, I stressed that the certain act in question was perjury. The issue in the Clinton case was whether perjury was an impeachable offense. Most Democratic members of Congress, including Nadler, maintained back then that perjury did not meet the level of an impeachable offense if the subject was an affair with an intern.
I maintained in the Clinton testimony, and still maintain in my Trump testimony, that perjury on any subject by a sitting president is clearly impeachable. Indeed, as I stated Wednesday, that is the contrast between this inquiry and three prior impeachment controversies. In those earlier inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were clearly established. With Johnson, the House effectively created a trapdoor crime and he knowingly jumped through it. The problem was that the law, the Tenure of Office Act, was presumptively unconstitutional and the impeachment was narrowly built around that dubious criminal act. With Nixon, there were a host of alleged criminal acts, and dozens of officials would be convicted. With Clinton, there was an act of perjury that even his supporters acknowledged was a felony.
While obviously presented in a false context, the quotation of my Clinton testimony only highlights the glaring contrast of those who opposed the Clinton impeachment but now insist the case is made to impeach Trump. I have maintained that they both could be removed, one for a crime and one for a noncrime. The difference is that the Clinton crime was accepted by Democrats. Indeed, a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.
As I stated Wednesday, I believe the Clinton case is relevant today and my position remains the same. I do not believe a crime has been proven over the Ukraine controversy, though I said such crimes might be proven with a more thorough investigation. Instead, Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes such as bribery and extortion to use those in drafting articles of impeachment. In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.
As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come, and “agitated passions” will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter.
Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Follow him @JonathanTurley.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473171-turley-democrats-offering-passion-over-proof-in-trump-impeachment
-
Watch–Comedians: Venues Canceled Our Sold-Out Shows After Realizing We’re Conservative
ALANA MASTRANGELO 26 Dec 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/26/watch-comedians-venues-canceled-our-sold-out-shows-after-realizing-were-conservative/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0JV7_eFMDvdd6l70yLFV36S34b5wqJTYaWgQAxNdXhdZaD__lmHWizU7U
-
Watch–Comedians: Venues Canceled Our Sold-Out Shows After Realizing We’re Conservative
ALANA MASTRANGELO 26 Dec 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/26/watch-comedians-venues-canceled-our-sold-out-shows-after-realizing-were-conservative/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0JV7_eFMDvdd6l70yLFV36S34b5wqJTYaWgQAxNdXhdZaD__lmHWizU7U
Idiots.
-
Mika Brzezinski Demands Twitter Erase ‘Sick, Disgusting’ President Trump from Its Platform
ALLUM BOKHARI 20 May 2020
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/20/mika-brzezinski-demands-twitter-erase-sick-disgusting-president-trump-from-its-platform/
-
Twitter temporarily suspends account of New York City police union which 'doxxed' Mayor de Blasio's daughter by posting her arrest report online
DM ^ | 6/2/2020 | By ARIEL ZILBER and EMILY CRANE and MEGAN SHEETS and SHAWN COHEN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
Posted on 6/2/2020, 7:27:36 AM by RummyChick
....The union justified its action by accusing de Blasio of failing to offer police officers the necessary support as they face off with protesters angry over the police-involving killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, in Minneapolis last Monday.
‘How can the NYPD guard the metropolis of NY from rioting anarchist when the Mayors item throwing daughter is a person of them,’ the SBA tweeted on Sunday.
‘Now we know why he is forbidding Mounted models to be mobilized and maintaining the NYPD from undertaking their work opportunities.’
The tweet violated the rules of Twitter, which forbids its users from ‘doxxing.’
The union’s account was temporarily suspended, according to The New York Times.
The account was allowed to come back online after it agreed to delete the tweet about the mayor’s daughter....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ..
-
Twitter temporarily suspends account of New York City police union which 'doxxed' Mayor de Blasio's daughter by posting her arrest report online
DM ^ | 6/2/2020 | By ARIEL ZILBER and EMILY CRANE and MEGAN SHEETS and SHAWN COHEN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
Posted on 6/2/2020, 7:27:36 AM by RummyChick
....The union justified its action by accusing de Blasio of failing to offer police officers the necessary support as they face off with protesters angry over the police-involving killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, in Minneapolis last Monday.
‘How can the NYPD guard the metropolis of NY from rioting anarchist when the Mayors item throwing daughter is a person of them,’ the SBA tweeted on Sunday.
‘Now we know why he is forbidding Mounted models to be mobilized and maintaining the NYPD from undertaking their work opportunities.’
The tweet violated the rules of Twitter, which forbids its users from ‘doxxing.’
The union’s account was temporarily suspended, according to The New York Times.
The account was allowed to come back online after it agreed to delete the tweet about the mayor’s daughter....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ..
Aren't arrest reports public record anyhow?
-
Twitter explains labeling policy after Top Dems' tweets go unchecked
Twitter, President Trump's favorite form of social media, is attempting to clarify its content-moderation policies after fact-checking some of his posts but failing to do the same for disputed tweets by top Democrats.
“We are NOT attempting to address all misinformation,” Twitter said on its corporate safety account Tuesday as claims about misleading information swirl in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
The race, between Trump and likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden, is heating up amid the worst downturn since the Great Depression and a wave of sometimes-violent protests over the deaths of black men in police custody.
Against that backdrop, claims of misinformation about both the behavior of demonstrators and the source and risks of the COVID-19 pandemic that led to the slump have permeated social media, prompting calls to better ensure accuracy.
At Twitter, such efforts are prioritized "based on the highest potential for harm, focusing on manipulated media, civic integrity, and COVID-19,” the company’s safety team added. “Likelihood, severity and type of potential harm — along with reach and scale — factor into this.”
Twitter, however, did not place fact-check labels on tweets by Biden, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic Party after they said “peaceful” protestors were tear-gassed and removed from Washington's Lafayette Park before Trump’s walk to St. John’s Church from the White House on Monday evening.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/twitter-fact-check-policy-clarification
-
Twitter explains labeling policy after Top Dems' tweets go unchecked
Twitter, President Trump's favorite form of social media, is attempting to clarify its content-moderation policies after fact-checking some of his posts but failing to do the same for disputed tweets by top Democrats.
“We are NOT attempting to address all misinformation,” Twitter said on its corporate safety account Tuesday as claims about misleading information swirl in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
The race, between Trump and likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden, is heating up amid the worst downturn since the Great Depression and a wave of sometimes-violent protests over the deaths of black men in police custody.
Against that backdrop, claims of misinformation about both the behavior of demonstrators and the source and risks of the COVID-19 pandemic that led to the slump have permeated social media, prompting calls to better ensure accuracy.
At Twitter, such efforts are prioritized "based on the highest potential for harm, focusing on manipulated media, civic integrity, and COVID-19,” the company’s safety team added. “Likelihood, severity and type of potential harm — along with reach and scale — factor into this.”
Twitter, however, did not place fact-check labels on tweets by Biden, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic Party after they said “peaceful” protestors were tear-gassed and removed from Washington's Lafayette Park before Trump’s walk to St. John’s Church from the White House on Monday evening.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/twitter-fact-check-policy-clarification
is that a lie
you're saying no peaceful protestors were there when the tear gassed in order to clear them so Trump could waive a bible around for a photo op?
-
The US Park Police on Tuesday said they cleared protesters from in front of the White House on Monday because they were attacked while attempting to install a new fence, indirectly denying they did so because President Trump wanted to visit a fire-damaged historic church.
Park Police acting Chief Gregory Monahan pushed back on a prevailing narrative that authorities cleared way for Trump in an afternoon statement nearly 24 hours after the fracas aired live by TV crews, some of whom were struck by authorities.
Monahan specifically denied a widespread claim that Park Police or another agency, such as Secret Service or the National Guard, deployed tear gas against demonstrators protesting the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police, as was widely reported and alleged, including by Trump’s presumed Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
Officers did however use smoke canisters and pepper balls, which induce a stinging effect similar to pepper spray, he said. Moments later on 16th St directly north of the White House, there were loud bangs that appeared to be from police flash-bang grenades, but Monahan’s statement did not address their use.
The Park Police chief, whose beleaguered force was pelted with bricks and water bottles throughout Saturday and Sunday night, said that on Monday, officers advanced around 6:33 pm and “violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids.”
-
Grape - next time please include your link
The claim by Park Police has been refuted by multiple sources
US Park Police denies using tear gas on peaceful protesters. Evidence suggests otherwise.
The official statement raises more questions than it answers.
By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Updated Jun 2, 2020, 9:17pm EDT
Nearly 24 hours after law enforcement used force to push peaceful demonstrators away from the White House to make way for presidential photo op, the US Park Police offered a statement on its involvement — and it raises a lot more questions than it answers.
On Monday, Park Police — along with members of the US Secret Service and the National Guard — dispersed a large crowd of protesters using what reporters and other witnesses on the ground said was tear gas and rubber bullets, harming demonstrators and journalists alike.
Minutes later, President Donald Trump gave a brief speech in the White House Rose Garden then walked through an emptied Lafayette Square to a nearby church to take pictures with a Bible.
Video of the chaotic scene spread quickly on social media and news outlets, sparking outrage. On Tuesday afternoon, the US Park Police (USPP) responded to the criticisms.
“At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids,” acting Chief Gregory Monahan said in the official statement. “Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.”
“No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park,” he continued.
To be clear: Monahan is claiming the protesters amassed near the White House were “violent,” that they were perhaps plotting some kind of attack of their own, and that no federal officials whatsoever used tear gas to disperse the demonstration.
But the problem is all the available evidence, from numerous videos taken at the scene to reports from witnesses and journalists who were on the ground at the time, shows otherwise.
Why the Park Police’s statement is dubious
Let’s start with Monahan’s claim that the protesters were “violent” because they were throwing projectiles at law enforcement.
According to multiple reporters who were on the ground documenting the events, the protests were entirely peaceful. “We didn’t see projectiles thrown at police. Certainly no bricks or ‘caustic liquids,’” Alexander Marquardt, a CNN reporter who was at Lafayette Square that evening, tweeted on Tuesday.
In fact, in this Reuters video taken of nearly the entire scene, there are no violent instances of what the Park Police statement describes (other than some expletives and insults lobbed at law enforcement).
Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser also publicly stated that the demonstrators protested peacefully.
It’s unclear, then, what the Park Police is referencing. Perhaps it’s an exaggeration of what an unnamed Justice Department official told the Washington Post on Tuesday: that some crowd members passed rocks among themselves and threw a bottle in the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr, a top Trump ally, was surveying the scene and reportedly personally ordered law enforcement to push the protesters back.
There’s also no direct evidence that protesters were hiding caches of weapons — glass bottles, bats, and metal poles, according to the statement — to use against law enforcement. If there are images showing that such items were indeed found on the site of the demonstration, as the Park Police claim, they haven’t been shared with the public.
Finally, there’s the assertion that Park Police and other law enforcement personnel involved that evening didn’t use tear gas to clear the square.
This has become one of the most contentious points in the entire saga, even though Monahan acknowledges in the statement that the officers did use smoke canisters and pepper balls (pepper spray projectiles) against the protesters.
“Tear gas” is a broad term, often defined as a synthetic chemical irritant. Pepper spray is a naturally derived chemical irritant that causes many effects similar to that of common types of tear gas, including temporary blindness and a burning sensation in the nose. Which means that, even if tear gas was technically not used — a claim that isn’t settled fact for reasons I’ll get into in a minute — police still used a very similar chemical weapon against peaceful protesters.
Still, facts matter, so the question of whether they used tear gas or not is important.
Nathan Baca, a reporter for WUSA9 in Washington, DC, picked up a canister used during the Monday assault. It’s not a smoke canister, but it does launch “OC” gas which “Causes same tears, tight breath and comes out green,” he reported.
Other journalists who covered the protests in person that evening say without a doubt that law enforcement used tear gas, a chemical irritant that can cause those exposed to it to want to vomit.
And activists seen throughout the Reuters video also complain they were directly hit with tear gas.
Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas
The Trump reelection campaign, though, is sticking with the Park Police, asking reporters — including me — to “retract and correct” published stories that say tear gas was used. (Vox is not retracting its reporting at this time.)
“It’s said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. This tear gas lie is proof of that,” Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said in a Tuesday evening statement.
The Park Police has a lot more explaining to do. Monahan’s statement by itself doesn’t clear up any of the main contention points. But what it does do is further confirm that Park Police felt it was necessary to respond to the protests with violence — all so Trump could have a photo op.
That, perhaps more than dubious claims in the official statement, is the most damning part of all.
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/2/21278559/tear-gas-white-house-protest-park-police
-
Twitter Deletes Trump’s Photo of Himself After NY Times Copyright Complaint
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/07/02/05/30299238-0-image-a-46_1593664552303.jpg)
Another one of Donald Trump’s tweets has run afoul of copyright laws.
On Wednesday, Twitter pulled down a photo Trump posted of himself included in a June 30 tweet, after the New York Times Co. filed a DMCA takedown request reporting the president’s post as infringing its copyright.
“Media not displayed: This image has been removed in response to a report from the copyright holder,” a message in Trump’s tweet now reads.
The black-and-white photo portrays a squinting Trump pointing his right index finger at the camera. The photo, by Times staff photographer Damon Winter, accompanied an October 2015 profile of Trump in the New York Times Magazine penned by Mark Leibovich about the ex-reality TV star’s political ambitions.
The New York Times filed the DMCA takedown notice July 1, according to a notice in the Lumen database, which is operated by Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Twitter’s removal of the Trump tweet was first reported by Axios.
https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-deletes-trump-photo-ny-times-copyright-infringment-1234696756/
-
Twitter temporarily suspends account of New York City police union which 'doxxed' Mayor de Blasio's daughter by posting her arrest report online
DM ^ | 6/2/2020 | By ARIEL ZILBER and EMILY CRANE and MEGAN SHEETS and SHAWN COHEN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
Posted on 6/2/2020, 7:27:36 AM by RummyChick
....The union justified its action by accusing de Blasio of failing to offer police officers the necessary support as they face off with protesters angry over the police-involving killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, in Minneapolis last Monday.
‘How can the NYPD guard the metropolis of NY from rioting anarchist when the Mayors item throwing daughter is a person of them,’ the SBA tweeted on Sunday.
‘Now we know why he is forbidding Mounted models to be mobilized and maintaining the NYPD from undertaking their work opportunities.’
The tweet violated the rules of Twitter, which forbids its users from ‘doxxing.’
The union’s account was temporarily suspended, according to The New York Times.
The account was allowed to come back online after it agreed to delete the tweet about the mayor’s daughter....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ..
Aren't arrest reports public domain?
-
High School Principal ‘On Leave’ After Criticizing Social Media Censorship
KYLE OLSON 17 Jan 2021
https://www.breitbart.com/education/2021/01/17/high-school-principal-on-leave-criticizing-social-media-censorship/
-
'Conservative' news outlets need to be deplatformed, says ex-Facebook exec
Meanwhile, Parler plans 'to welcome all of you back soon'
Joe Kovacs By Joe Kovacs
Published January 17, 2021
https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/conservative-news-outlets-need-deplatformed-says-ex-facebook-exec/
-
“Revoke Their Degrees”: Harvard Faculty and Students Seek Revocation Of Degrees For Trump Officials and Allies
January 15, 2021
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/15/revoke-their-degrees-harvard-faculty-and-students-seek-revocation-of-degrees-for-trump-officials-and-allies/
-
Two major conservatives get CANCELED by Politico after woke mob erupted over Ben Shapiro decision
JAN. 26, 2021
BY THE RIGHT SCOOP
https://therightscoop.com/two-major-conservatives-get-canceled-by-politico-after-woke-mob-erupted-over-ben-shapiro-decision/
-
“Revoke Their Degrees”: Harvard Faculty and Students Seek Revocation Of Degrees For Trump Officials and Allies
January 15, 2021
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/15/revoke-their-degrees-harvard-faculty-and-students-seek-revocation-of-degrees-for-trump-officials-and-allies/
Interesting. I read the article you linked and my take is they would be unsuccessful.
I sort of get when a university rescinds honorary degrees, because they are basically a "gift" and not something earned as a student at the university. Several universities and colleges have or are in the process of rescinding honorary degrees they'd given Trump. I have mixed feelings about this. If Trump was awarded the honorary degree because he was a major donor, in a sense he paid for it. If he got it and essentially did nothing but be himself, it seems okay....but, it is still kind of petty.
-
War on conservatives and conservative values by the hateful, villainous left.
-
War on conservatives and conservative values by the hateful, villainous left.
Libfails are the most bigoted and close minded of anyone.
-
Libfails are the most bigoted and close minded of anyone.
Are "libfails" a special breed? Because there is a whole spectrum of what liberal means....all the way from falling off the left side of a flat earth (this is impossible I know since the earth is round; a weak attempt to inject a little humor), to almost straddling the middle....which can hurt (more humor).
I can't speak for all liberal people, but I am exceptionally open minded...so much so, that it get's me into trouble...specially on Getbig.
-
Interesting. I read the article you linked and my take is they would be unsuccessful.
I sort of get when a university rescinds honorary degrees, because they are basically a "gift" and not something earned as a student at the university. Several universities and colleges have or are in the process of rescinding honorary degrees they'd given Trump. I have mixed feelings about this. If Trump was awarded the honorary degree because he was a major donor, in a sense he paid for it. If he got it and essentially did nothing but be himself, it seems okay....but, it is still kind of petty.
If you read the article then you know they are talking about earned degrees, not honorary degrees.
-
If you read the article then you know they are talking about earned degrees, not honorary degrees.
Let's try this again. And so there is no confusion I've quoted what I wrote .
Interesting. I read the article you linked and my take is they would be unsuccessful.
I sort of get when a university rescinds honorary degrees, because they are basically a "gift" and not something earned as a student at the university. Several universities and colleges have or are in the process of rescinding honorary degrees they'd given Trump. I have mixed feelings about this. If Trump was awarded the honorary degree because he was a major donor, in a sense he paid for it. If he got it and essentially did nothing but be himself, it seems okay....but, it is still kind of petty.
They (the universities) would be unsuccessful (at rescinding them) because they are earned degrees.
In the next paragraph which is about honorary degrees speaks to Trump, I did not mention his associates...why?... because theirs were earned.
If you want to believe I said something different. Fine. Have at it.
-
Are "libfails" a special breed? Because there is a whole spectrum of what liberal means....all the way from falling off the left side of a flat earth (this is impossible I know since the earth is round; a weak attempt to inject a little humor), to almost straddling the middle....which can hurt (more humor).
I can't speak for all liberal people, but I am exceptionally open minded...so much so, that it get's me into trouble...specially on Getbig.
I live in NYC area and we are surrounded by liberal failures, faggets, etc. Most are drones and the most bigoted close minded people you will ever meet.
The men are a complete joke. Liberal "men" are typically a pajama obama boy, dont lift, are weak, frail, etc. Completely obsessed with liberal nonsense they eat up on CNN, etc.
-
I live in NYC area and we are surrounded by liberal failures, faggets, etc. Most are drones and the most bigoted close minded people you will ever meet.
The men are a complete joke. Liberal "men" are typically a pajama obama boy, dont lift, are weak, frail, etc. Completely obsessed with liberal nonsense they eat up on CNN, etc.
All I can say is you sure must know a lot about a lot of people...unless of course, you are only assuming that you do.
-
Let's try this again. And so there is no confusion I've quoted what I wrote .
They (the universities) would be unsuccessful (at rescinding them) because they are earned degrees.
In the next paragraph which is about honorary degrees speaks to Trump, I did not mention his associates...why?... because theirs were earned.
If you want to believe I said something different. Fine. Have at it.
My bad. I think I'm so used to disagreeing with you that I read "unsuccessful" as "successful." :)
-
My bad. I think I'm so used to disagreeing with you that I read "unsuccessful" as "successful." :)
Thank you. I really appreciate you taking a moment to review it.
I am trying be more aware of how I word what I post so as to not be so easily misunderstood. It won't make any difference to some folks here who don't care what I write, they are determined to find fault or they have no capacity for fairness.
-
I live in NYC area and we are surrounded by liberal failures, faggets, etc. Most are drones and the most bigoted close minded people you will ever meet.
The men are a complete joke. Liberal "men" are typically a pajama obama boy, dont lift, are weak, frail, etc. Completely obsessed with liberal nonsense they eat up on CNN, etc.
you must live in a county that voted for Trump
from looking at the the actual GDP from counties that voted for Trump vs. counties that voted for Biden we know that the Trump voters only accounted for ~ 29% of the total GDP of total voters.
Why are Trump voters such fucking deadbeats?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/
-
Westchester County.
you must live in a county that voted for Trump
from looking at the the actual GDP from counties that voted for Trump vs. counties that voted for Biden we know that the Trump voters only accounted for ~ 29% of the total GDP of total voters.
Why are Trump voters such fucking deadbeats?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/
-
Westchester County.
Hmmm, looks like you were clearly in the minority. Must feel a bit lonely. Westchester county voted Democratic in the previous five Presidential elections.
In the last Presidential election, Westchester county remained strongly Democratic, 64.9% to 31.2%.
in Clackamas County, OR where I live 47.7% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 41.3% voted Republican.
-
Westchester County.
Wikipedia mentions 67.5% voted Democrat in the 2020 elections.
Also: "Westchester County generally leans toward the political left. It last voted for the Republican nominee for president in 1988."
I thought you were moving out of that shithole.
-
Wikipedia mentions 67.5% voted Democrat in the 2020 elections.
Also: "Westchester County generally leans toward the political left. It last voted for the Republican nominee for president in 1988."
I thought you were moving out of that shithole.
Im stuck here for time being. :(
-
Hmmm, looks like you were clearly in the minority. Must feel a bit lonely. Westchester county voted Democratic in the previous five Presidential elections.
In the last Presidential election, Westchester county remained strongly Democratic, 64.9% to 31.2%.
in Clackamas County, OR where I live 47.7% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 41.3% voted Republican.
Yeah I’m surrounded by yuppie pampered limo libs who are a pathetic joke and excuse
-
Yeah I’m surrounded by yuppie pampered limo libs who are a pathetic joke and excuse
It must be a bummer for you to be surrounded by people who make more money than you
why do you move to a rural red county in Alabama or Arkansas where you would be among your own type of people
-
Yeah I’m surrounded by yuppie pampered limo libs who are a pathetic joke and excuse
You could always move. I hear there's a lot of very conservative types living in Dickinson, North Dakota.
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061
YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate
It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.
Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.
Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Covid patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives.
At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.
Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.
On Jan. 14, NIH changed its guidance to neutral by acknowledging the successful trials but determined “that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.” On Jan. 22 I sent an oversight letter asking what actions the NIH had taken to explore the use of repurposed drugs for treating Covid-19.
Before being removed from YouTube and other websites, Dr. Kory’s opening statement had been viewed by more than eight million people. Unfortunately, government health agencies don’t share that interest in early treatment. A year into the pandemic, NIH treatment guidelines for Covid patients are to go home, isolate yourself and do nothing other than monitor your illness.
Fortunately, some doctors have the courage to ignore these compassionless guidelines and are using their expertise to develop protocols utilizing a variety of cheap, available and safe FDA-approved drugs to treat patients early and avoid hospitalization. Instead of being rewarded, they are being censored, ostracized, vilified in the press, even fired. This closed-minded approach represents a dark chapter in the history of medicine and journalism.
The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldn’t be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all.
Mr. Johnson, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Wisconsin.
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061
YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate
It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.
Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.
Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Covid patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives.
At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.
Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.
On Jan. 14, NIH changed its guidance to neutral by acknowledging the successful trials but determined “that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.” On Jan. 22 I sent an oversight letter asking what actions the NIH had taken to explore the use of repurposed drugs for treating Covid-19.
Before being removed from YouTube and other websites, Dr. Kory’s opening statement had been viewed by more than eight million people. Unfortunately, government health agencies don’t share that interest in early treatment. A year into the pandemic, NIH treatment guidelines for Covid patients are to go home, isolate yourself and do nothing other than monitor your illness.
Fortunately, some doctors have the courage to ignore these compassionless guidelines and are using their expertise to develop protocols utilizing a variety of cheap, available and safe FDA-approved drugs to treat patients early and avoid hospitalization. Instead of being rewarded, they are being censored, ostracized, vilified in the press, even fired. This closed-minded approach represents a dark chapter in the history of medicine and journalism.
The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldn’t be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all.
Mr. Johnson, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Wisconsin.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Why the heck would they censor this??
-
Beauty influencer Amanda Ensign says Sephora ‘canceled’ her for GOP support
By Jesse O’Neill February 1, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/influencer-rails-against-sephora-says-she-was-cancelled-for-gop-support/
-
Beauty influencer Amanda Ensign says Sephora ‘canceled’ her for GOP support
By Jesse O’Neill February 1, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/influencer-rails-against-sephora-says-she-was-cancelled-for-gop-support/
It's only going to get worse. ;)
-
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Why the heck would they censor this??
Use of ivermectin doesn't fit the pro-vaccine model that YT is promoting. For the NIH to go from "do not use for COVID" to "neutral on the matter" in five months seems quite amazing.
-
Beauty influencer Amanda Ensign says Sephora ‘canceled’ her for GOP support
By Jesse O’Neill February 1, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/influencer-rails-against-sephora-says-she-was-cancelled-for-gop-support/
Sephora has a right to "cancel" anyone that they want to, especially an idiot like her who admits she made positive comments about an attack our on Capitol and also made false claims about the election being stolen
Why would any company want to be associated with an idiot like that?
An attack the including murdering a Capitol police officer and leaving another 140 with various injuries, including serious brain injuries from being beaten by these TRAITORS who tried to stop our democracy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-union-says-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-riot/2021/01/27/60743642-60e2-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html
Fuck this whiny little traitor and anyone who supports her or the TRAITORS who attacked our country
-
Sephora has a right to "cancel" anyone that they want to, especially an idiot like her who admits she made positive comments about an attack our on Capitol and also made false claims about the election being stolen
Why would any company want to be associated with an idiot like that?
An attack the including murdering a Capitol police officer and leaving another 140 with various injuries, including serious brain injuries from being beaten by these TRAITORS who tried to stop our democracy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-union-says-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-riot/2021/01/27/60743642-60e2-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html
Fuck this whiny little traitor and anyone who supports her or the TRAITORS who attacked our country
Full blown alcoholic TDS
-
Full blown alcoholic TDS
did I mention Trump..dipshit?
just more projection
-
did I mention Trump..dipshit?
just more projection
Drunk bitter bitch TDS induced meltdown.
-
Great article by Glenn Greenwald, worth a read.
The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows
A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism.
I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian “reporting.” Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s “media reporters” (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their “journalism” to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention). These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not.
Just as the NSA is obsessed with ensuring there be no place on earth where humans can communicate free of their spying eyes and ears, these journalistic hall monitors cannot abide the idea that there can be any place on the internet where people are free to speak in ways they do not approve. Like some creepy informant for a state security apparatus, they spend their days trolling the depths of chat rooms and 4Chan bulletin boards and sub-Reddit threads and private communications apps to find anyone — influential or obscure — who is saying something they believe should be forbidden, and then use the corporate megaphones they did not build and could not have built but have been handed in order to silence and destroy anyone who dissents from the orthodoxies of their corporate managers or challenges their information hegemony.
Oliver Darcy has built his CNN career by sitting around with Brian Stelter petulantly pointing to people breaking the rules on social media and demanding tech executives make the rule-breakers disappear. The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space”: as intrepid and hazardous as exposing corruption by repressive regimes or reporting from war zones — spend their dreary days scrolling through 4Chan boards to expose the offensive memes and bad words used by transgressive adolescents; they then pat themselves on the back for confronting dangerous power centers, even when it is nothing more trivial and bullying than doxxing the identities of powerless, obscure citizens.
But the worst of this triumvirate is the NYT’s tech reporters, due to influence and reach if no other reason. When Silicon Valley monopolies, publicly pressured by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other lawmakers, united to remove Parler from the internet, the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram chat room. That seems problematic.”
These examples of journalism being abused to demand censorship of spaces they cannot control are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. And they are not confined to those three outlets. That far more robust censorship is urgently needed is now a virtual consensus in mainstream corporate journalism: it’s an animating cause for them.
[...]
But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, speech policing: all in the most anti-intellectual, adolescent and primitive ways — is all they have. It’s all they are. It’s why they have fully earned the contempt and distrust in which the public holds them.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship
-
Great article by Glenn Greenwald, worth a read.
The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows
A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism.
I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian “reporting.” Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s “media reporters” (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their “journalism” to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention). These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not.
Just as the NSA is obsessed with ensuring there be no place on earth where humans can communicate free of their spying eyes and ears, these journalistic hall monitors cannot abide the idea that there can be any place on the internet where people are free to speak in ways they do not approve. Like some creepy informant for a state security apparatus, they spend their days trolling the depths of chat rooms and 4Chan bulletin boards and sub-Reddit threads and private communications apps to find anyone — influential or obscure — who is saying something they believe should be forbidden, and then use the corporate megaphones they did not build and could not have built but have been handed in order to silence and destroy anyone who dissents from the orthodoxies of their corporate managers or challenges their information hegemony.
Oliver Darcy has built his CNN career by sitting around with Brian Stelter petulantly pointing to people breaking the rules on social media and demanding tech executives make the rule-breakers disappear. The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space”: as intrepid and hazardous as exposing corruption by repressive regimes or reporting from war zones — spend their dreary days scrolling through 4Chan boards to expose the offensive memes and bad words used by transgressive adolescents; they then pat themselves on the back for confronting dangerous power centers, even when it is nothing more trivial and bullying than doxxing the identities of powerless, obscure citizens.
But the worst of this triumvirate is the NYT’s tech reporters, due to influence and reach if no other reason. When Silicon Valley monopolies, publicly pressured by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other lawmakers, united to remove Parler from the internet, the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram chat room. That seems problematic.”
These examples of journalism being abused to demand censorship of spaces they cannot control are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. And they are not confined to those three outlets. That far more robust censorship is urgently needed is now a virtual consensus in mainstream corporate journalism: it’s an animating cause for them.
[...]
But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, speech policing: all in the most anti-intellectual, adolescent and primitive ways — is all they have. It’s all they are. It’s why they have fully earned the contempt and distrust in which the public holds them.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship
I agree. Good commentary.
-
Lucasfilm Drops ‘Mandalorian’ Star Gina Carano Following Offensive Social Media Posts
Variety ^ | February 10, 2021 | Daniel Holloway
Posted on 2/10/2021, 10:59:57 PM by EdnaMode
Gina Carano is “not currently employed by Lucasfilm,” the company said in a statement Wednesday after controversy erupted over “The Mandalorian” star’s social media posts.
“Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future,” a Lucasfilm spokesperson said in a statement. “Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Carano shared several offensive posts on her Instagram stories Tuesday night, including one that likened contemporary political differences to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children,” Carano wrote Instagram. “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.” The post originated on a different Instagram account.
In another post, Carano shared a photo of a person wearing multiple cloth masks with the caption, “Meanwhile in California…”
Both posts were gone from Carano’s Instagram by mid-day Wednesday. Other posts, including one in which Carano wrote “Jeff Epstein didn’t kill himself,” remained.
The hashtag #FireGinaCarano began circulating on Twitter Wednesday in response to her posts. Many users tagged Lucasfilm and corporate parent Disney in their posts.
Carano is no stranger to controversy on social media. In November she was criticized for mocking people who specify preferred pronouns when she updated her Twitter bio with “beep/bop/boop,” which she later removed.
In December, Lucasfilm announced “Rangers of the New Republic,” a direct spinoff of “The Mandalorian” that seemed to suggest a path for her character Cara Dune, a former Rebel trooper who had become a Marshall for the New Republic on the show. Lucasfilm has not yet announced a cast for the new show, however.
-
Lucasfilm Drops ‘Mandalorian’ Star Gina Carano Following Offensive Social Media Posts
Variety ^ | February 10, 2021 | Daniel Holloway
Posted on 2/10/2021, 10:59:57 PM by EdnaMode
Gina Carano is “not currently employed by Lucasfilm,” the company said in a statement Wednesday after controversy erupted over “The Mandalorian” star’s social media posts.
“Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future,” a Lucasfilm spokesperson said in a statement. “Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Carano shared several offensive posts on her Instagram stories Tuesday night, including one that likened contemporary political differences to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children,” Carano wrote Instagram. “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.” The post originated on a different Instagram account.
In another post, Carano shared a photo of a person wearing multiple cloth masks with the caption, “Meanwhile in California…”
Both posts were gone from Carano’s Instagram by mid-day Wednesday. Other posts, including one in which Carano wrote “Jeff Epstein didn’t kill himself,” remained.
The hashtag #FireGinaCarano began circulating on Twitter Wednesday in response to her posts. Many users tagged Lucasfilm and corporate parent Disney in their posts.
Carano is no stranger to controversy on social media. In November she was criticized for mocking people who specify preferred pronouns when she updated her Twitter bio with “beep/bop/boop,” which she later removed.
In December, Lucasfilm announced “Rangers of the New Republic,” a direct spinoff of “The Mandalorian” that seemed to suggest a path for her character Cara Dune, a former Rebel trooper who had become a Marshall for the New Republic on the show. Lucasfilm has not yet announced a cast for the new show, however.
These people are crazy. Dangerous times.
-
Lucasfilm Drops ‘Mandalorian’ Star Gina Carano Following Offensive Social Media Posts
Variety ^ | February 10, 2021 | Daniel Holloway
Posted on 2/10/2021, 10:59:57 PM by EdnaMode
Gina Carano is “not currently employed by Lucasfilm,” the company said in a statement Wednesday after controversy erupted over “The Mandalorian” star’s social media posts.
“Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future,” a Lucasfilm spokesperson said in a statement. “Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Carano shared several offensive posts on her Instagram stories Tuesday night, including one that likened contemporary political differences to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children,” Carano wrote Instagram. “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.” The post originated on a different Instagram account.
In another post, Carano shared a photo of a person wearing multiple cloth masks with the caption, “Meanwhile in California…”
Both posts were gone from Carano’s Instagram by mid-day Wednesday. Other posts, including one in which Carano wrote “Jeff Epstein didn’t kill himself,” remained.
The hashtag #FireGinaCarano began circulating on Twitter Wednesday in response to her posts. Many users tagged Lucasfilm and corporate parent Disney in their posts.
Carano is no stranger to controversy on social media. In November she was criticized for mocking people who specify preferred pronouns when she updated her Twitter bio with “beep/bop/boop,” which she later removed.
In December, Lucasfilm announced “Rangers of the New Republic,” a direct spinoff of “The Mandalorian” that seemed to suggest a path for her character Cara Dune, a former Rebel trooper who had become a Marshall for the New Republic on the show. Lucasfilm has not yet announced a cast for the new show, however.
They LITERALLY just proved her exact point for her
-
So he exposes CNN and promptly gets banned.
Undercover Journalist James O'Keefe Sues Twitter Over Claim He Operated Fake Accounts
BY PAUL BOND ON 4/19/21
https://www.newsweek.com/undercover-journalist-james-okeefe-sues-twitter-over-claim-he-operated-fake-accounts-1584872
-
These people are crazy. Dangerous times.
Apparently Gina Carano didn't learn anything from the Roseanne Barr debacle when she was fired by ABC from the successful revival of the Rosanne show because of 'racist' comments she posted on her Twitter account. Morals clauses are included today in certain contracts of public figures, such as athletes, actors/actresses, and others. In the 1950's morality clauses were used against actors thought to be communists.
-
Apparently Gina Carano didn't learn anything from the Roseanne Barr debacle when she was fired by ABC from the successful revival of the Rosanne show because of 'racist' comments she posted on her Twitter account. Morals clauses are included today in certain contracts of public figures, such as athletes, actors/actresses, and others. In the 1950's morality clauses were used against actors thought to be communists.
Her comments were not racist at all.
-
Her comments were not racist at all.
They were not racist or anti-semetic. All her tweet showed was that that nazis were able to rise to power because citizen turned on citizen - it was to highlight anti-conservative bias.
Her co-star, however, tweeted something comparing Trump supporters to actual nazis.
Of course that was perfectly fine in the eyes of Disney.
LeBron, Waters, etc all know they can say anything with impunity.
-
Apparently Gina Carano didn't learn anything from the Roseanne Barr debacle when she was fired by ABC from the successful revival of the Rosanne show because of 'racist' comments she posted on her Twitter account. Morals clauses are included today in certain contracts of public figures, such as athletes, actors/actresses, and others. In the 1950's morality clauses were used against actors thought to be communists.
What she didn't learn is that different standards are applied to conservatives.
-
Her comments were not racist at all.
Agree.
-
They were not racist or anti-semetic. All her tweet showed was that that nazis were able to rise to power because citizen turned on citizen - it was to highlight anti-conservative bias.
Her co-star, however, tweeted something comparing Trump supporters to actual nazis.
Of course that was perfectly fine in the eyes of Disney.
LeBron, Waters, etc all know they can say anything with impunity.
Truth.
-
Her comments were not racist at all.
You do understand that I was referencing Rosanne's tweets which included a comment referring to former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett as the offspring of the “Muslim Brotherhood & Planet of the Apes.” Many folks would see that as a racist remark.
-
Lebron James should be arrested imo for that tweet.....
-
Norfolk fires police officer who donated to Kyle Rittenhouse and who said he 'did nothing wrong'
by Mike Brest, Breaking News Reporter
Apr 20, 2021
The city of Norfolk, Virginia, fired a police lieutenant who defended and donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old accused of killing two people and wounding a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer.
City Manager Chip Filer accepted Police Chief Larry Boone’s recommendation that Lt. William Kelly be relieved of duty on Tuesday, according to an announcement just four days after he was placed on administrative leave.
“I have reviewed the results of the internal investigation involving Lt. William Kelly. Chief Larry Boone and I have concluded Lt. Kelly’s actions are in violation of City and departmental policies,” Filer said. “His egregious comments erode the trust between the Norfolk Police Department and those they are sworn to serve. The City of Norfolk has a standard of behavior for all employees, and we will hold staff accountable.”
Kelly made a $25 donation on Sept. 3 on a crowdfunding website, and he commented, “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong,” according to the Guardian.
“Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership,” he added.
Rittenhouse was charged with two counts of first-degree homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment, as well as possessing a weapon while under the age of 18 in connection to shootings that took place during the unrest in Kenosha on Aug. 25. The protests were in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man left partially paralyzed by his injuries.
Rittenhouse said he came out, armed, to the scene to help protect a business from being looted or destroyed. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
His trial was delayed last month and will not begin until November. Rittenhouse has been free on bail since Nov. 20, after his lawyer posted $2 million donated by supporters, who believe his prosecution infringed on Second Amendment rights.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/norfolk-police-fired-kyle-rittenhouse-donation
-
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/183322713_3911935285539780_144654708475963945_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=ttQGVKnLC64AX9vX_8s&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=287fdac9d23a92f28f3dfa4e6d6866b3&oe=60BB3E82)
-
FCC's Brendan Carr Issues Blistering Response After Marilyn Mosby Tries to Silence Baltimore Fox Affiliate
By Sister Toldjah | May 10, 2021
https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2021/05/10/fccs-brendan-carr-issues-blistering-response-after-marilyn-mosby-tries-to-silence-baltimore-fox-affiliate-n377529?fbclid=IwAR3jc7BNohlN0FMr5Ed8_XeQ0ONBIvnuKAD0RIp1wetWT_9ARSCm-aITzRk
-
Police Lieutenant Fired for Donation to Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund
AWR HAWKINS
15 May 2021
Norfolk, Virginia, police Lt. William Kelly was fired from his job days after it was revealed that he donated to a fundraiser benefitting Kyle Rittenhouse.
Fox News reports that Kelly “was only roughly 10 months from being a 20-year veteran of the department” when he was fired. The Associated Press indicated Norfolk city officials said Kelly was “relieved of duty.”
The firing left Kelly scrambling to find health insurance for his cancer-stricken wife.
He also has to provide for his three children.
Kelly’s donation to the Rittenhouse fundraiser included a message: “God Bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank-and-file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”
After being fired, Kelly told Fox News, “I thought I was a free man in America expressing his personal opinion to somebody, giving some words of encouragement and making a simple donation.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/15/police-lieutenant-fired-for-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund/
-
Space Force commander removed after saying Marxism is infiltrating the military
By Jorge Fitz-Gibbon
May 16, 2021
A lieutenant colonel in the Space Force has been removed from his post — after he went on a podcast to claim that Marxism is invading the military, according to a report.
Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier was temporarily reassigned after going on a podcast and touting his book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military,” according to military.com.
“This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast,” a Space Force spokesman told the outlet.
“Lt Gen. (Stephen) Whiting has initiated a command directed investigation on whether these comments constitute prohibited partisan political activity,” the statement said.
Lohmeier, commander of the 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado, got into hot water after appearing on the conservative podcast “Information Operation” last week.
His book claims that a “neo-Marxist agenda” has infiltrated the military.
“The diversity, inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military … is rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism,” Lohmeier told podcast host L. Todd Wood, military.com reported.
He insisted that his book is not political, but rather a warning about the increased politicization of the armed forces — some of which he said he’s seen first-hand.
Lohmeier also took apparent issue with Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby — who he referred to only as “a Pentagon spokesperson” — claiming that Kirby had said “there are too many white pilots” in the Air Force and Space Force.
“If you want to provide that kind of messaging to your already-struggling pilot force, you can already expect to see further retention problems,” he said in the podcast.
Kirby denied making the comment in a statement Friday.
“This department has an open door to any qualified American who wants to serve,” he said. “Diversity throughout the force is a source of strength. We can’t afford to deprive ourselves of the talents and the voices of the full range of a nation that we defend.
But Lohmeier said he’s gotten thank-yous from other active-duty service members.
Lohmeier told military.com that he consulted with superiors, as well as legal and public affairs officials, about the book and was told he wasn’t required to submit it for security and pre-publication review.
“My intent never has been to engage in partisan politics,” he said. “I have written a book about a particular political ideology in the hope that our defense department might return to being politically non-partisan in the future as it has honorably throughout history.”
https://nypost.com/2021/05/16/space-force-commander-removed-after-marxism-comments-on-podcast/
-
Twitter Suspends Spanish Politician For Saying ‘A Man Cannot Get Pregnant’
MAY 17, 2021 By Evita Duffy
Francisco José Contreras, deputy to Spain’s conservative Vox Party, was locked out of his Twitter account for 12 hours last week after saying men cannot get pregnant. Contreras had shared a news article, which reported on a “pregnant man” giving birth to “his” child. “That’s a lie,” Contreras wrote on Twitter about the article. “A man cannot get pregnant. A man has neither uterus nor ovaries.”
For stating a biological fact, Twitter blocked Contreras for 12 hours, claiming his tweet had broken its policies prohibiting “hate, threats, harassment, and/or fomenting violence against people” based on “race, origin, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, age, disability, or illness.”
“The hateful tweet (which I was forced to delete) was one that said: A man cannot get pregnant. A man has no womb or eggs,” Contreras tweeted in response to the suspension. “You can see this is already fascist biology. Next time I’ll try 2 + 2 = 4.”
A Twitter spokesman declined to comment, according to Fox News.
“We will not yield to Twitter imposing a twisted (and anthropologically wrong) worldview,” Contreras told LifeSite News. “We will continue to speak the truth about human nature. Biological truth should not be regarded as ‘hate speech.’ It’s biology, not bigotry.”
In response to Twitter’s decision to suspend Contreras, his supporters have started tweeting the hashtag #AManCannotBePregnant.
This isn’t the only time Twitter has targeted the Vox Party. Spanish publication “Counting Stars” reported that Twitter ignored overt threats against Vox Party members on its platform. During the Spanish election season, Twitter also disabled the official Vox Party account for 24 hours after it merely posted high crime rates among illegal immigrant minors from the Muslim Maghreb region in Northwest Africa. The statistics were taken from public police sources.
Vox, unapologetically conservative and in opposition to the European globalist movement, has become a major target for Spain’s left-wing parties and the European left in general. It has been subsequently characterized by the American corporate media as “far-right.” The party supports traditional values, small government, and Spain’s historically Catholic culture.
Vox describes itself as the “common sense party” that “gives a voice to the Spanish people,” and it seeks to defend Spain by fighting political correctness, standing up for the unborn and the Spanish family, and promoting limited government. “Life, liberty, and courage,” is its motto.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/17/twitter-suspends-spanish-politician-for-saying-a-man-cannot-get-pregnant/
-
Alaska teacher on leave after ‘racially insensitive’ George Floyd comments
By Samuel Chamberlain
May 6, 2021
An Alaska high school teacher has been placed on administrative leave after telling students that George Floyd would still be alive if he had complied with Minneapolis police.
In a 15-minute video posted on YouTube last week, a masked teacher at Lathrop High School in Fairbanks is seen leading a discussion of high-profile police shootings of African-Americans. When the topic turns to Floyd, the teacher says former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin “abused his authority” and “was complicit in George Floyd’s death.”
“But if George Floyd had, at the beginning when they got him out of the car and went to put him in the police car if he had just sidled into the car and slid it in there, and let them put his legs in, he would be alive today, and you know that’s true,” she adds.
Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter last month after he knelt on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds last Memorial Day while attempting to subdue and arrest him on a charge of passing counterfeit money.
“If the cops come and they say, ‘I’m taking you to jail,’ then you put your hands behind your back, you let them off you, you get in the cop car and you go and call your parents when they give you your phone call,” the teacher goes on. “That’s what you do to stay alive. Everybody, white, black, brown. I don’t care what color you are. None of that makes a difference. You comply, you do what they say.”
The teacher, a self-described “old white lady,” adds that if she were ever arrested, “I’m putting my hands behind my back and I’m going to jail and I’m calling my husband when I get there, and he’s going to call our attorney. And I’m gonna tell the cops, I’m gonna say, ‘Yes sir,’ and ‘Sir, when you search me, you’re going to find a gun strapped to my ankle, and I’m just letting you know about it now, so that you don’t, you know, so that you can get it and be safe.’”
Later in the video, the teacher tells her students how to dress in order to avoid attracting the attention of cops.
“Look at how you guys are dressed,” she says. “You guys are dressed nicely. You don’t look like thugs, you don’t have your pants down around your knees.”
Lathrop High principal Carly Sween described the remarks as “racially insensitive.” District officials have not formally identified the teacher, but she is referred to in the video as “Ms. Gardner.” Lathrop’s website lists a Connie Gardner as a special education teacher. An email to Gardner’s work address by The Post requesting comment was not immediately returned.
The teacher is eventually challenged by a tutor named Liz who says she’s “a little uncomfortable” about the “insinuation that the way that someone is dressed should garner more response from the police … Police should be trained not to judge people based on those factors and if someone has their pants around their knees doesn’t mean they’re a criminal.”
After the tutor says that “police should also be trained not to kill people even if they don’t comply,” the teacher responds that “If people comply with the police, they have much less chance of being killed by the police … if you value your life and you want to live, you will comply with the police.”
The Lathrop High School principal said that the teachers remarks were " racially insensitive", though the district has yet to make a formal response.
The Lathrop High School principal said that the teachers remarks were ” racially insensitive.”
Google Maps
At that point, a parent who describes herself as a “woman of color who has lived in the South … who was born and raised in the South, who experienced racism first-hand, even when I was a child” chimes in.
“Some of the things that you are saying, I feel like you are very uneducated on,” the parent says, “and I don’t feel like you are able to address these things that are going on in the world today.”
Apparently chastened, the teacher finally says: “I’m not going to be, um, you know, this is a class –“
“No, you’re exactly right,” the parent fires back. “It is a class, it is a class, and this is where it should stop. You should stop this conversation. Period.”
https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/alaska-teacher-on-leave-after-racially-insensitive-george-floyd-comments/
-
Police Lieutenant Fired for Donation to Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund
AWR HAWKINS
15 May 2021
Norfolk, Virginia, police Lt. William Kelly was fired from his job days after it was revealed that he donated to a fundraiser benefitting Kyle Rittenhouse.
Fox News reports that Kelly “was only roughly 10 months from being a 20-year veteran of the department” when he was fired. The Associated Press indicated Norfolk city officials said Kelly was “relieved of duty.”
The firing left Kelly scrambling to find health insurance for his cancer-stricken wife.
He also has to provide for his three children.
Kelly’s donation to the Rittenhouse fundraiser included a message: “God Bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank-and-file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”
After being fired, Kelly told Fox News, “I thought I was a free man in America expressing his personal opinion to somebody, giving some words of encouragement and making a simple donation.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/15/police-lieutenant-fired-for-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund/
He should start a gofundme page. Then, after gofundme cancels his page, start another on a different platform like Rittenhouse did.
I think that Norfolk is going to pay him a handsome sum.
-
Commie left just cancels anyone with their own opinion, very cowardly, low IQ gang of returdz. ::)
-
As a platform (and supposedly not a publisher) they shouldn't be censoring things like this anyway. Bunch of dorks.
Facebook ends ban on posts claiming COVID-19 is man-made
Facebook had previously insisted the claim had been 'debunked'
By Thomas Barrabi FOXBusiness
Debate over COVID origins rages on after Wuhan lab report
Jimmy Failla, Michael Gordon and Spike Cohen join 'Kennedy' to discuss calls for an investigation into coronavirus origins
Facebook said Wednesday it would no longer ban posts suggesting COVID-19 is man-made amid mounting calls from President Biden and other officials for further investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
The announcement marked a reversal for the social media giant. In February, Facebook said it would remove posts claiming the virus was man-made or manufactured "following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization" who had "debunked" the claim.
"In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made from our apps," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. "We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge."
Politico was first to report on the policy change.
Public calls for further investigation into the pandemic’s origins intensified in recent days after the Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology displayed symptoms severe enough to seek hospital treatment. A previous State Department fact sheet noted the researchers had "symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness."
In a statement earlier Monday, Biden said he had directed his national security adviser to develop a report on the virus’ origins, including the possibility that it emerged after a laboratory accident, shortly after he became president. Biden said he has called on intelligence officials to present a report on their findings within 90 days.
"The United States will also keep working with like-minded partners around the world to press China to participate in a full, transparent, evidence-based international investigation and to provide access to all relevant data and evidence," Biden said.
Facebook and other social media platforms have faced pressure from both sides of the aisle regarding their COVID-19 content policies. Democratic lawmakers have pressed platforms to crack down on the spread of misinformation, while Republicans have accused the companies of stifling open debate, including discussions on the lab leak theory.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/facebook-ends-ban-posts-claiming-covid-19-man-made
-
-
Ohio American Legion wants resignations after audio cut in Memorial Day speech on Black people’s role honoring fallen Union soldiers
The Associated Press
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/bRd2YR4IMP16_vY7iKhZR3Own1E=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/7RSFP7XM6ZFCHIQCQVPMP5CZWM.jpg)
In this frame grab from video provided by Hudson Community Television, retired Army Lt. Col. Barnard Kemter taps the microphone after organizers turned off the audio during his speech at a Memorial Day ceremony on May 31, 2021, in Hudson, Ohio. (Hudson Community Television via AP)
HUDSON, Ohio — The Ohio American Legion is calling on the organizers of a Memorial Day ceremony to resign after they turned off a speaker’s microphone when the former U.S. Army officer began talking about how freed Black slaves had honored fallen soldiers soon after the Civil War.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Barnard Kemter said he included the story in his speech because he wanted to share the history of how Memorial Day originated.
But organizers of the ceremony in Hudson, Ohio, said that part of the speech was not relevant to the program’s theme of honoring the city’s veterans.
Cindy Suchan, chair of the Memorial Day parade committee and president of the Hudson American Legion Auxiliary, said it was either she or Jim Garrison, adjutant of the American Legion Post 464, who turned down the audio, the Akron Beacon Journal reported.
The Ohio American Legion said Thursday that it was investigating.
“The American Legion deplores racism and reveres the Constitution,” the organization’s national commander, James W. “Bill” Oxford, said in a statement. “We salute LTC Kemter’s service and his moving remarks about the history of Memorial Day and the important role played by Black Americans in honoring our fallen heroes. We regret any actions taken that detracts from this important message.”
In the days before the ceremony, Suchan said she reviewed the speech and asked Kemter to remove certain portions. Kemter said he didn’t see the suggested changes in time to rewrite the speech and talked with a Hudson public official who told him not to change it.
Kemter said he was disappointed that the organizers silenced two minutes of his 11-minute speech, during which he talked about how former slaves and freed Black men exhumed the remains of more than 200 Union soldiers from a mass grave in Charleston, South Carolina, and gave them a proper burial.
“This is not the same country I fought for,” said Kemter, who spent 30 years in the Army and served in the Persian Gulf War.
The decision to turn off the audio disrespected Kemter and all veterans, Hudson’s mayor and City Council said in a statement, which also said the city is committed to addressing issues of systemic racism and intolerance.
“Veterans have done everything we have asked of them during their service to this country, and this tarnished what should have been a celebration of their service,” the statement said.
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2021/06/03/ohio-american-legion-wants-resignations-after-audio-cut-in-memorial-day-speech-on-black-peoples-role-honoring-fallen-union-soldiers/
-
Facebook says Donald Trump to remain banned for two years, effective from Jan. 7
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 4 2021
Salvador Rodriguez
@SAL19
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/04/facebook-says-donald-trump-to-remain-banned-from-platform-for-2-years-effective-from-jan-7.html
-
Facebook says Donald Trump to remain banned for two years, effective from Jan. 7
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 4 2021
Salvador Rodriguez
@SAL19
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/04/facebook-says-donald-trump-to-remain-banned-from-platform-for-2-years-effective-from-jan-7.html
When I read about this issue this morning, I found it interesting that Facebook seems to be hinting that Trump likely won't get his account back in January 2023.
-
When I read about this issue this morning, I found it interesting that Facebook seems to be hinting that Trump likely won't get his account back in January 2023.
Of course not. It's an easier sell if they just do these incremental suspensions. Gave Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama exactly what they asked for. But that's what today liberals-progressives-statists do: silence the opposition. Bunch of fascists.
-
Of course not. It's an easier sell if they just do these incremental suspensions. Gave Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama exactly what they asked for. But that's what today liberals-progressives-statists do: silence the opposition. Bunch of fascists.
“we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded” in deciding whether to reinstate Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, Clegg continued. “If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to reevaluate until that risk has receded,”
https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/trump-facebook-suspended-two-years-1234988856/
-
“we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded” in deciding whether to reinstate Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, Clegg continued. “If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to reevaluate until that risk has receded,”
https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/trump-facebook-suspended-two-years-1234988856/
Horse manure.
-
Judge Reinstates VA Teacher Suspended For Refusing To Affirm Trans Identity For Kids, Calls School Response ‘Vindictive’
"A massive victory for freedom of speech."
By Jon Brown
Jun 8, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-reinstates-va-teacher-suspended-for-refusing-to-affirm-trans-identity-for-kids-calls-school-response-vindictive?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR00btp_lv1Kk96JILT4I6euPGvul7qBmpPIs3MpIJ4UWn3r1UpuNDmYZco
-
Horse manure.
Perhaps. And perhaps lack of social media access is actually a bonus for Trump. He suffers from 'hoof' in mouth disease. He is often his own worse enemy. At least with rallies and perhaps his own blog (if he can figure out how to make it a success), he is preaching to the choir. Given a larger audience, he could very easily lose support.
Plus, folks love a martyr. Right now, there are people who feel sorry for him and angry that he's not being afforded the opportunity others are. I didn't say rights because whether access to particular social media is a right or a privilege is debatable. Free speech isn't always 'free'. Corporations do what is good for business...which translates to what is profitable.
-
Perhaps. And perhaps lack of social media access is actually a bonus for Trump. He suffers from 'hoof' in mouth disease. He is often his own worse enemy. At least with rallies and perhaps his own blog (if he can figure out how to make it a success), he is preaching to the choir. Given a larger audience, he could very easily lose support.
Plus, folks love a martyr. Right now, there are people who feel sorry for him and angry that he's not being afforded the opportunity others are. I didn't say rights because whether access to particular social media is a right or a privilege is debatable. Free speech isn't always 'free'. Corporations do what is good for business...which translates to what is profitable.
Good points.
-
Liberal twinks are afraid of everything.
-
Liberal twinks are afraid of everything.
Good discussion. Refreshing to hear from an intellectually honest liberal. He can see the bias and censorship plain as day.
-
Good discussion. Refreshing to hear from an intellectually honest liberal. He can see the bias and censorship plain as day.
The liberal censorship is insane
-
Conservative Sues Twitter, California Officials, and Biden Campaign Consultants For Colluding to Deplatform Him
By Debra Heine
June 18, 2021
https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/18/conservative-sues-twitter-california-officials-and-biden-campaign-consultants-for-colluding-to-deplatform-him/?fbclid=IwAR132fMnQgrqXwaUxpG5tI5cxpYrRzLsN0_KWGf6CVULyyeAZPdyiJJGteI
-
He better watch out. The left will cancel him too.
Bill Maher Slams 'Outrageous' Facebook and Google for Suppressing Lab Leak Theory
By Mike Miller | Jun 26, 2021
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/06/26/bill-maher-slams-outrageous-facebook-and-google-for-suppressing-lab-leak-theory-n402887
-
WORST Censorship in June: 5 Ways Big Tech Silenced the American People
Casey Ryan
July 7th, 2021
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/casey-ryan/2021/07/07/worst-censorship-june-5-ways-big-tech-silenced-american
-
BREAKING: White House admits they are aiding social media companies with censorship
JUL. 15, 2021 2:01 PM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted today that the White House is actually flagging posts and asking social media companies such as Facebook to remove the posts that they claim have COVID misinformation:
Steve Herman
@W7VOA
·
1h
"We are in regular touch with the social media platforms" about #COVID19-related misinformation, says
@PressSec
. "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook."
Steve Herman
@W7VOA
·
1h
"There's about 12 people that are producing 65%" of anti-vaccine information and they remain active on
@Facebook
, according to
@Facebook
, adding that the
social media company "needs to move quickly" to remove such posts.
I know the media and the left are going to collectively yawn at this revelation, but imagine for a second if this was Kayleigh McEnany revealing that the Trump administration was flagging posts for removal from social media companies. This would be a huge scandal and social media companies would have to come and apologize for working with the Trump administration to censor people. Of this I have no doubt.
In fact McEnany has already issued a comment on this revelation, making a great point by suggesting that the White House is actually bolstering Trump’s chances of winning his Big Tech lawsuit:
Kayleigh McEnany
@kayleighmcenany
Interesting! Here is the White House (probably unwittingly) bolstering President Trump’s Big Tech lawsuit, alleging these companies have become pseudo-government actors!
“We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation."
She’s exactly right. Big Tech social media companies have become regulators of speech and thus, by working with the White House, are in effect government actors. One might argue this violates the first amendment, in that the government shall not abridge or curtail freedom of speech.
Go get ’em Trump!
https://therightscoop.com/breaking-white-house-admits-they-are-aiding-social-media-companies-with-censorship/
-
I've posted links and know many others have as well.
Some , like Dos Equis, do so with a serious use to back a claim.
No surprise, but I rarely click on the link or watch attached videos.
I wonder how many others actually READ the linked articles.
I don't probably 90% of the time.
Ya know, I post and interact on here for some entertainment and to see where the "other side" is.
if that makes me a lazy hack , fine. I've tried being serious a few times and it was a pointless effort.
-
I've posted links and know many others have as well.
Some , like Dos Equis, do so with a serious use to back a claim.
No surprise, but I rarely click on the link or watch attached videos.
I wonder how many others actually READ the linked articles.
I don't probably 90% of the time.
Ya know, I post and interact on here for some entertainment and to see where the "other side" is.
if that makes me a lazy hack , fine. I've tried being serious a few times and it was a pointless effort.
When you say you've tried being serious a few times, I hope you're talking terms of Getbig and not your entire life. :)
-
if that makes me a lazy hack , fine.
Every once in a while, "Howard" speaks the truth. When will you start deleting your posts again?
-
Judicial Watch Files Civil Rights Lawsuit for High School Teacher Fired for Facebook Posts Criticizing Chicago Riots, Looting, and Violence in the Aftermath of George Floyd Killing
JULY 20, 2021
JUDICIAL WATCH
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Palatine, Illinois tenured high school teacher Jeanne Hedgepeth, who was fired by the suburban-Chicago school district where she had worked for 20 years after posting comments on Facebook criticizing the riots, violence, and shootings in Chicago in the aftermath of the May 25, 2020, killing of George Floyd. Hedgepeth made the posts on her personal Facebook page while vacationing after the end of the school year, just as some of the most severe violence was occurring. In her posts, Hedgepeth recommended studying Thomas Sowell, whom she described as a “treasure” and a “truth seeker,” and praised political commentator and activist Candice Owens and talk show host Larry Elder. She alleges that the firing violated her First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeks damages from the school district, Township High School District 211, and district board members and officials who participated directly in the firing (Hedgepeth v. Britton et al. (Case No. 1:21-cv-03890)).
The lawsuit explains:
In late May and early June 2020, Hedgepeth was vacationing in Florida after the end of the 2019-20 school year when violent street protests, rioting, looting, and shootings erupted in Chicago and many other U.S. cities in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 by Minneapolis police officers. In Chicago alone, 82 persons were shot, 19 fatally, over the May 30-31, 2020 weekend. On May 31, 2020, which the Chicago Sun Times described as the most violent day Chicago had seen in 60 years, Mayor Lori Lightfoot asked Governor J.B. Pritzker to deploy the Illinois National Guard in the city.
That same day, May 31, 2020, Hedgepeth posted the following photos of herself on the beach in Florida along with the comment, “I don’t want to go home tomorrow. Now that the civil war has begun I want to move.”
An individual responded, “Follow your gut! Move!!!!!!!!!” Hedgepeth answered, “I need a gun and training.” The individual replied, “me too!”
Another individual posted a meme that same day suggesting that the riots could be stopped with a septic tank truck and a pressure cannon. Hedgepeth reposted the meme, obviously in jest, adding, “You think this would work?”
On or about June 1, 2020, Hedgepeth posted the following comment on Facebook in the course of an exchange of posts begun the previous day with a third individual:
I am about facts, truth seeking and love. I will speak on any topic I choose because I live in a free country. I find the term “white privilege” as racist as the “N” word. You have not walked in my shoes either so do not make assumptions about me and my so called privilege. You think America is racist? Then you have been hoodwinked by the white liberal establishment and race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Travel the world and go see that every nation has racism and some more than others but few make efforts such as we do to mitigate or eliminate it. I have lived and seen. The people I am informed by about the black experience in America are actually some of the smartest people in America. And it so happens they are black. I highly recommend studying Thomas Sowell, who is now retired and in his 80’s. A treasure. A truth seeker. [D ]oes REAL research and analysis. Candice Owens is one of the smartest and most courageous women in America and Larry Elders speaks the truth with a great sense of humor and FACTS not feelings. They are who I listen to when it comes to facts about the black experience in America. Don’t you think there is a deeper problem than racism when 50% of murders in America are committed by 13% of the population? Do you think there might be a subtle genocide of black babies when most planned parenthoods are put in poor neighborhoods and that 30% of abortions are black babies. [B ]lack women only make up 7% of the U.S. population. The greatest power you have is what you believe about yourself. [W]hat have Democrats, mainstream media and intellectuals in ivory towers been telling the black community to believe about themselves for forty years? Wake up and stop believing them, then things will change.
All of Hedgepeth’s posts were on her personal Facebook page. None of Hedgepeth’s posts identified her as a teacher or a District 211 employee, nor did Hedgepeth post them in her capacity as a teacher or a District 211 employee. None of the persons with whom Hedgepeth exchanged Facebook posts were current District 211 or Palatine High School teachers, staff, or students.
Upon returning from her vacation in early June 2020, Hedgepeth learned that the school district was investigating her for her Facebook posts. She was fired by the school board six weeks later, on July 16, 2020, by a vote of 5-2. In her defense, Hedgepeth noted that the posts were on her personal Facebook page and were made “out of school.” She also expressly invoked her First Amendment rights.
“The school district took what could have been a teachable moment about respecting diversity of viewpoints and turned it into a clear civil rights violation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Jeanne Hedgepeth had every right to express herself freely and openly on her personal Facebook page, outside of school, about matters of undeniable public concern. Firing her for opposing lawlessness, speaking out about gun rights, praising black conservatives, and criticizing Democrats and tenets of Critical Racial Theory violated the First Amendment, and the school district and district officials who did so will be held accountable.”
Judicial Watch is being assisted by attorney Christine Svenson of Palatine, Illinois.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/civil-rights-lawsuit-teacher/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press_release
-
Conservative Radio Personality Erick Erickson Suspended From Twitter
Autumn Johnson
August 7th, 2021
Twitter has temporarily suspended conservative radio personality Erick Erickson for tweeting that Laurel Hubbard “is a man.”
. . .
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/08/07/conservative-radio-personality-erick-erickson-suspended
-
American Booksellers Association Implements New ‘Oversight’ To Prevent Accidentally Promoting Authors Like Candace Owens
‘It was a terrible mistake with terrible racist implications’
By Megan Basham
Aug 11, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/american-booksellers-association-implements-new-oversight-to-prevent-accidentally-promoting-authors-like-candace-owens?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
-
Carrie Underwood Slammed For Liking Tweet Against School Mask Mandates
The 38-year-old showed support for a tweet by Matt Walsh where he lambasts mask mandates in Tennessee schools as “utterly insane.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/carrie-underwood-anti-mask-mandate-tweet_n_611d1bbbe4b0e5b5d8e55cdb
-
The liberal censorship is insane
And only getting worse.
-
Big Tech, woke finance crack down on Flynn, Gateway Pundit, Berenson in cancel culture purge
In recent days, Twitter permanently banned independent journalist Alex Berenson, Google demonetized The Gateway Pundit from its ad network, and Chase Bank canceled the credit cards of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
By Just the News staff
Updated: August 29, 2021
With national attention riveted over the weekend on two major stories — the frantic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan amid its fall to the Taliban and category 4 Hurricane Ida slamming into the Louisiana coast — Big Tech and woke finance dramatically extended the reach of cancel culture with brazen moves to silence and harass three high-profile voices of political and scientific dissent: independent journalist Alex Berenson, popular conservative news and opinion website The Gateway Pundit, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
On Saturday, Twitter permanently banned Alex Berenson, who has built a large social media following challenging public health establishment orthodoxy on COVID issues ranging from lockdown to vaccine mandates.
"The account you referenced has been permanently suspended for repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules," a Twitter spokesperson responded to an inquiry from Fox News.
"Goodbye Twitter," Berenson headlined the announcement of his banning on his Substack page.
"This was the tweet that did it," he wrote above a screen capture of the post that apparently triggered his purge from the dominant microblogging platform. "Entirely accurate. I can't wait to hear what a jury will make of this."
In his original offending tweet on the the COVID vaccine, Berenson wrote: "It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity."
Twitter has been criticized for anti-conservative viewpoint bias and censorship, including permanently banning former President Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, citing the platform's policies on incitement to violence.
Twitter has consistently denied charges of ideologically selective censorship of user content.
Meanwhile, on Thursday search and online advertising giant Google took aim at The Gateway Pundit, a conservative online news and opinion site that is ranked in the top 200 of U.S. websites according to Alexa and in the top 50 of English language news websites, according to a study prepared for media industry news site PressGazette.
"Google demonetized the Gateway Pundit from their ad network," the site's founder and editor Jim Hoft reported on Saturday.
"We're emailing you to let you know that we've repeatedly found content on one of your sites that violates our Google Publisher Policies," the search giant notified Gateway Pundit's legal department. "As a result we'll be disabling ad serving on the site ... in 4 business days, on 09/012021."
In explaining its move, Google cited two categories of violations: "Dangerous or derogatory content" and "Misreprentative — Unreliable and harmful claims."
"The Gateway Pundit has an outstanding record of accurately reporting the top news stories of the day," Hoft shot back. "Because of our continued success and our honest conservative bent we are regularly censored."
Loss of revenue from Google Ads can be a severe blow to a digital news site, given the platform's commanding position within the online advertising marketplace.
"For the record," wrote Hoft, "the Google advertising platform is one of the largest ad networks on the internet. So now Google is not only censoring and shadowbanning conservatives, they are taking away their ad money.
"Google is truly one of the most dangerous companies in the world today."
The third victim of the weekend purge was former Trump National Security Adviser and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration Michael Flynn, who posted to his Telegram account a notice from Chase Bank notifying him of the cancellation his credit cards.
"After careful consideration, we decided to close your credit cards on September 18, 2021 because continuing the relationship creates possible reputational risk to our company," read the terse update from the Cardmember Services division of Chase, the banking subsidiary of financial services behemoth JPMorgan Chase.
"Chase Bank has gone full blown woke!" Flynn posted in reply.
"They need to deal with their own reputation instead of persecuting my family and I," Flynn said, alluding to JPMorgan's agreement to pay $920 million to resolve federal wire fraud charges against the company for its role in separate criminal schemes to defraud the precious metals and U.S. Treasuries markets.
"DOJ dropped my case for their own egregious government misconduct, appears you weren't that lucky with the DOJ," Flynn chided. "I guess my America First political views don't align with yours."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/cancel-culture-chooses-news-filled-weekend-unleash-its-power
-
The left treats people like children who aren't able to think for themselves. They believe you need to be protected from viewpoints they disagree with.
Alex Berenson Permanently Banned from Twitter for Challenging COVID Vaccine Orthodoxy
The data suggests that Berenson wasn’t spreading “misinformation” and was merely providing context and insight that went against the preferred narrative
Posted by Leslie Eastman Monday, August 30, 2021
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/08/alex-berenson-permanently-banned-from-twitter-for-challenging-covid-vaccine-orthodoxy/
-
Gaming Company CEO Ousted After Tweeting Support For Texas Law Protecting Unborn Babies
SEPTEMBER 7, 2021
By Jordan Davidson
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/07/gaming-software-ceo-ousted-after-tweeting-support-for-texas-law-protecting-unborn-babies/
-
WORST Censorship in August: 5 Ways Big Tech Silenced Online Discussion
Casey Ryan
September 3rd, 2021
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/casey-ryan/2021/09/03/worst-censorship-august-5-ways-big-tech-silenced-online
-
Twitter slammed for fact-checking Seattle mom’s obituary that mentioned COVID vaccine
By Emily Crane
October 4, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/10/04/twitter-criticized-for-fact-checking-seattle-moms-obituary/
-
Katie Couric Edited Out Controversial Comments By RBG On Kneeling Protests: Book
In her new book, the journalist reveals she held back remarks by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on athletes kneeling in protest during the anthem to “protect” the late justice.
By Sarah Ruiz-Grossman
10/13/2021
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/katie-couric-book-ruth-bader-ginsburg-kneeling-protests_n_616755e8e4b065a5496f7184
-
Facebook employees tried to suppress conservative news outlets, report shows
By Mark Moore
October 24, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/10/24/facebook-employees-told-to-brace-for-more-disclosures/
-
WaPost won't publish full Trump response due to 'unrelated, inflammatory claims'
BY DOMINICK MASTRANGELO - 11/01/21
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/579355-washington-post-decides-not-to-publish-full-trump-response-to-series-due-to
-
WaPost won't publish full Trump response due to 'unrelated, inflammatory claims'
BY DOMINICK MASTRANGELO - 11/01/21
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/579355-washington-post-decides-not-to-publish-full-trump-response-to-series-due-to
You mean the media organization whose slogan is "Democracy Dies in Darkness"?
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/h/i/t/i/5/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1420x800.1hiqcr.png/1488248752385.jpg)
-
Rep. Issa unloads on YouTube for removing his speech: 'They're making decisions based on who says something'
In his speech, Issa touted the superiority of American vaccines against COVID-19
By Peter Hasson | Fox News
Harvard Medical School's Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Stanford Medical School's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya react to their opinions on children not wearing masks being censored by YouTube.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., tore into YouTube after the site removed a speech he gave. In a phone interview with Fox News, Issa cited the censorship as proof that its algorithms are biased against conservatives.
YouTube alleged that Issa's speech violated its rules against anti-vaccine misinformation, even though the only reference to vaccines that Issa made in the speech was to tout the superiority of the American COVID-19 vaccines over the Russian Sputnik vaccine.
The American vaccines are widely acknowledged to be superior to the Russian version, which U.S. authorities don't count toward its immunization requirements for foreign nationals seeking to enter the country.
Issa gave the speech in July at the EDGE2021 conference in Las Vegas, a highly respected government technology conference. Issa's office only recently found out that the speech was removed.
"The speech was about data and was a very nonpartisan speech… I used the analogy that just like the original Sputnik, when the Russians were first and we were better, they came out with their vaccine first but ours was better," Issa told Fox News.
Issa noted that news outlets have consistently reported the superiority of the American vaccines over the Russian version. "They don't take down the AP, they don't take down the NYT, but they will take down Darrell Issa for a completely benign statement that our product was better," he said.
Rep. Darrell Issa
@repdarrellissa
In my now-censored speech, I pointed out that Russia’s vaccine program was inferior to Operation Warp Speed. And the Russians repeatedly exaggerated their vaccine’s effectiveness every time another country launched a better one.
Is any free speech on vaccines allowed?
12:08 PM · Nov 9, 2021·Twitter Web App
The California Republican also took issue with the fact that his speech was censored for being anti-vaccine, when the remark in question was touting the superiority of America's vaccines.
"The fact that they're sort of calling me a vaccine-denier when I'm talking about our product being better than a product from a country that didn't have third-party review is a pretty amazing level of scrutiny, and I think it shows just how much they're making decisions based on who says something, not what they say."
Google, YouTube's parent company, didn't immediately return Fox News' request for comment.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-issa-unloads-youtube-removing-speech
-
Progressives Demand ‘Mistrial’ Over Rittenhouse Judge’s ‘God Bless The U.S.A.’ Ringtone
daily wire ^
Posted on 11/11/2021, 8:10:25 AM by
Democratic boosters and others called for a mistrial in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse after Judge Bruce Schroeder cell phone went off mid-hearing, playing “God Bless The U.S.A.”
Schroeder’s phone went off momentarily in court on Wednesday and the judge’s mic picked up his ringtone, broadcasting it to the courtroom and those watching the proceedings online. Schroeder, appearing annoyed, immediately silenced his phone and moved on with the trial.
-
YouTube has announced it will hide ‘dislikes’ from videos to curb “creator harassment,” with critics pointing out that this is merely a way of removing the huge amount of downvotes on videos posted by the Biden administration.
https://summit.news/2021/11/10/youtube-hides-dislikes-following-mass-downvoting-of-biden-administration-videos/
-
“Rittenhouse Should Pay for his Crimes”: ASU Students Demand the Expulsion of Kyle Rittenhouse
November 28, 2021
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/28/rittenhouse-should-pay-for-his-crimes-asu-students-demand-the-expulsion-of-kyle-rittenhouse/
-
Twitter suspends Just the News founder for report on legal distinctions between COVID vaccines
FDA has acknowledged Pfizer's first vaccine, issued under emergency use, is legally different from fully approved Comirnaty.
By Greg Piper
Updated: December 28, 2021
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/twitter-suspends-just-news-founder-report-legal-distinctions-between
-
Matt Walsh Suspended From Twitter Over Transgender Tweets. Here’s What Twitter Has Censored.
By Amanda Prestigiacomo
Jan 7, 2022 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-matt-walsh-suspended-from-twitter-over-transgender-tweets-heres-what-twitter-has-censored
-
-
270 Angry Scientists Cite MSM ‘Fact Checks’ In Open Letter Urging Spotify To Censor Joe Rogan For Giving Airtime to Dr. Robert Malone
Nation and State ^ | 01/13/2022 | Tyler Durden
Posted on 1/13/2022, 12:53:16 PM by
You knew it was coming...
Two weeks after Joe Rogan interviewed mRNA inventor Dr. Robert Malone on his Spotify podcast - which boasts 11 million viewers on average - an angry letter brigade of 270 doctors and scientists have written an open letter to Spotify to demand they censor Rogan and implement a Covid-19 "misinformation policy," so that people, even highly trained virologist-immunologists such as Malone, can't contradict 'the science.'
Getting down to their core argument:
In episode #1757, Rogan hosted Dr. Robert Malone, who was suspended from Twitter for spreading misinformation about COVID-19. Dr. Malone used the JRE platform to further promote numerous baseless claims, including several falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and an unfounded theory that societal leaders have “hypnotized” the public. Many of these statements have already been discredited.
The links go to an instagram slideshow and three MSM 'fact checks' - one of which doesn't even discuss Malone, and say his actions are not only "objectionable and offensive, but also medically and culturally dangerous."
And of course, just three of the signatories are immunologists, roughly 10% are nurses or nurse practitioners, and 33 are some type of 'assistant' (professor, nurse, lab, etc.). In short - hardly any of these people are qualified to refute Malone, which is probably why they link to 'fact checks' instead of compiling their own response on the merits of what Malone said.
Hey @Mediaite. "Scores of Doctors" is a more accurate headline. It looks like dozens of MDs, a bunch of PhDs, and a lot of "others" (e.g. students, writers, communicators). — MarkHyman (@MarkHyman) January 13, 2022
Please someone with the time to do this, cross reference the doctors who signed this letter and the ones who signed that letter declaring racial injustice a bigger threat to public health than covid to justify their support for BLM protests during the pandemic. https://t.co/dAkFuMXmHA
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) January 13, 2022
No wonder establishment lapdogs are in a tizzy...
Joe Rogan has completely disrupted the legacy media. pic.twitter.com/rBLCYweag0 — Pomp 🌪 (@APompliano) January 3, 2022
For those who missed the podcast, our original post is republished below in its entirety.
* * *
mRNA inventor Dr. Robert Malone gave a fascinating interview to Joe Rogan which aired on New Year's Eve.
If you've got three hours to spare, we recommend you watch the entire thing (cliffs notes here):
Malone, an expert in mRNA vaccine technologies who trained at UC Davis, UCSD and the Salk Institute, was suspended by Twitter with no explanation on Thursday. It appears he's preparing to sue, as Alex Berenson is currently doing.
Dr. Malone discusses his suspension from both LinkedIn and Twitter for the crime of promoting "vaccine hesitancy."
He argues that if the risks are not discussed, informed consent is not possible.
"Informed consent is not only not happening, it's being actively blocked." pic.twitter.com/cSWSA5S0bh — The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) December 31, 2021
Joe Rogan questions big tech for censoring “one of the most qualified people in the world to talk about vaccines”Dr. Robert Malone.
Dr. Robert Malone responds to big tech censoring him. pic.twitter.com/uJiny7449r — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
Twitter is in no position to judge Dr. Malone. If he, as inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, is concerned, we should all be. If Big Tech and Big Pharma have another perspective, they’re free to voice it. But censorship of whistleblowing experts must not stand. #RestoreMaloneNow https://t.co/XcjUmSqNIC — Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) December 31, 2021
The suspension came after Malone was vilified by a hit piece in The Atlantic which was funded by Facebook and Johnson & Johnson.
"Three days before this thing came out, the journalist - he previously publishes on 'woke' issues on the topic of higher education. He's clearly hired. And they explicitly say the article was funded by the Robert Boyd Johnson foundation and the Zuckerberg-Chan initiative.
...
He was totally obsessed. 'Robert, why are you saying these things? You must have some financial incentive. There must be some reason you're doing this' - and I told him repeatedly, 'because it's the right thing to do.'
I think I'm the only one who has been involved deeply in the development of this tech, that doesn't have a financial stake in it. For me, the reason is, because what's happening is not right. It's destroying my profession. It's destroying the practice of medicine worldwide ... I'm a vaccinologist. I spent 30 years developing vaccines. A stupid amount of education learning how to do it, and what the rules are. And for me, I'm personally offended watching my discipline get destroyed for no good reason at all except, apparently, financial incentives, and - I dunno - political ass-covering?" -Robert Malone
Dr. Robert Malone provides Joe Rogan the details behind the Atlantic attack article that Facebook and Johnson & Johnson funded.
As a creator of the mRNA tech, why is he speaking out? Dr. Malone responds: “Because it’s the right thing to do”.
Bravo! pic.twitter.com/rCzo5RlPZC — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
"Our government is out of control on this," Malone continues. "And they are lawless. They completely disregard bioethics. They completely disregard the federal common-rule. They have broken all the rules that I know of, that I've been trained for years and years and years. These mandates of an experimental vaccines are explicitly illegal. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Nuremberg code. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Belmont report. They are flat out illegal, and they don't care."
On Joe Rogan, Dr Robert Malone indicts our government’s response to covid
“They are lawless. They completely disregard bio-ethics. They’ve broken all the rules that I know, that I’ve been trained on for years”. pic.twitter.com/mxG7phVhIJ — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) January 1, 2022
Malone then explained to Rogan how the Uttar Pradesh province in India crushed Covid with early treatment that included ivermectin, however he claims that the Biden administration met with Modi and a 'decision was made not to disclose the contents of the treatment.'
Dr. Robert Malone explains to Joe Rogan how Uttar Pradesh has crushed COVID with early treatment.
Joe Biden met with Narendra Modi and a decision was made to not disclose the contents of the treatment. Why? pic.twitter.com/PG9AkhIHvG — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
They then went deeper into the topic of ivermectin and early interventions in general. According to Malone, "There are good modeling studies, that show a half a million excess deaths have happened in the US, through the intentional blockade of early COVID treatment by the US Government."
Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone on the villainization of Ivermectin.
Dr. Robert Malone: There are good modeling studies, that show a half of Million Excess Deaths have happened in the US, through the intentional blockade of early COVID treatment by the US Government. pic.twitter.com/lj9YKktcQZ — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
Dr. Robert Malone offers his observation of what could be behind the targeting of physicians,such as @P_McCulloughMD, who advocate for early COVID treatment to keep people out of the hospital.
He tells Joe Rogan to follow the money. pic.twitter.com/yI1Kc4k4gP — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
Malone and Rogan then got into some heavy science behind Covid - with Malone explaining how people with natural Covid immunity are at higher risk of adverse events from the vaccine.
"There is a number of things here that are not supported by the science."
Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone discuss how people with natural COVID immunity are at a higher risk of adverse events from the vaccine. pic.twitter.com/faAXiHMuL1 — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
They then discussed the case of a 14-year-old girl who was injured by the vaccine, yet the incident was reported as a stomach ache.
"This young woman who was listed as having a stomach ache, when in fact what she had was a seizure. And she's now wheelchair-bound with a nasal-gastric tube. One of 1,000 subjects."
On Joe Rogan, Dr Robert Malone discusses an alleged whistler blower case where a teenage girl was severely injured by the vaccine, yet the incident was reported as a stomach ache. pic.twitter.com/KEOlL57T4P — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) December 31, 2021
Towards the end of the interview, Malone gets even deeper - suggesting that people are living through a mass formation psychosis - drawing parallels to 1920s and 1930s Germany, where "they had a highly intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad."
On Joe Rogan, Dr Robert Malone suggests we are living through a mass formation psychosis.
He explains how and why this could happen, and its effects.
He draws analogy to 1920s/30s Germany “they had a highly intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad” pic.twitter.com/wZpfMsyEZZ — Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) January 1, 2022
Robert Malone pointing out that Reuters are the fact checkers for twitter....and are tied to Pfizer.@joerogan looks genuinely shook by this.
The truth will come out. pic.twitter.com/CCSTV05mCo — Anthony Fairall (@jeremybenthem1) December 31, 2021
And Twitter doesn't think Malone's voice deserves to be heard.
Why does listening to Dr. Malone on #JoeRogan feel like WW2 French Resistance trying to get outside info on a ham radio? — Coop (@ClownPopper) December 31, 2021
-
-
Hilarious that youtube permanently bans Bongino after he quit their platform. This is how you fight these unAmerican fascists. Respect.
YouTube Permanently Bans Dan Bongino for Going Against COVID Narrative
by Matt Palumbo
Posted: January 26, 2022
https://bongino.com/youtube-permanently-bans-dan-bongino-for-going-against-covid-narrative/
https://rumble.com/vtcr8u-dan-bongino-why-im-leaving-youtube.html?mref=22lbp&mc=56yab&fbclid=IwAR2tg-o_1pu19qRtcejvWssaZaR26-qsVezn5BNkxdSYYn9gQHVXWeXU_Fg
-
Hilarious that youtube permanently bans Bongino after he quit their platform. This is how you fight these unAmerican fascists. Respect.
YouTube Permanently Bans Dan Bongino for Going Against COVID Narrative
by Matt Palumbo
Posted: January 26, 2022
https://bongino.com/youtube-permanently-bans-dan-bongino-for-going-against-covid-narrative/
https://rumble.com/vtcr8u-dan-bongino-why-im-leaving-youtube.html?mref=22lbp&mc=56yab&fbclid=IwAR2tg-o_1pu19qRtcejvWssaZaR26-qsVezn5BNkxdSYYn9gQHVXWeXU_Fg
Some very sinister stuff going on - yet the scared sheep like are totally oblivious to it all
Since when was it wrong to ask Questions ??? Since the Advent of China Virus only one opinion. View & thought process is Allowed for those Behind this Deceit,.
-
Some very sinister stuff going on - yet the scared sheep like are totally oblivious to it all
Since when was it wrong to ask Questions ??? Since the Advent of China Virus only one opinion. View & thought process is Allowed for those Behind this Deceit,.
I think sinister is a good word to describe what is happening.
-
Barry Manilow Joins Neil Young in Laughable Spotify Battle Over Joe Rogan Podcast
PJ Media ^ | 1/28/2022 | Cameron Arcand
Posted on 1/28/2022, 12:53:46 PM by Signalman
Barry Manilow is joining rock singer Neil Young in threatening to ditch Spotify over their decision to continue giving Joe Rogan’s podcast a platform despite alleged COVID-19 misinformation.
Young started another stereotypical left-wing movement against dissenting opinions when he referred to the music streaming platform as a “very damaging force via its public misinformation and lies about COVID” in a statement posted to his website.
For the record, his website was so outdated it’s called Neil Young Archives, and I was not even able to copy and paste the above quote because of its outdated technology.
“They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” he declared, according to the BBC.
So, to nobody’s surprise, Spotify sided with their money-maker Rogan and Young’s music is now off the service.
“We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users. With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators. We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to Covid since the start of the pandemic,” Spotify said in response, according to The New York Times. “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify but hope to welcome him back soon.”
Barry Manilow, the “Copacabana” singer, is now following suit, which has earned him both praise and mockery on social media.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship
Glenn Greenwald is on Substack ^ | January 29, 2022 | Glenn Greenwald
Posted on 1/30/2022, 1:18:33 PM by American Number 181269513
American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by "liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).
For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of "hate speech” to mean "views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech." Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.
Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.
-
we need to censor leftists then
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fmedia%2F96c8cc07038415a6d2f1013931e19cc3541140a5%2F0_550_5061_3037%2Fmaster%2F5061.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D630%26quality%3D85%26auto%3Dformat%26fit%3Dcrop%26overlay-align%3Dbottom%252Cleft%26overlay-width%3D100p%26overlay-base64%3DL2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc%26s%3Dabdc6923b3e7775d22bc5c236013aee2&f=1&nofb=1)
-
-
-
-
-
MSNBC Says “Cancel Culture Is Out Of Hand” Over Whoopi Goldberg, While Demanding Rogan’s Excommunication
msnbc, cancel culture, rogan, whoopi goldberg ^ | 2-22-2022
Posted on 2/2/2022, 2:11:34 PM by blam
It appears MSNBC, the “news network” that told its viewers the “Let’s Go Brandon!” meme was part of a “slow moving insurrection” among other egregious examples of liberal fearmongering, is now suddenly convinced that “cancel culture” is toxic and needs to be “put behind us” – all because poor Whoopi Goldberg has now seen her multi-decade career blow up in her face over her latest antisemetic comments.
After apologizing for her allegedly “antisemetic” comments, Goldberg – who picked her stage name supposedly because she thought having a Jewish-sounding name would help her land more auditions early in her career – doubled down during an appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, resulting in her being suspended from “The View”.
Apparently, Goldberg facing the consequences of her own actions was too much to bear for poor Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”.
“Everybody knows Whoopi Goldberg. She’s been on TV for decades she’s been putting herself out there for decades. If you don’t know her heart than you haven’t been watching. So maybe this two week suspension is really about something else…something that maybe we need to start putting behind us which is this unbelievable need to punish and judge people when they have made a mistake.”
Brzezinski went on to describe – supposedly from experience – the “horror” of being a public person who has said something unpalatable about race in America. “It’s horrifying…it’s chilling,” she said, before continuing:
“I really feel, especially at the View, where their show is based on arguments, is based on debates, is based on making moments, they are pushed to do that. I hope there’s learning for everybody on the show…in terms of grace, in terms of forgiveness, in terms of kindness.”
“There were so many positives that could have happened out of this debate..”
“This cancel culture is getting so out of hand…there were so many positives that could have come out of this debate…instead it’s heading in a totally different direction.”
Watch the clip below: (Please go to the site to see the video)
MSNBC’s @morningmika Brzezinksi: “Everyone knows Whoopi Goldberg. She’s been on TV for decades … If you don’t know her heart, then you haven’t been watching … This cancel culture is getting so out of hand!” pic.twitter.com/lFaNt87xHP
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 2, 2022
So, after six years of pushing its hosts to portray President Trump and his supporters as a band of evil malignant racists, MSNBC suddenly wants to have a “nuanced discussion” about race?
And that’s not the only development overnight in the latest round of cancel-culture hysteria gripping the US.
Apparently, Joe Rogan’s apology and Spotify’s decision to affix content warning labels to future podcast episodes weren’t enough to stop the exodus of artists cutting ties with the streaming service in protest.
As the BBC reports, soul musician India Arie and British singer-songwriter Graham Nash have become the latest artists to ask Spotify to remove their music. Nash is perhaps well known for his collaboration with Neil Young – who set off the controversy by becoming the first popular musician to pull his music catalogue from the streaming service by declaring “Spotify can have Neil Young or it can have Joe Rogan. Not both.” Arie, meanwhile, is a grammy-winning Soul musician.
Their decisions follow similar moves by Young and fellow Canadian troubadour Joni Mitchell.
What’s more, Arie said her decision to pull out wasn’t based solely on Rogan’s interviews with Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCollough, it was also partly due to Rogan’s “language around race”.
All of this is happening despite Rogan publishing what was by all accounts a detailed, sincere and thoughtful apology to the people he had “offended” while also explaining why he feels it’s important that their views be heard.
Spotify has announced it will add advisory warnings to podcasts discussing Covid-19, which will direct listeners to facts and information as well as “trusted sources”. But despite this, during yesterday’s White House press conference, Press Secretary Jen Psaki insisted that “more can be done” by Spotify to “curb misinformation” on its platform.
“Our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information as something as significant as COVID-19. That includes….Spotify,” she added, mispronouncing Spotify as “Spotifly”.
“This disclaimer, it’s a positive step but we want every platform to do more to call out misinformation or disinformation while also doing more to uplift positive information.”
The question came into a response from an MSN reporter who noted that the bulk of “misinformation” is spread on “the Internet” via social media…which also happens to be where people generally get their news and entertainment today.
What kind of “misinformation” is she talking about? You mean that kind that’s deemed unpalatable by – or damaging to – her boss?
As one twitter user put it…
Can we get a side-by-side comparison of Joe Rogan’s “misinformation” to Jen Psaki’s?
The least we could do is circle back.
— Nathanwlove (@Nathanwlove1) February 2, 2022
-
perfect:
What kind of “misinformation” is she talking about? You mean that kind that’s deemed unpalatable by – or damaging to – her boss?
As one twitter user put it…
Can we get a side-by-side comparison of Joe Rogan’s “misinformation” to Jen Psaki’s?
The least we could do is circle back.
— Nathanwlove (@Nathanwlove1) February 2, 2022
-
White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’
Psaki says Spotify disclaimer is welcome, but platform could actually fight misinformation
John Bowden
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-spotify-covid-white-house-b2005488.html
-
-
-
Airbnb Blacklists Michelle Malkin – and Her Husband
ALANA MASTRANGELO
3 Feb 2022
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/02/03/airbnb-blacklists-michelle-malkin-and-her-husband/
-
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-the-left-really-wants-to-cancel-joe-rogan?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR0YH5oWpXPE2r9g5REbi8zSwkz9CV_Rw4jgvCGnbgV1PVncc4txiBti2Ho
Yup
-
-
all the big-lib internet companies think its ok to not censor porn so kids can get at it
but you better not talk against our vax and agenda on the open internet, thats bad!!!
perverted fucking demtards ::)
-
all the big-lib internet companies think its ok to not censor porn so kids can get at it
but you better not talk against our vax and agenda on the open internet, thats bad!!!
perverted fucking demtards ::)
Very Good Point & Exactly Right
It shows what Corrupt Evil Scumbag Bastards They Are.
-
Republican Kicked Off Twitter for Saying ‘Women’s Sports Are for Women’
Josh Christenson • March 1, 2022
(https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FMA42NTXoAIn0XV-1024x576.jpeg)
https://freebeacon.com/media/republican-kicked-off-twitter-for-saying-womens-sports-are-for-women/
-
Republican Kicked Off Twitter for Saying ‘Women’s Sports Are for Women’
Josh Christenson • March 1, 2022
(https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FMA42NTXoAIn0XV-1024x576.jpeg)
https://freebeacon.com/media/republican-kicked-off-twitter-for-saying-womens-sports-are-for-women/
More Madness on open Display - Twitter hates The Truth Being said.
-
Full Video Shows Law Students Heckling, Shouting Down Ilya Shapiro for 45 Minutes
By NATE HOCHMAN
March 2, 2022
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/full-video-shows-law-students-heckling-shouting-down-ilya-shapiro-for-45-minutes/
-
Protesters drive anti-trans Texas House candidate Jeff Younger out of event at UNT
Steven Santana
March 3, 2022
https://www.mysanantonio.com/guy-16974404.php
-
This is nuts. Wtf
-
-
-
-
This is a uniquely liberal/progressive problem on college campuses.
Hundreds of Yale Law Students Disrupt Bipartisan Free Speech Event
Nearly two-thirds of student body sign letter in support of rowdy protest
Yale Law SchoolAaron Sibarium • March 16, 2022
https://freebeacon.com/campus/hundreds-of-yale-law-students-disrupt-bipartisan-free-speech-event/
-
Remember when social media companies tried to limit the spread of the Hunter Biden story claiming all sorts of BS excuses such as it was "hacked material" or deemed false by "fact checkers" etc.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOGDKH9XoAQtVt9?format=jpg&name=medium)
Facebook and Twitter restrict controversial New York Post story on Joe Biden
Wed 14 Oct 2020
Facebook and Twitter took steps on Wednesday to limit the spread of a controversial New York Post article critical of Joe Biden, sparking outrage among conservatives and stoking debate over how social media platforms should tackle misinformation ahead of the US election.
In an unprecedented step against a major news publication, Twitter blocked users from posting links to the Post story or photos from the unconfirmed report. Users attempting to share the story were shown a notice saying: “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Users clicking or retweeting a link already posted to Twitter are shown a warning the “link may be unsafe”.
Twitter said it was limiting the article’s spread due to questions about “the origins of the materials” included in the article, which contained material supposedly pulled from a computer that had been left by Hunter Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. Twitter policies prohibit “directly distribut[ing] content obtained through hacking that contains private information”.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-twitter-new-york-post-hunter-biden
-
-
.
-
Conservative satire site Babylon Bee REFUSES to delete tweet calling transgender Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine 'Man of the Year' despite being blocked from Twitter
Daily Mail UK ^ | March 21, 2022 | Snejana Farberov
Posted on 3/21/2022, 10:17:29 AM by Morgana
Conservative Christian satire website The Babylon Bee has been suspended by Twitter over a tweet naming transgender US Assistant Secretary of Health Dr Rachel Levine its 'Man of the Year.'
Despite facing the prospect of a permanent ban from the social media platform, where it has 1.3 million followers, the website has struck a defiant tone, refusing to delete the offending tweet targeting the trailblazing government official.
'Truth is not hate speech,' Seth Dillon, the website's CEO, tweeted on Sunday. 'If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.'
On March 15, The Babylon Bee's Twitter account fired off a tweet featuring a link to an article bearing the headline: 'The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.'
It came in response to USA Today's decision to name Levine as one of its women of the year, and as controversy continues to rage over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.
The story repeatedly used male pronouns to refer to Levine, who identifies as a woman, 'dead-named' her by using her male birth name, and mocked her appearance, describing the senior health official as being 'the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman.'
The article continued: 'He is also an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. What a boss!
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
Conservative satire site Babylon Bee REFUSES to delete tweet calling transgender Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine 'Man of the Year' despite being blocked from Twitter
Daily Mail UK ^ | March 21, 2022 | Snejana Farberov
Posted on 3/21/2022, 10:17:29 AM by Morgana
Conservative Christian satire website The Babylon Bee has been suspended by Twitter over a tweet naming transgender US Assistant Secretary of Health Dr Rachel Levine its 'Man of the Year.'
Despite facing the prospect of a permanent ban from the social media platform, where it has 1.3 million followers, the website has struck a defiant tone, refusing to delete the offending tweet targeting the trailblazing government official.
'Truth is not hate speech,' Seth Dillon, the website's CEO, tweeted on Sunday. 'If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.'
On March 15, The Babylon Bee's Twitter account fired off a tweet featuring a link to an article bearing the headline: 'The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.'
It came in response to USA Today's decision to name Levine as one of its women of the year, and as controversy continues to rage over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.
The story repeatedly used male pronouns to refer to Levine, who identifies as a woman, 'dead-named' her by using her male birth name, and mocked her appearance, describing the senior health official as being 'the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman.'
The article continued: 'He is also an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. What a boss!
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They speaking the Truth & Loony Leftists Hate The Truth & Facts
so where ever they can they Silence folk / ban them off their platforms
They want to Brainwash everyone with their Dangerous Pathetic Nonsense
-
Conservative satire site Babylon Bee REFUSES to delete tweet calling transgender Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine 'Man of the Year' despite being blocked from Twitter
Daily Mail UK ^ | March 21, 2022 | Snejana Farberov
Posted on 3/21/2022, 10:17:29 AM by Morgana
Conservative Christian satire website The Babylon Bee has been suspended by Twitter over a tweet naming transgender US Assistant Secretary of Health Dr Rachel Levine its 'Man of the Year.'
Despite facing the prospect of a permanent ban from the social media platform, where it has 1.3 million followers, the website has struck a defiant tone, refusing to delete the offending tweet targeting the trailblazing government official.
'Truth is not hate speech,' Seth Dillon, the website's CEO, tweeted on Sunday. 'If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.'
On March 15, The Babylon Bee's Twitter account fired off a tweet featuring a link to an article bearing the headline: 'The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.'
It came in response to USA Today's decision to name Levine as one of its women of the year, and as controversy continues to rage over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.
The story repeatedly used male pronouns to refer to Levine, who identifies as a woman, 'dead-named' her by using her male birth name, and mocked her appearance, describing the senior health official as being 'the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman.'
The article continued: 'He is also an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. What a boss!
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
LOL!
The Babylon Bee's Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine
(https://media.babylonbee.com/articles/article-10721-1.jpg)
The Babylon Bee has selected Rachel Levine as its first annual Man of the Year.
Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman. He is also an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. What a boss!
Rachel's original name is Richard Levine, but he changed it to Rachel for some strange reason a few years ago. Who cares? Who says a dude as accomplished as this can't be named "Rachel?" This king doesn't care what people think about him! He often wears a dress, which some people think is weird—but he doesn't care one bit. Come on! Men in India wear dress-type garments, don't they?
Rachel's message is to "be true to yourself," and we couldn't agree more. This man is breaking barriers and showing us all the true meaning of courage.
We applaud this precious and perfectly made child of God for all his accomplishments and hope he stays true to who God made him to be.
UPDATE: Since announcing this award, we've been told that Levine actually identifies as a woman. We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth. Congratulations, Rachel Levine!
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine
-
Professor Settles Big in Lawsuit Over Rejecting Student's Preferred Pronouns
By Luca Cacciatore | Monday, 18 April 2022
A Shawnee State University professor who refused to use the preferred pronouns of a biologically male student in 2018 won $400,000 from the school in a legal settlement last week, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, his legal representative.
Philosophy Professor Nicholas Meriwether is also now permitted to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students as part of the agreement. The university is also rescinding a warning it issued to him more than three years ago.
The arrangement follows a lawsuit from Meriwether filed in November 2018, in which he alleged that the school violated his religious freedom and First Amendment rights when they punished him for refusing to use the requested pronouns.
The 6th District U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in March 2021 that the university, which is in Portsmouth. Ohio, across the Ohio River from Kentucky, did indeed violate Meriwether's free speech rights, even after he offered to use any name the student requested instead of titles and pronouns.
''This case forced us to defend what used to be a common belief — that nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,'' said ADF senior counsel Travis Barham.
''Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldn't endorse an ideology that he believes is false.
''We're pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwether — and every other American — the right to speak and act in a manner consistent with one's faith and convictions.''
The university maintains its official statement that it denies ''anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion,'' the Daily Caller reported.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/woke-transgender-education-lawsuits/2022/04/18/id/1066220/
-
YouTube Pulls RNC Interview With Donald Trump Over ‘Misinformation’
By Tim Pearce
Apr 1, 2022 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/youtube-pulls-rnc-interview-with-donald-trump-over-misinformation
-
BREAKING: Babylon Bee suspended from Twitter for ‘hateful content’ over Rachel Levine joke
The offending tweet called Levine "The Babylon Bee's Man of the Year."
AMERICAN NEWS Mar 20, 2022
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-babylon-bee-suspended-from-twitter
-
Parent speaks after Sarasota School Board tosses her for what she was 'about to say'
A Sarasota County, Florida, parent who was kicked out of a school board meeting this week for what she was "about to say" said Thursday that the board's liberal majority is "destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
Melissa Bakondy, a mother of four, was surrounded by police officers and ejected from a Sarasota County School Board meeting Tuesday after calling out a board member by name over comments she allegedly made during a previous meeting.
"At the last meeting, Shirley Brown was caught on the microphone –" Bakondy said during the meeting before being cut off.
"Stop talking about school board members," board Chairwoman Jane Goodwin interrupted. "You cannot go and expound on school board members. I’ve warned you several times."
When Bakondy asked why, Goodwin responded, "You were about to say something horrible about Shirley Brown. … You’ve said things about me that were untrue. Leave, please."
Goodwin then asked Bakondy, "Do you have children in our school district?"
The question prompted an audible gasp from conservative board member Bridget Ziegler, who fired back, "That is not appropriate. … You don’t get to ask people who come to a public meeting whether they have children or not. Period. You are way out of line."
Speaking to Fox News Digital in an interview, Bakondy slammed Goodwin as "the queen of no public input."
She and Ziegler claimed that Goodwin and the other two liberal board members are intent on shutting down the First Amendment rights of parents.
"Every citizen taxpayer and parent has a right to speak at public meetings and share their input," Bakondy said. "Ms. Goodwin doesn’t want to hear that. … This is the ultimate form of censorship, and they are destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
"I do have four children, and three of them will be going back to public school next year, and after this, I worry that they're a target," she added.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parent-sarasota-school-board-public-comment
-
Parent speaks after Sarasota School Board tosses her for what she was 'about to say'
A Sarasota County, Florida, parent who was kicked out of a school board meeting this week for what she was "about to say" said Thursday that the board's liberal majority is "destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
Melissa Bakondy, a mother of four, was surrounded by police officers and ejected from a Sarasota County School Board meeting Tuesday after calling out a board member by name over comments she allegedly made during a previous meeting.
"At the last meeting, Shirley Brown was caught on the microphone –" Bakondy said during the meeting before being cut off.
"Stop talking about school board members," board Chairwoman Jane Goodwin interrupted. "You cannot go and expound on school board members. I’ve warned you several times."
When Bakondy asked why, Goodwin responded, "You were about to say something horrible about Shirley Brown. … You’ve said things about me that were untrue. Leave, please."
Goodwin then asked Bakondy, "Do you have children in our school district?"
The question prompted an audible gasp from conservative board member Bridget Ziegler, who fired back, "That is not appropriate. … You don’t get to ask people who come to a public meeting whether they have children or not. Period. You are way out of line."
Speaking to Fox News Digital in an interview, Bakondy slammed Goodwin as "the queen of no public input."
She and Ziegler claimed that Goodwin and the other two liberal board members are intent on shutting down the First Amendment rights of parents.
"Every citizen taxpayer and parent has a right to speak at public meetings and share their input," Bakondy said. "Ms. Goodwin doesn’t want to hear that. … This is the ultimate form of censorship, and they are destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
"I do have four children, and three of them will be going back to public school next year, and after this, I worry that they're a target," she added.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parent-sarasota-school-board-public-comment
Fascists.
-
Parent speaks after Sarasota School Board tosses her for what she was 'about to say'
A Sarasota County, Florida, parent who was kicked out of a school board meeting this week for what she was "about to say" said Thursday that the board's liberal majority is "destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
Melissa Bakondy, a mother of four, was surrounded by police officers and ejected from a Sarasota County School Board meeting Tuesday after calling out a board member by name over comments she allegedly made during a previous meeting.
"At the last meeting, Shirley Brown was caught on the microphone –" Bakondy said during the meeting before being cut off.
"Stop talking about school board members," board Chairwoman Jane Goodwin interrupted. "You cannot go and expound on school board members. I’ve warned you several times."
When Bakondy asked why, Goodwin responded, "You were about to say something horrible about Shirley Brown. … You’ve said things about me that were untrue. Leave, please."
Goodwin then asked Bakondy, "Do you have children in our school district?"
The question prompted an audible gasp from conservative board member Bridget Ziegler, who fired back, "That is not appropriate. … You don’t get to ask people who come to a public meeting whether they have children or not. Period. You are way out of line."
Speaking to Fox News Digital in an interview, Bakondy slammed Goodwin as "the queen of no public input."
She and Ziegler claimed that Goodwin and the other two liberal board members are intent on shutting down the First Amendment rights of parents.
"Every citizen taxpayer and parent has a right to speak at public meetings and share their input," Bakondy said. "Ms. Goodwin doesn’t want to hear that. … This is the ultimate form of censorship, and they are destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent."
"I do have four children, and three of them will be going back to public school next year, and after this, I worry that they're a target," she added.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/parent-sarasota-school-board-public-comment
In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.
Mark Twain
-
Protecting the President: Big Tech Censors Biden Criticism 646 Times Over Two Years
Joseph Vazquez and Gabriela Pariseau
April 21, 2022
Big Tech’s campaign to protect President Joe Biden and his agenda has continued unabated. The Media Research Center found more than 640 examples of bans, deleted content and other speech restrictions placed on those who criticized Biden on social media over the past two years. This included 140 cases of Big Tech censoring people over the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden story in late 2020.
MRC Free Speech America tallied 646 cases in its CensorTrack database of pro-Biden censorship between March 10, 2020, and March 10, 2022. The tally included cases from Biden’s presidential candidacy to the present day.
The worst cases of censorship involved platforms targeting anyone who dared to speak about any subject related to the New York Post bombshell Hunter Biden story. The Post investigated Hunter Biden and the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings. Big Tech’s cancellation of that story helped shift the 2020 election in Biden’s favor. Twitter locked the Post’s account for 17 days. In addition, Twitter slapped a “warning label” on the GOP House Judiciary Committee’s website for linking to the Post story.
Big Tech even axed those who blamed the current inflation crisis on Biden. For example, Facebook censored Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, on March 15, simply for posting a video quoting Biden’s embarrassing statements on energy policy. Facebook placed an interstitial, or filter, over Heritage Action’s video, suppressing the post’s reach. The video showed Biden and officials in his administration explaining how his policies would cause gas prices to rise.
But the largest category by far included users who dared to call out Biden's notoriously creepy, touchy-feely behavior around women and children. The 232 cases of comedic memes, videos, or generic posts about Biden’s conduct composed more than one-third of CensorTrack's total instances of users censored for criticizing the president.
In one case, a user reported that Facebook deleted a post that showed three photos of Biden kissing what is reportedly his granddaughter on the lips. It followed with a caption that said: "Find someone who kisses you the way Joe Biden kisses his granddaughter." Snapshots indicated that Facebook claimed the post violated its community standards on “nudity or sexual activity.”
Big Tech even went after posts that quoted Biden’s own words and made him look awful in retrospect. News outlet Breaking 911 posted screenshots of Instagram posts to its Twitter page on Oct. 21, 2021, showing that Instagram targeted the group for quoting Biden. One tweet quoted Biden sarcastically saying "Freedom! ...I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean, come on! Freedom?!”
The second Breaking 911 screenshot featured Biden lambasting former President Donald Trump's decision to leave the Paris Climate Accords. Biden was quoted saying, "When Pres. Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord...the agreement was that we could not, if we reached beyond 1.5°C increase in temperature, we're gone. Not a joke. Not a joke. And so, we decided that, he pulled out - first thing I committed to do was rejoin that accord." Instagram reportedly removed the posts. According to Breaking 911, "Instagram has again flagged the @Breaking911 account for directly quoting the President of the United States, claiming our posts promoted 'violence and incitement.’"
The list of censorship targets included an array of prominent influencers on social media: Trump; lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA); news outlets like the New York Post, The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist; satire site The Babylon Bee; celebrities like Donald Trump Jr. and James Woods, and media personalities like Daily Wire host Candace Owens, Salem radio host Sebastian Gorka and radio host Dana Loesch.
MRC Free Speech America’s research relied on its CensorTrack database for this study. The database describes why people were censored for blasting Biden. CensorTrack is an MRC database designed to show the proof of the extent of Big Tech censorship of conservatives. The database team has logged over 3,600 overall cases of censorship on multiple Big Tech platforms concerning a myriad of issues such as elections, COVID-19, climate change and race. Each CensorTrack entry includes a written report backed up by internal records and documentation proving censorship.
https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censors-biden-criticism-646-times-over-two-years
-
-
Protecting the President: Big Tech Censors Biden Criticism 646 Times Over Two Years
Joseph Vazquez and Gabriela Pariseau
April 21, 2022
Big Tech’s campaign to protect President Joe Biden and his agenda has continued unabated. The Media Research Center found more than 640 examples of bans, deleted content and other speech restrictions placed on those who criticized Biden on social media over the past two years. This included 140 cases of Big Tech censoring people over the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden story in late 2020.
MRC Free Speech America tallied 646 cases in its CensorTrack database of pro-Biden censorship between March 10, 2020, and March 10, 2022. The tally included cases from Biden’s presidential candidacy to the present day.
The worst cases of censorship involved platforms targeting anyone who dared to speak about any subject related to the New York Post bombshell Hunter Biden story. The Post investigated Hunter Biden and the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings. Big Tech’s cancellation of that story helped shift the 2020 election in Biden’s favor. Twitter locked the Post’s account for 17 days. In addition, Twitter slapped a “warning label” on the GOP House Judiciary Committee’s website for linking to the Post story.
Big Tech even axed those who blamed the current inflation crisis on Biden. For example, Facebook censored Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, on March 15, simply for posting a video quoting Biden’s embarrassing statements on energy policy. Facebook placed an interstitial, or filter, over Heritage Action’s video, suppressing the post’s reach. The video showed Biden and officials in his administration explaining how his policies would cause gas prices to rise.
But the largest category by far included users who dared to call out Biden's notoriously creepy, touchy-feely behavior around women and children. The 232 cases of comedic memes, videos, or generic posts about Biden’s conduct composed more than one-third of CensorTrack's total instances of users censored for criticizing the president.
In one case, a user reported that Facebook deleted a post that showed three photos of Biden kissing what is reportedly his granddaughter on the lips. It followed with a caption that said: "Find someone who kisses you the way Joe Biden kisses his granddaughter." Snapshots indicated that Facebook claimed the post violated its community standards on “nudity or sexual activity.”
Big Tech even went after posts that quoted Biden’s own words and made him look awful in retrospect. News outlet Breaking 911 posted screenshots of Instagram posts to its Twitter page on Oct. 21, 2021, showing that Instagram targeted the group for quoting Biden. One tweet quoted Biden sarcastically saying "Freedom! ...I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean, come on! Freedom?!”
The second Breaking 911 screenshot featured Biden lambasting former President Donald Trump's decision to leave the Paris Climate Accords. Biden was quoted saying, "When Pres. Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord...the agreement was that we could not, if we reached beyond 1.5°C increase in temperature, we're gone. Not a joke. Not a joke. And so, we decided that, he pulled out - first thing I committed to do was rejoin that accord." Instagram reportedly removed the posts. According to Breaking 911, "Instagram has again flagged the @Breaking911 account for directly quoting the President of the United States, claiming our posts promoted 'violence and incitement.’"
The list of censorship targets included an array of prominent influencers on social media: Trump; lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA); news outlets like the New York Post, The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist; satire site The Babylon Bee; celebrities like Donald Trump Jr. and James Woods, and media personalities like Daily Wire host Candace Owens, Salem radio host Sebastian Gorka and radio host Dana Loesch.
MRC Free Speech America’s research relied on its CensorTrack database for this study. The database describes why people were censored for blasting Biden. CensorTrack is an MRC database designed to show the proof of the extent of Big Tech censorship of conservatives. The database team has logged over 3,600 overall cases of censorship on multiple Big Tech platforms concerning a myriad of issues such as elections, COVID-19, climate change and race. Each CensorTrack entry includes a written report backed up by internal records and documentation proving censorship.
https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censors-biden-criticism-646-times-over-two-years
Liberalism & Leftists are Very Fcuked up Horrible Scumbags
How & What has Happened to Them is A Terrible Mental Irregularity
They are determined to destroy / fuck up everything they deal with or come into contact with.
-
These meltdowns are hilarious. Crying real tears because their days of censoring conservatives are over.
Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover
Vijaya Gadde, a key executive involved in decisions to remove former President Donald Trump and ban political advertising, expressed uncertainty about the future of the platform.
By EMILY BIRNBAUM and BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN
Updated: 04/26/2022
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff-cries-during-meeting-about-musk-takeover-00027931
-
These meltdowns are hilarious. Crying real tears because their days of censoring conservatives are over.
Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover
Vijaya Gadde, a key executive involved in decisions to remove former President Donald Trump and ban political advertising, expressed uncertainty about the future of the platform.
By EMILY BIRNBAUM and BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN
Updated: 04/26/2022
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff-cries-during-meeting-about-musk-takeover-00027931
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRScRr4XEAM68mA?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Panicked CNN Guest Wonders “How We’re Going To Control The Channels Of Communications In This Country”
Zubu Brothers ^ | 5-2-2022 | Steve Watson via Summit News
Posted on 5/2/2022, 8:38:24
A CNN talking head declared Sunday that if Elon Musk is allowed to buy Twitter, the platform will have to be government regulated to prevent ‘discourse’ being open and free, and not subject to establishment controlled censorship.
While discussing the Musk take-over on CNN’s potato time with Brain Stelter, “media analyst” David Zurawik proclaimed that Musk is “dangerous” and shouldn’t be allowed to restore free speech on the platform.
Zurawik suggested that the U.S. look to Europe, which has recently brought in new laws to limit social media, and even threatened to ban Twitter if Musk doesn’t play ball.
“There’s a bigger problem here about how we’re going to control the channels of communications in this country,” Zurawik frothed, panicking at the notion of the likes of CNN not being able to dictate what Americans think.
“This is dangerous! We can’t think anymore in this country!” Zurawik whined, adding “I’m serious! We don’t have people in Congress who can make regulations, that can make it work.”
“I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it. But you need controls on this,” the talking slap head continued.
“You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell,” Zurawik further suggested.
“We are there,” he added, further claiming that “Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down.”
“We gave over what amounts to our airwaves or our internet waves to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and we are in so much trouble because those guys believe in making money,” he said.
Watch:
CNN’s David Zurawik: “Dangerous” with Elon Musk buying Twitter, we need to look to Europe.
“You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell. We are there. Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down.” pic.twitter.com/QubyKZwVCQ
— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) May 1, 2022
Zurawik repeated a talking point that Hillary Clinton raised last week, championing Europe for cracking down on ‘disinformation’:
They got it done! https://t.co/Wc4kA9DPsb
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 25, 2022
And now, just a week later, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has rolled out a literal Ministry of Truth, headed up by a deranged partisan who truly believes that anything she disagrees with is hate speech.
-
-
"Democracy dies in darkness"...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSFayZDXsAEa1sj?format=jpg&name=small)
A few days ago, apparently it's fine if billionaire Bezos owns the Washington Post but bad news if Musk invests in Twitter.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPmWQYiVcAIHzzU.png) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP2ntIgVgAUiVD8.jpg)
-
I Criticized BLM. Then I Was Fired.
If you are a devoted reader of Common Sense, by now you have surely noticed a trend: workplaces—in some cases, storied institutions—that turn hostile to independent thinking seemingly overnight.
That’s what Paul Rossi experienced at Grace Church School. It’s what Jennifer Sey went through at Levi’s. It’s what Antonio García Martínez dealt with at Apple. And Roland Fryer at Harvard. And Gordon Klein at UCLA. And Maud Maron at Legal Aid.
Now comes the story of Zac Kriegman, who, until not so long ago, was a director of data science at Thomson Reuters. Kriegman’s crime? Questioning the Black Lives Matter narrative.
Kriegman is a person who loves numbers and statistics. As you’ll read below, he didn’t just voice an opinion to his colleagues. He made an argument after having done extensive research. He thought logic would win out. He was wrong.
This story is most obviously about the assault on difference. The assault on the notion, previously taken for granted, that you shouldn’t punish employees for having heterodox opinions or for voicing disagreement with the political consensus in an organization. But it is also about the assault on reason itself.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired
-
Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents
By Zachary Stieber September 1, 2022
Over 50 officials in President Joe Biden’s administration across a dozen agencies have been involved with efforts to pressure Big Tech companies to crack down on alleged misinformation, according to documents released on Aug. 31.
Senior officials in the U.S. government, including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty, and onetime White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt, have been in touch with one or more major social media companies to try to get the companies to tighten rules on allegedly false and misleading information on COVID-19, and take action against users who violate the rules, the documents show.
In July 2021, for instance, after Biden said that Facebook was “killing people” by not combating misinformation effectively, an executive at Meta reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, a Biden appointee, to say that government and Meta teams met after the remarks “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”
The same executive later wrote to Murthy saying, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the ‘disinfo dozen,'” including removing pages linked to the group.
The White House publicly pressured social media companies to take action against a group officials dubbed the “disinformation dozen,” which a nonprofit claimed were producing the bulk of “anti-vaccine misinformation” on the platforms. Also in July 2021, Murthy said Facebook had not done enough to combat misinformation.
Rob Flaherty, director of digital strategy for the White House, told Slavitt and others in April 2021 that White House staff would be briefed by Twitter “on vaccine misinfo,” with the meeting including “ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work,” according to one of the messages.
In another exchange that year, a Department of Treasury official working on “mis, dis, and mal-information” told Meta workers that the deputy treasury secretary wanted to talk about “potential influence operations.”
In a text in February 2021, meanwhile, U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly, wrote to another agency official that she was “trying to get us in a place where Fed can work with platforms to better understand the mis/dis trends so relevant agencies can try to prebunk/debunk as useful.”
The documents were part of a preliminary production in a lawsuit levied against the government by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, later joined by experts maligned by federal officials.
“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased,” Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. “The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed.”
‘Censorship Enterprise’
Plaintiffs said the massive pressure campaign amounted to a “Censorship Enterprise” because it involved so many officials and agencies.
Government lawyers only identified 45 officials at five agencies—the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Murthy’s office—who communicated with social media companies on misinformation, but documents they produced showed others were involved, including officials at the Census Bureau and the Departments of Treasury and State.
Responses from the Big Tech companies also revealed more officials involved with the effort.
Meta has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials, including top officials at the White House and the Food and Drug Administration, were in communication with it about content moderation. Many of the officials were not identified in the response by the government.
YouTube disclosed 11 officials not disclosed by the government and Twitter identified nine, including senior officials at the State Department.
“The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad,” plaintiffs said, adding later that “it rises to the highest levels of the U.S. Government, including numerous White House officials.”
Additionally, the FBI was not identified even though the agency recently said, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the bureau reached out before the 2020 election, that it routinely issues communications to social media companies.
More discovery is needed to uncover the full breadth of the pressure campaign, plaintiffs told the judge overseeing the case.
“When the federal government colludes with Big Tech to censor speech, the American people become subjects rather than citizens,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, said in a statement. “The [U.S. Department of Justice] must not be allowed to hide behind the veil of executive privilege, especially when there is already compelling evidence that the people’s government colluded with these social media companies to suppress their right of free speech.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport
-
Glenn Greenwald posts EPIC thread about how the authoritarian Left is squashing dissent
Posted September 7, 2022 by Mike
https://twitchy.com/mike-313136/2022/09/07/glenn-greenwald-posts-epic-thread-about-how-the-authoritarian-left-is-squashing-dissent/
-
Glenn Greenwald posts EPIC thread about how the authoritarian Left is squashing dissent
Posted September 7, 2022 by Mike
https://twitchy.com/mike-313136/2022/09/07/glenn-greenwald-posts-epic-thread-about-how-the-authoritarian-left-is-squashing-dissent/
Liberals hate free speech.
-
Liberals hate free speech.
Yet they call Republicans fascist
-
Yet they call Republicans fascist
Projection at its worst. Remember when that fool Straw would come on here and say we were making this up?
-
Projection at its worst. Remember when that fool Straw would come on here and say we were making this up?
From the link:
It is astonishing to watch Dems and their allies in media corporations posture as opponents of "fascism" - while their main goal is to *unite state and corporate power* to censor their critics and degrade the internet into an increasingly repressive weapon of information control.
-
The Biden Administration Is Engaged in a Massive Censorship Campaign
National Review ^ | September 11, 2022 | Kenin M. Spivak
Posted on 9/13/2022, 11:20:32 AM
The bedrock of American democracy, the First Amendment, prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied this prohibition to executive actions, as well.
The Biden administration’s campaign to censor, demonetize, and suppress dissenting voices on social media is much broader than previously known, as demonstrated by an amended complaint filed last month in federal district court in the case of Missouri v. Biden. The complaint, by the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general along with the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of leading health-care professionals, provides strong evidence of the administration’s vigorous campaign to coerce and collude with social-media companies in suppressing and deplatforming criticism of the administration as well as views with which it disagrees on subjects such as Covid, elections, the Hunter Biden laptop, and climate change, among others.
The evidence shows that at least 80 senior officials have participated in a concerted federal enterprise involving at least eleven federal agencies, including the White House, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of the Surgeon General, Census Bureau, and FBI. The manifestly unconstitutional public–private partnership between the administration and Big Tech disregards Chief Justice Warren Burger’s warning that it is “axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
Responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and emails produced in discovery show that White House, DHS, and HHS officials flagged specific content and examples of content for censorship, including factually accurate dissenting views, under the guise of suppressing “domestic terrorism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
-
Liberal censorship.
-
Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election
New York Post ^ | 9/14/2022 | Miranda Devine
Posted on 9/15/2022, 11:53:52 AM by Tench_Coxe
Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 election — according to sources within the Department of Justice.
Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
-
Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election
New York Post ^ | 9/14/2022 | Miranda Devine
Posted on 9/15/2022, 11:53:52 AM by Tench_Coxe
Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 election — according to sources within the Department of Justice.
Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
sad to say America is as bad if Not worse Than China for spying on it's own folk.
No opinions allowed that don't fit the Government narrative !!
WTF is happening to America - welcome to the New democratic Dictatorship.
-
PayPal, Venmo, and Google Cut off Group Fighting to Protect Children From Groomers
By Nick Arama | September 21, 2022
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/09/21/paypal-venmo-and-google-cut-off-group-fighting-to-protect-children-from-groomers-n630856
-
Bombshell: Feds Paid Companies to Silence Trump, His Family, and Supporters on Social Media Around 2020 Election
westernjournal.com ^ | 10/2/2022 | Michael Austin, The Western Journal
Posted on 10/3/2022, 10:37:46 AM by bitt
The federal government has been working with a group of four private companies to flag supposed election “misinformation” for censorship by social media platforms.
Two recent reports, published on Friday and Saturday by Just the News, reveal the group was responsible for the censorship of 20 news outlets during the 2020 election.
After Biden was in the White House, Just the News reported, the group was “rewarded” with millions of taxpayer dollars and its work continues today.
Most of the targeted groups were right-leaning in their coverage. Those outlets include Just the News, the New York Post, The Epoch Times, The Washington Times and the Washington Examiner.
In addition, the group, which calls itself the Election Integrity Partnership, put together a list of “repeat spreaders” of election misinformation in 2020. The list included now-former President Donald Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and a number of other prominent right-leaning figures on social media.
The four members of the EIP are the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and Graphika, which deals in social media analytics.
In a lengthy report dated June 15, 2021, the EIP describes itself as an “information exchange” between various entities, including “election officials, government agencies, civil society organizations, social media platforms, the media, and the research community.” The report said the EIP helps these groups pass information back and forth regarding supposed “mis- and disinformation” occurring on social media.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
-
Trinity College Pulls Down Students' Patriotic Flags—While BLM and Trans Ones Fly Free
By Bob Hoge | November 05, 2022
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/11/05/trinity-college-pulls-down-students-patriotic-flags-while-blm-and-trans-ones-fly-free-n654760
-
Ex-Twitter safety chief admits Hunter Biden laptop censorship was a 'mistake'
FOC]X ^ | 11/30/2022 | Lanum
Posted on 11/30/2022, 1:12:25 PM
The former head of trust and safety at Twitter recently admitted that the social media company’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 was a "mistake."
During a sit down with journalist Kara Swisher, ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth said that despite concerns about the authenticity of the laptop story, it still did not reach a point where he wanted to remove the content — which was later censored anyway. Initial reporting suggested that Roth blocked user access from the October 2020 story, but the former Twitter division lead said the decision was not up to him.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Ex-Twitter safety chief admits Hunter Biden laptop censorship was a 'mistake'
FOC]X ^ | 11/30/2022 | Lanum
Posted on 11/30/2022, 1:12:25 PM
The former head of trust and safety at Twitter recently admitted that the social media company’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 was a "mistake."
During a sit down with journalist Kara Swisher, ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth said that despite concerns about the authenticity of the laptop story, it still did not reach a point where he wanted to remove the content — which was later censored anyway. Initial reporting suggested that Roth blocked user access from the October 2020 story, but the former Twitter division lead said the decision was not up to him.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A little late in the game for this confession.
Musk is claiming he will release the "Twitter files" about this censorship.
-
“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision
November 30, 2022
In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingling funds or violating confidentiality of clients. She was fired because she exercised free speech in an internal meeting on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. After Keller expressed her support for the opinion and concern about higher rates of abortions in the black community, a participant complained that she could not breathe and others called her a racist. She was later suspended and reportedly fired.
What is striking about this controversy is that there is not a great deal of disagreement on what was said at the meeting. Take Above the Law, which Keller references in her column. The site has become one of the most vocal anti-free speech sites on the Internet. It recently even defended the virtual elimination of conservative and libertarian faculty at universities as commendable.
In a column entitled “White Counsel At Biglaw Firm Spreads ‘Inappropriate And Offensive’ Theories About Abortion, Gets Suspended,” Kathryn Rubino celebrated the “welcome consequences” for people who share dissenting or unpopular views on such subjects. Rubino expressed disbelief that “a white partner who attended HoLove’s women’s meeting felt it appropriate to chime in with her support of the Dobbs decision.”
Lawyers at the firm demanded the firing of Keller and said that they were “traumatized” by having to hear someone defend the decision on a call to allow people to discuss the decision.
Let’s repeat that again . . . these are lawyers who were traumatized because a colleague expressed a dissenting view of abortion, a view held by millions of other Americans as well as many judges and justices. It is a view that has been expressed widely in the media, including by African-American and female commentators.
I can understand how such arguments can insult or enrage others. Pro-life lawyers can also be deeply offended on the other side by pro-choice arguments. Abortion is an area that has torn apart this country for generations. The addition of race only magnifies the passion and anger in such discussions. However, this is an area that raises difficult constitutional, social, racial, economic, and gender issues.
Yet, rather than engage Keller on why they believe that she is wrong, these lawyers asked her to leave the call and then pushed for her to be fired for expressing her views. As we have seen on college campuses, it has become commonplace to seek to silence others rather than to engage them in such debates.
As Keller wrote, “I was invited to participate in what was billed as a ‘safe space’ for women at the firm to discuss the decision. It might have been a safe space for some, but it wasn’t safe for me.”
She recounts how “Three weeks later I received a letter stating that the firm had concluded that my reference to comments labeling black abortion rates genocide was a violation of the antiharassment policy.”
The firm adopted the usual “we support free speech but …” rationalization:
“Firm leaders promptly reached out to the firm community to express their regret about the pain and upset that this has caused our community. We appreciate that this was brought to our attention and we are treating this matter seriously. While we encourage members of our community to engage in frank, candid discussion, we expect all discussion in our place of work, or in settings sponsored by the firm, to uphold our values of inclusivity, respect for diverse members of our community, and non-discrimination.”
We have seen corporations joining a campaign targeting Twitter over the plan of Elon Musk to restore free speech protections on the site. However, this is a law firm yielding to demands to silence a colleague for expressing a dissenting view on Dobbs and the impact of abortion in an internal meeting on the decision. To state opposing views in a forum on the case is now considered harmful and harassing — and a basis for termination.
That is certainly a “consequence” but it is hardly “welcomed” if you have a modicum of concern for free speech values. Private firms and companies are obviously given a wider leeway in the limitation of free speech rights. As I have previously written, workers do not have a legal right to protest or display political symbols in the workplace.
For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies.
Yet, we have seen reporters and lawyers rally to the cause of censorship or speech controls in recent years. It is the subject of my recent publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”
That alarming trend is no more evident than lawyers saying that they “cannot breathe” in the presence of the exercise of free speech.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/30/welcome-consequences-hogan-lovells-fires-partner-for-voicing-her-views-on-the-dobbs-decision/
-
How Corrupt is a Corrupt Media?
American Greatness ^ | 4 Dec, 2022 | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on 12/5/2022, 8:15:39 AM by MtnClimber
The media has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the media suppresses and as false whatever the media covers.
The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt.
They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda.
The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful.
This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.
Suppression
Once a story is deemed antithetical to left-wing agendas, there arises a collective effort to smother it. Suppression is achieved both by neglect, and by demonizing others who report an inconvenient truth as racists, conspiracist “right-wingers,” and otherwise irredeemable.
The Hunter Biden laptop story is the locus classicus. Social media branded the authentic laptop as Russian disinformation. That was a lie. But the deception did not stop them from censoring and squashing those who reported the truth.
Instead of carefully examining the contents of the laptop or interrogating Biden-company players such as Tony Bobulinksi, the media hyped the ridiculous disinformation hoax as a mechanism for suppressing the damaging pre-election story altogether.
-
Devine's article in the Post today is pretty telling.
-
So, just read the Weiss Twitter updates.
It's unbelievable - Twitter did exactly what everyone thought - a small group of liberal leaders manipulating content to achieve political goals.
It's not even a question now.
The question is, was anything illegal (probably not), will anything come of it?
But it's hilarious to read the comments from folks (what happened to you Bari?, etc). People readily admitting that Weiss, Taibbi doing real journalism is somehow "wrong".
-
So, just read the Weiss Twitter updates.
It's unbelievable - Twitter did exactly what everyone thought - a small group of liberal leaders manipulating content to achieve political goals.
It's not even a question now.
The question is, was anything illegal (probably not), will anything come of it?
But it's hilarious to read the comments from folks (what happened to you Bari?, etc). People readily admitting that Weiss, Taibbi doing real journalism is somehow "wrong".
Not surprised. Jack Dorsey testified before Congress that Twitter was not shadow banning conservatives. An obvious lie. But there will be zero accountability.
-
Not surprised. Jack Dorsey testified before Congress that Twitter was not shadow banning conservatives. An obvious lie. But there will be zero accountability.
If the emails are to be believed, a lot of this went on behind his back.
-
Twitter Files 10: Joe Biden's White House was all in for censoring valid COVID-19 information
American Thinker ^ | 27 Dec, 2022 | Monica Showalter
Posted on 12/28/2022, 7:12:19 AM
The Biden administration's enthusiasm for bad ideas like masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates was accompanied by a grotesque urge to censor dissidents.
Who says the FBI and its allied wokester government agencies were the only ones using Twitter as a proxy censor to shut down American political discussion?
Turns out that the White House had its snoot in that trough, too, particularly on the matter of COVID-19 information.
That's what independent journalist David Zweig found in his examination of the Twitter Files, in its COVID-19 edition.
According to the Washington Examiner:
The White House pressured Twitter to suppress tweets that included "misinformation" about the COVID-19 pandemic, even when Twitter users shared information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In the latest string of bombshells from the Twitter Files, the current White House "rigged the COVID debate" by censoring information that was "inconvenient to government policy," discrediting doctors and experts who disagreed with the administration's narrative, and by suppressing ordinary users, including those who shared data from the CDC, journalist David Zweig tweeted Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-
Adam Schiff continuously demanded Twitter ban, censor, suppress criticism of self, staff, Biden: Twitter Files
Roberto Wakerell-Cruz
Jan 13, 2023
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-adam-schiff-continuously-demanded-twitter-ban-censor-suppress-criticism-of-self-staff-biden-twitter-files?utm_campaign=64487
-
White House Pressed Facebook To Censor Tucker Carlson, Document Reveals
Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson
HAROLD HUTCHISON
REPORTER
January 06, 2023
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/06/white-house-facebook-tucker-carlson-censor/
-
Inside the Facebook Files: Emails Reveal the CDC's Role in Silencing COVID-19 Dissent
Throughout the pandemic, the CDC was in constant contact with Facebook, vetting what users were allowed to say on the social media site.
ROBBY SOAVE | 1.19.2023
https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/
-
who cares...
stop complaining
or do something about it
-
who cares...
stop complaining
or do something about it
I am doing something about it by highlighting instances of censorship so people will be aware of what is happening. Knowledge is power.
-
I am doing something about it by highlighting instances of censorship so people will be aware of what is happening. Knowledge is power.
Correct- keep doing it .
Its appreciated.
-
I am doing something about it by highlighting instances of censorship so people will be aware of what is happening. Knowledge is power.
I mean this with all due respect 100%
50%+ of the entire US already know whats going on and whose doing it.
50%+ of the entire US keeps posting this stuff all over the internet
50%+ of the entire US sit there complaining behind a keyboard
All the while nothing changes and nothing is going to change.
Anyone who is going to "wake up" has already woken up.
"“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
"
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .
"
-
I mean this with all due respect 100%
50%+ of the entire US already know whats going on and whose doing it.
50%+ of the entire US keeps posting this stuff all over the internet
50%+ of the entire US sit there complaining behind a keyboard
All the while nothing changes and nothing is going to change.
Anyone who is going to "wake up" has already woken up.
"“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
"
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .
"
I disagree with your estimated percentages. Most people do not follow news, or follow enough news sources to get accurate news. If you expose yourself to news sources across the spectrum, it's obvious that there is incredibly biased coverage. It's very difficult to determine this if someone only watches (for example) CNN or MSNBC. Or Fox News. If you check out the newsbusters.org site, you can find countless examples of how the MSM gives minimal or no coverage to significant stories, if those stories paint liberals/progressives in a bad light.
So I am doing my part by providing what Butter Bean used to call "learning threads," where you can find a number of stories and resources on a particular subject, in this case censorship. If you ever want examples of how pervasive liberal/progressive censorship is, you need look no further than this thread.
If I can inform just one person or get just one person to think, I consider this mission accomplished.
-
Correct- keep doing it .
Its appreciated.
Thank you sir.
-
I disagree with your estimated percentages. Most people do not follow news, or follow enough news sources to get accurate news. If you expose yourself to news sources across the spectrum, it's obvious that there is incredibly biased coverage. It's very difficult to determine this if someone only watches (for example) CNN or MSNBC. Or Fox News. If you check out the newsbusters.org site, you can find countless examples of how the MSM gives minimal or no coverage to significant stories, if those stories paint liberals/progressives in a bad light.
So I am doing my part by providing what Butter Bean used to call "learning threads," where you can find a number of stories and resources on a particular subject, in this case censorship. If you ever want examples of how pervasive liberal/progressive censorship is, you need look no further than this thread.
If I can inform just one person or get just one person to think, I consider this mission accomplished.
Would you describe yourself as being completely unbiased?
-
Thank you sir.
No .
It's Thank you, you're doing a Grand job.
-
Would you describe yourself as being completely unbiased?
No of course not. I am biased in favor of facts and the truth.
-
No of course not. I am biased in favor of facts and the truth.
And those 2 things are like Kryptonite to folk especially those
infected with the Liberal Leftist disease
-
And those 2 things are like Kryptonite to folk especially those
infected with the Liberal Leftist disease
How about to those that claim US citizenship and a massive killing spree? Both which they do not have.
But feel free to tell us your exploits Priscilla Rambo.
-
How about to those that claim US citizenship and a massive killing spree? Both which they do not have.
But feel free to tell us your exploits Priscilla Rambo.
Hmmmm as You are oh so Knowledgeable BoB Z
Why don't You tell us.
1, Queer homo
2, Liberal Leftist
3, Go back to Your Queer boy Website design
4, Stupid & Boring as Hell
IDS
TDS
-
Hmmmm as You are oh so Knowledgeable BoB Z
Why don't You tell us.
1, Queer homo
2, Liberal Leftist
3, Go back to Your Queer boy Website design
4, Stupid & Boring as Hell
IDS
TDS
We believe you. We really do.
-
No of course not. I am biased in favor of facts and the truth.
This is a good thing. However, it does appear your bias is towards on the conservative view of what are facts and truths. Of course I could be wrong about this. Perhaps you could provide an example circumstance where the truth or fact supported a more 'liberal' position.
-
This is a good thing. However, it does appear your bias is towards on the conservative view of what are facts and truths. Of course I could be wrong about this. Perhaps you could provide an example circumstance where the truth or fact supported a more 'liberal' position.
Why? That isn't a test for being biased in favor of the truth. A lot of people try and say being "unbiased" means you don't favor one side or the other. That's BS. Both "sides" are not created equal. I hate the Republican Party, and they are full of spineless liars, but by and large they are not psychotic like the Democrat Party has become. They're not pushing to have kids amputate their twig and berries and boobs and give them puberty blockers. They don't say men can get pregnant. They don't engage in massive censorship.
What I often do is point out the chronic problems, dangers, and hypocrisy I see with liberals/progressives. I don't need to do the same for conservatives and Republicans, because all you need to do for that is turn on or read almost any news sources.
-
We believe you. We really do.
Odd isn't it Bob You're wound up & annoyed because i wont answer you
Hmmmm as You are oh so Knowledgeable BoB Z
Why don't You tell us.
1, Queer homo
2, Liberal Leftist
3, Go back to Your Queer boy Website design
4, Stupid & Boring as Hell
IDS
TDS
Yet here you are Avoiding answering
Only I don't give a damn - It's just good fun
-
Odd isn't it Bob You're wound up & annoyed because i wont answer you
Hmmmm as You are oh so Knowledgeable BoB Z
Why don't You tell us.
1, Queer homo
2, Liberal Leftist
3, Go back to Your Queer boy Website design
4, Stupid & Boring as Hell
IDS
TDS
Yet here you are Avoiding answering
Only I don't give a damn - It's just good fun
And yet you are replying every time. Critical thinking obviously isn't a strong point.
But tell us more about these kills. Did you beat them to death with your purse? Smother them with homo fantasies? Tell us. We believe you.
-
And yet you are replying every time. Critical thinking obviously isn't a strong point.
But tell us more about these kills. Did you beat them to death with your purse? Smother them with homo fantasies? Tell us. We believe you.
Tell Some Truths Bob
Let's see Your Pavlov Response in 1.......... 2................ 3..................
-
Tell Some Truths Bob
Let's see Your Pavlov Response in 1.......... 2................ 3..................
Here are some truths.
You are not American. You do not have American citizenship. You have not killed a single person, let alone "many".
You are a liar. <--- but we already know that.
But tell us more. Tell us about how a homo obsessed hit man killed so many people. Sounds like a great lie story. Tell us, we will believe you.
-
Why? That isn't a test for being biased in favor of the truth. A lot of people try and say being "unbiased" means you don't favor one side or the other. That's BS. Both "sides" are not created equal. I hate the Republican Party, and they are full of spineless liars, but by and large they are not psychotic like the Democrat Party has become. They're not pushing to have kids amputate their twig and berries and boobs and give them puberty blockers. They don't say men can get pregnant. They don't engage in massive censorship.
What I often do is point out the chronic problems, dangers, and hypocrisy I see with liberals/progressives. I don't need to do the same for conservatives and Republicans, because all you need to do for that is turn on or read almost any news sources.
I am a stickler for details so, warning, you will hate me for posting this little annoying fact, but the definition of bias is:
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
In reality, all people are products of their environment and so it is only natural we have some bias... which in practice really just means we have an opinion. It would be a sad world if none of us had an opinion about anything. In that were the case we'd be not much more than amoebae.
-
I am a stickler for details so, warning, you will hate me for posting this little annoying fact, but the definition of bias is:
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
In reality, all people are products of their environment and so it is only natural we have some bias... which in practice really just means we have an opinion. It would be a sad world if none of us had an opinion about anything. In that were the case we'd be not much more than amoebae.
You should be a stickler for the literal definition of words, as well as how people use and misuse those words.
For example, the definition you posted includes "prejudice" and "unfair," both of which must be present if someone is biased. But that's not how people often use "bias." For example, I believe liberals/progressives are dangerously intolerant and censor opposing viewpoints. That view is not the result of bias and it's not unfair, because it's an absolute fact. But you folks will call it biased because it is directed at liberals/progressives.
I agree people are a product of their environments, but it is possible to expose yourself to varying viewpoints and become a more informed, well rounded person.
-
You should be a stickler for the literal definition of words, as well as how people use and misuse those words.
For example, the definition you posted includes "prejudice" and "unfair," both of which must be present if someone is biased. But that's not how people often use "bias." For example, I believe liberals/progressives are dangerously intolerant and censor opposing viewpoints. That view is not the result of bias and it's not unfair, because it's an absolute fact. But you folks will call it biased because it is directed at liberals/progressives.
I agree people are a product of their environments, but it is possible to expose yourself to varying viewpoints and become a more informed, well rounded person.
You posted "But you folks will call it biased... " Who are you folks? Saying this is prejudicial and unfair or at least inaccurate because you included folks who you don't know and you guess at what they and I mean, say and do.
Also, when you say, 'expose yourself', am I to take this as meaning me? You don't know what I expose myself to. Why not instead say oneself?
-
You folks refers to the disproportionate number of you liberals/progressives who are disconnected from reality, don't care about the facts, don't care about the Constitution, etc.
i don't need to be more precise. i don't care enough. It's not like I'm on here plagiarizing stuff. :)
-
I am a stickler for details so, warning, you will hate me for posting this little annoying fact, but the definition of bias is:
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"
In reality, all people are products of their environment and so it is only natural we have some bias... which in practice really just means we have an opinion. It would be a sad world if none of us had an opinion about anything. In that were the case we'd be not much more than amoebae.
You’re not a stickler for details otherwise you would have at least known who Harmeet Dhillon was….at the least.
-
You’re not a stickler for details otherwise you would have at least known who Harmeet Dhillon was….at the least.
Touché! You got me this time, Coach. ;D
I could argue that some details are more important than others, but instead I'll give you this one...
Me- 100
You - 1
-
Former MSNBC Host Says Network Reprimanded Her for Criticizing Hillary Clinton
Twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on MSNBC
Ben Wilson
February 13, 2023
https://freebeacon.com/media/former-msnbc-host-says-network-reprimanded-her-for-criticizing-hillary-clinton/
-
Lead prosecutor in Hannah Tubbs case Shea Sanna says George Gascón wants him fired
By Michael Kaplan
February 24, 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/02/24/shea-sanna-says-george-gascon-wants-him-fired/
-
Dems want to cut Fox off after lawsuit revelations
The icing of Fox News — the ratings-leading network — would include starving the company of advertising dollars and pulling the biggest Democratic stars from the airwaves.
By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO
03/04/2023
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/04/dems-cut-fox-off-lawsuit-revelations-00085469
-
https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/the-media-ignore-democrats-in-congress-stepping-on-freedom-of-speech/
This is gross - watch the hearing, the Democrats step on free speech, and even try to bully Matt Taibbi into revealing his sources. Plus they are rude from the get go.
Oh, and the NYT and Washington Post literally wrote not one word on it.
-
https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/the-media-ignore-democrats-in-congress-stepping-on-freedom-of-speech/
This is gross - watch the hearing, the Democrats step on free speech, and even try to bully Matt Taibbi into revealing his sources. Plus they are rude from the get go.
Oh, and the NYT and Washington Post literally wrote not one word on it.
I watched a good portion of it. Absolutely disgusting.
-
Conservative judge abused at Stanford Law School says protesters told him they hoped his daughters would be RAPED, as it's revealed they were angry at him for misgendering transgender pedophile
Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, 51, was asked to give a speech at Stanford, but students and the DEI associate dean interrupted his speech
Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach asked to speak to students after Duncan requested an administrator and then gave a six-minute prepared speech
Stanford leaders later apologized to him, but students have since protested against the apology
By ALYSSA GUZMAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 23 March 2023
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11875781/Judge-abused-Stanford-Law-School-say-protesters-told-hoped-daughters-RAPED.html
-
Reporter accuses Karine Jean-Pierre of trying to 'silence' him after removal from WHCA
'I never believed that this could happen to me in the United States,' African reporter Simon Ateba told Tucker Carlson
By Bailee Hill | Fox News
Published March 10, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/media/reporter-accuses-karine-jean-pierre-trying-silence-removal-whca
-
Washington & Lee Professors Join Students in Seeking to Ban Conservative Speaker
March 28, 2023
Over 600 people have signed on to a petition calling for conservative commentator Matt Walsh to be banned from speaking at Washington and Lee University on March 30. That is hardly surprising given the regular cancel campaign on our campuses. However, what was striking was how many faculty signed the petition, including a number of law professors, despite its anti-free speech sentiments. The petition notably does not even contain the customary homage to free speech before eviscerating its underlying premise. Indeed, free speech is not mentioned even once. Instead, the petition denounces the university for allowing “one-sided platforms for harmful ideologies” to be held on campus. Notably, these faculty do not object to speakers holding opposing views from being one-sided. Indeed, the letter later objects to other speakers who engage in “both-sideism” on panels. The petition also states:
“While W&L’s Facility Use Policy states that allowing an event on campus does not imply endorsement of the views shared at the event, the school cannot escape responsibility for providing a platform for one-sided, non-academic, harmful rhetoric.”
Again, the objection only raises additional questions. Have these faculty members also objected to “non-academic” speakers from the left or insisted that such speakers have opposing views stated at the event? Have they objected to controversial, one-sided speakers from the left?
A couple years ago, Ibram X. Kendi spoke at the university without opposition from these faculty over his one-sided and controversial views. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, previously attacked Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her adoption of two Haitian children and suggested that it raised the image of a “white colonizer.” He suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother. In addition to calling for “defunding the police” and limiting free speech, Kendi insists that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Kendi also maintains that “The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism…In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.”
The fact is that I would not oppose Kendi coming to my campus or insist that he should not be allowed to give a “one-sided” presentation. His views are provocative and controversial, but they are precisely the type of diversity of viewpoints that higher education should foster.
Matt Walsh is clearly a lightening rod for controversy and has described himself as a “transphobe.” I disagree with Walsh but many do not. The issue is whether universities should censor such views based on what faculty may consider “harmful.” That is particularly chilling when faculty are applying such a clearly selective standard for those speakers who hold opposing views.
The “speech-as-harmful” rationale is now a virtual mantra on our campuses. This dangerous trend in academia is discussed in my law review article, Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The resulting viewpoint intolerance has produced a chilling effect on our campuses that has both faculty and students engaging in self-censorship. The current generation of the faculty and administrators are destroying the diversity of thought that sustains higher education.
This petition to bar any speaker viewed as supporting a “hateful ideology” would only reinforce what has become an academic echo chamber in higher education. Yet, the petition has the support of law professors and other faculty members who openly seek the barring of opposing views while, fittingly, omitting even a reference to free speech.
Below are the faculty in order of their signing. These are only those who listed their academic titles on the petition. They stretch across different disciplines and departments. I have removed the large number of staff members.
Brenna Womer, English Professor
Alan M. Trammell, Law Professor
Chelsea Fisher, Environmental Studies Professor
Avvirin Gray, Professor of English
Michael Berlin, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Carliss Chatman, Law Professor
Diego Millan, Assistant Professor of English and Africana Studies
Ellen Mayock, Ernest Williams II Professor of Romance Languages
Jessica Wager, Institutional History
Lubabah Chwdhury, Professor of English and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Nneka Dennie, Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Kary Smout, English Professor
Domnica Radulescu, The Edwin A. Morris Professor of Comparative Literature
Jane Harrington, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Romina Green Rioja, Assistant Professor of Latin American History
Mia Brett, VAP of African American History
Allison Weiss, Law Professor
Joan M. Shaughnessy, Roger D. Groot Professor of Law
Robert T. Danforth, John Lucian Smith, Jr. Memorial Professor of Law
Kristina Roney, Assistant Professor of French
Karen Woody, Law Professor
Beth Staples, English Professor
Mattie Clear, Archivist and Assistant Professor
Alison Bell ‘91, Professor of Anthropology
Keri Gould, Law Professor
Franklin Sammons, VAP History
Zoila Ponce de León, Assistant Professor of Politics
Jon Eastwood, Professor of Sociology
Elizabeth Belmont, Law Professor
Matthew F. Tuchler, Professor of Chemistry
Lesley Wheeler, English Professor
Carla Laroche, Law Professor
Bobby Jones’14 Assistant Professor / Football Coach
Russell Miller, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law
Mikki Brock, Associate Professor of History
Henryatta Ballah- Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Benjamin G. Davis, Visiting Professor of Law
Jill Fraley, Professor of Law
Chris Gavaler, Associate Professor of English
Josh Fairfield, Law Professor
Chris Seaman, Professor of Law
Mary Z. Natkin, ‘85L, Emeritus Professor of Law
Fernando Zapata, Ted DeLaney Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy
Molly Michelmore, Professor of History
Stephen P. McCormick, Associate Professor of French and Italian
Erin Ness Associate Professor of Physical Education
Shane Lynch Professor of Music and Director of Choral Activities
Margaret Anne Hinkle, Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Geoscience
Paul A. Gregory, Professor of Philosophy
Angela Sun, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Emerson Lynch, Visiting Assistant Professor of Earth & Environmental Geoscience Megan Fulcher, Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Emily Filler, Assistant Professor in the Study of Judaism
Clover Archer, Director of Staniar Gallery
Heather Kolinsky, Professor of Practice W&L Law
Mohamed Kamara, Professor of Romance Languages and Africana studies
Nathaniel Goldberg, Professor & Chair of Philosophy
Holly Shablack, Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Jenefer Davies, Professor of Dance & Chair of Theatre, Dance & Film Studies
Bill Hamilton, Professor and Head of Biology
Fiona Watson, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
Helen I’Anson Perry Professor of Biology & Research Sciences, Neuroscience
Nadia Ayoub, Professor of Biology
Gregg Whitworth, Associate Professor of Biology
David Bello, Professor of History
Lawrence Hurd, Professor of Biology
Sarah Blythe, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/28/washington-lee-professors-join-students-in-seeking-to-ban-conservative-speaker/
-
CNN Host Presses Comey On Why He Failed To “Shut Down” Trump’s Campaign Statements As Hate Speech
April 3, 2019
There was a chilling moment on CNN this week in an interview of former FBI Director James Comey, by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. In the middle of the interview, Amanpour asked Comey if he had wished the FBI “shut down” President Donald Trump’s “hate speech” during the 2016 presidential election. Next week I will be debating an advocate of such speech codes and the criminalization of hate speech at Rice University. This was a particularly revealing moment as one of the top personalities at CNN pressed the former head of the FBI on why he did not simply shutdown Trump’s speeches as hate speech. Amanpour has been an outspoken critic of Trump but this reflect more of the diminishing European view of free speech.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.
Amanpour pressed Comey on why he did not simply send agents to shut up Trump: “Of course, ‘Lock Her Up’ was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you in, retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech? Should that have been allowed?”
While I have been critical of Comey’s conduct during and after his stint as FBI Director, I was not surprised by his immediate and correct statement of the law: “That’s not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is people can say what they want even if it’s misleading and it’s demagoguery.” Amanpour’s question succeeded in showing not just an unbridled bias against Trump but an unnerving view of free speech. In the United States, we are not “allowed” to speak by the discretion of the government.
It was an embarrassing moment for CNN which has been criticized for his relentless criticism of Trump and the airing of legal experts who spent the last two years assuring viewers that criminal acts by Trump were already well established. What was ironic is that CNN has (correctly) aired criticism of Trump who has called for new legal measures to punish those who voice what he calls “fake news.” At least Trump has been largely calling for civil not criminal penalties. Here was one of CNN top figures treating the criminalization of speech as a discretionary power of the government.
CNN has done nothing to correct the record that Amanpour’s chillingly anti-free speech message was not shared by the network.
The question was a disgrace for any news organization. CNN constantly calls for the protection of the free press with its promotion series “This is an apple.” Yes, that is an apple and Amanpour’s comments are anti-free speech. Perhaps CNN can call that fact for what it is.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/04/03/cnn-host-presses-comey-on-why-he-failed-to-shut-down-trumps-campaign-statements-as-hate-speech/
-
Zuckerberg’s Twitter Rival Is Already Censoring People For Questioning Gender Ideology
JASON COHEN
CONTRIBUTOR
July 07, 2023
https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/07/zuckerbergs-twitter-rival-censoring-questioning-gender-ideology/
-
Zuckerberg’s Twitter Rival Is Already Censoring People For Questioning Gender Ideology
JASON COHEN
CONTRIBUTOR
July 07, 2023
https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/07/zuckerbergs-twitter-rival-censoring-questioning-gender-ideology/
Fucking Nutters.
-
Taibbi: Newest Twitter Files Shows Twitter ‘Immediately’ Took Down Accounts FBI Requested Without Investigation Based on False Charges
IAN HANCHETT 12 Jul 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/07/12/taibbi-newest-twitter-files-shows-twitter-immediately-took-down-accounts-fbi-requested-without-investigation-based-on-false-charges/
-
They're gone.
Where Have All The Liberals Gone?
Opening comments to the general public to ask a question, in sincerity: what changed the minds of society's former First Amendment advocates?
MATT TAIBBI
JUL 12, 2023
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ca19762-26d4-4cba-9d84-6ce903fa74f1_2288x1480.png)
Yesterday a House Committee — Republican-led, but still — released a series of documents showing without a doubt that the FBI has been forwarding thousands of content moderation “requests” to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube on behalf of the SBU, Ukraine’s Security Agency.
The documents not only contain incontrovertible evidence that our own FBI pressures tech companies to censor material, but that the Bureau is outsourcing such work to a foreign government, in this case Ukraine. This passage below for instance reads “The SBU requested for your review and if appropriate deletion/suspension of these accounts.”
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F87560c73-3153-40a8-88a5-b53bde3ac046_1284x542.jpeg)
There can’t possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on. Whether it’s the FBI forwarding the SBU asking for the removal of Aaron Maté, or the Global Engagement Center recommending action on the Canadian site GlobalResearch.Ca, or the White House demanding the takedown of figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the same types of behavior have now been captured over and over.
In light of this, I have to ask: where are the rest of the “card-carrying” liberals from the seventies, eighties, and nineties — people like me, who always reflexively opposed restrictions on speech?
Is your argument that private companies can do what they want? Then why did you think otherwise in 1985, when Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center suggested record companies “voluntarily” label as dirty songs like “Darling Nikki,” and call them McCarthyites when they compiled a list of the “Filthy Fifteen” albums? Does that not sound suspiciously like the “Disinformation Dozen”? Why were you on Frank Zappa’s side then, but with blacklisters now?
Do you now think it’s not really censorship if the FBI merely makes its opinion known about content, and doesn’t order takedowns? Did you think the same when the FBI sent a letter to Priority Records complaining about NWA’s “Fuck the Police”? Did you agree then with the ACLU, whose Southern California chairman responded to the FBI’s letter by saying, “It is completely inappropriate for any government agency to try to influence what artists do. It is completely against the American traditions of free speech”?
Is your belief that new forms of speech constitute “harm” and “offense” to such a degree that censorship is warranted? If so, why did you once support Andres Serrano and his work Piss Christ, which Catholics insisted was an intolerable offense, and call it censorship when opponents like Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms tried to pull funding for Serrano from the National Endowment of the Arts? Wasn’t the Hustler magazine spread suggesting Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse offensive? Didn’t you go to The People Versus Larry Flynt anyway?
If you’re okay with the FBI collaborating on censorship with the SBU now, why oppose the original PATRIOT Act, suggesting you didn’t even want the government looking at library records in search of Islamic terrorists? Why did you support the Dixie Chicks when they were blackballed for antiwar views after the Iraq invasion? Did you cheer them when you watched Shut Up and Sing?
Weren’t those national security issues, too? That wasn’t even that long ago. Is Vladimir Putin that much more of a menace than Al-Qaeda to justify the change in heart?
The change in thinking of traditional American liberals is the only part of this censorship picture that still doesn’t quite compute for me. I’d like to hear from anyone who has an explanation, a personal testimonial, anything. Comments are open to everyone here.
https://www.racket.news/p/where-have-all-the-liberals-gone
-
Internal Facebook Emails Reveal White House Pressured Social-Media Platform to Censor Covid ‘Misinformation’
By ARI BLAFF
July 27, 2023
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/internal-facebook-emails-reveal-white-house-pressured-social-media-platform-to-censor-covid-misinformation/
-
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/SMzQ9hDxOQAKmXXErXYJuQPf_yU-8k81lLvipR0vGEMODdtPRX72aF51iCWKHWwlqzob5JBIDZmoWA=s640-nd-v1)
-
Washington & Lee Professors Join Students in Seeking to Ban Conservative Speaker
March 28, 2023
Over 600 people have signed on to a petition calling for conservative commentator Matt Walsh to be banned from speaking at Washington and Lee University on March 30. That is hardly surprising given the regular cancel campaign on our campuses. However, what was striking was how many faculty signed the petition, including a number of law professors, despite its anti-free speech sentiments. The petition notably does not even contain the customary homage to free speech before eviscerating its underlying premise. Indeed, free speech is not mentioned even once. Instead, the petition denounces the university for allowing “one-sided platforms for harmful ideologies” to be held on campus. Notably, these faculty do not object to speakers holding opposing views from being one-sided. Indeed, the letter later objects to other speakers who engage in “both-sideism” on panels. The petition also states:
“While W&L’s Facility Use Policy states that allowing an event on campus does not imply endorsement of the views shared at the event, the school cannot escape responsibility for providing a platform for one-sided, non-academic, harmful rhetoric.”
Again, the objection only raises additional questions. Have these faculty members also objected to “non-academic” speakers from the left or insisted that such speakers have opposing views stated at the event? Have they objected to controversial, one-sided speakers from the left?
A couple years ago, Ibram X. Kendi spoke at the university without opposition from these faculty over his one-sided and controversial views. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, previously attacked Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her adoption of two Haitian children and suggested that it raised the image of a “white colonizer.” He suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother. In addition to calling for “defunding the police” and limiting free speech, Kendi insists that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Kendi also maintains that “The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism…In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.”
The fact is that I would not oppose Kendi coming to my campus or insist that he should not be allowed to give a “one-sided” presentation. His views are provocative and controversial, but they are precisely the type of diversity of viewpoints that higher education should foster.
Matt Walsh is clearly a lightening rod for controversy and has described himself as a “transphobe.” I disagree with Walsh but many do not. The issue is whether universities should censor such views based on what faculty may consider “harmful.” That is particularly chilling when faculty are applying such a clearly selective standard for those speakers who hold opposing views.
The “speech-as-harmful” rationale is now a virtual mantra on our campuses. This dangerous trend in academia is discussed in my law review article, Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The resulting viewpoint intolerance has produced a chilling effect on our campuses that has both faculty and students engaging in self-censorship. The current generation of the faculty and administrators are destroying the diversity of thought that sustains higher education.
This petition to bar any speaker viewed as supporting a “hateful ideology” would only reinforce what has become an academic echo chamber in higher education. Yet, the petition has the support of law professors and other faculty members who openly seek the barring of opposing views while, fittingly, omitting even a reference to free speech.
Below are the faculty in order of their signing. These are only those who listed their academic titles on the petition. They stretch across different disciplines and departments. I have removed the large number of staff members.
Brenna Womer, English Professor
Alan M. Trammell, Law Professor
Chelsea Fisher, Environmental Studies Professor
Avvirin Gray, Professor of English
Michael Berlin, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Carliss Chatman, Law Professor
Diego Millan, Assistant Professor of English and Africana Studies
Ellen Mayock, Ernest Williams II Professor of Romance Languages
Jessica Wager, Institutional History
Lubabah Chwdhury, Professor of English and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Nneka Dennie, Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Kary Smout, English Professor
Domnica Radulescu, The Edwin A. Morris Professor of Comparative Literature
Jane Harrington, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Romina Green Rioja, Assistant Professor of Latin American History
Mia Brett, VAP of African American History
Allison Weiss, Law Professor
Joan M. Shaughnessy, Roger D. Groot Professor of Law
Robert T. Danforth, John Lucian Smith, Jr. Memorial Professor of Law
Kristina Roney, Assistant Professor of French
Karen Woody, Law Professor
Beth Staples, English Professor
Mattie Clear, Archivist and Assistant Professor
Alison Bell ‘91, Professor of Anthropology
Keri Gould, Law Professor
Franklin Sammons, VAP History
Zoila Ponce de León, Assistant Professor of Politics
Jon Eastwood, Professor of Sociology
Elizabeth Belmont, Law Professor
Matthew F. Tuchler, Professor of Chemistry
Lesley Wheeler, English Professor
Carla Laroche, Law Professor
Bobby Jones’14 Assistant Professor / Football Coach
Russell Miller, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law
Mikki Brock, Associate Professor of History
Henryatta Ballah- Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Benjamin G. Davis, Visiting Professor of Law
Jill Fraley, Professor of Law
Chris Gavaler, Associate Professor of English
Josh Fairfield, Law Professor
Chris Seaman, Professor of Law
Mary Z. Natkin, ‘85L, Emeritus Professor of Law
Fernando Zapata, Ted DeLaney Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy
Molly Michelmore, Professor of History
Stephen P. McCormick, Associate Professor of French and Italian
Erin Ness Associate Professor of Physical Education
Shane Lynch Professor of Music and Director of Choral Activities
Margaret Anne Hinkle, Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Geoscience
Paul A. Gregory, Professor of Philosophy
Angela Sun, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Emerson Lynch, Visiting Assistant Professor of Earth & Environmental Geoscience Megan Fulcher, Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Emily Filler, Assistant Professor in the Study of Judaism
Clover Archer, Director of Staniar Gallery
Heather Kolinsky, Professor of Practice W&L Law
Mohamed Kamara, Professor of Romance Languages and Africana studies
Nathaniel Goldberg, Professor & Chair of Philosophy
Holly Shablack, Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Jenefer Davies, Professor of Dance & Chair of Theatre, Dance & Film Studies
Bill Hamilton, Professor and Head of Biology
Fiona Watson, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
Helen I’Anson Perry Professor of Biology & Research Sciences, Neuroscience
Nadia Ayoub, Professor of Biology
Gregg Whitworth, Associate Professor of Biology
David Bello, Professor of History
Lawrence Hurd, Professor of Biology
Sarah Blythe, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/28/washington-lee-professors-join-students-in-seeking-to-ban-conservative-speaker/
What is it these Libturds are so very scared of hearing.
Bunch of Fucked up pansies.
-
What is it these Libturds are so very scared of hearing.
Bunch of Fucked up pansies.
Liberals are usually weak beta types.
-
WSJ: Facebook ‘Demoted’ Video of Tucker Carlson by 50% at the Demand of Biden White House
LUCAS NOLAN 28 Jul 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/07/28/wsj-facebook-demoted-video-of-tucker-carlson-by-50-at-the-demand-of-biden-white-house/
-
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/08/03/biden-white-house-asked-facebook-to-change-the-algorithm-boost-new-york-times-content-over-right-wing-media/
-
Crazy.
Thomas Jefferson University president who liked controversial tweets resigns
Mark Tykocinski will remain a full professor, but has stepped down as president and interim medical school dean.
by Susan Snyder
Published Jul 21, 2023
https://www.inquirer.com/news/thomas-jefferson-university-president-mark-tykocinski-resigns-20230721.html
-
Crazy.
Thomas Jefferson University president who liked controversial tweets resigns
Mark Tykocinski will remain a full professor, but has stepped down as president and interim medical school dean.
by Susan Snyder
Published Jul 21, 2023
https://www.inquirer.com/news/thomas-jefferson-university-president-mark-tykocinski-resigns-20230721.html
They are in a psychotic cult - just witness how extreme and nuts Lurker Straw and the others have become
-
They are in a psychotic cult - just witness how extreme and nuts Lurker Straw and the others have become
Yep.
-
They are in a psychotic cult - just witness how extreme and nuts Lurker Straw and the others have become
It definitely appears that way.
-
Cowards
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-gov-katie-hobbs-requested-twitter-censor-critics-tweet-comparing-trump-supporters-nazis
-
Reporter sues White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre after credentials revoked
Ateba has been at the center of tense situations within the briefing room
By Madeleine Hubbard
Updated: August 14, 2023
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/today-news-africas-white-house-reporter-sues-karine-jean-pierre-after-losing
-
The Washington Post Says Democracy Demands Less Freedom of Speech
Donald Trump was back on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, last night for the first time since he got the boot in 2021 following the riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Trump posted the mug shot of him that was taken at Atlanta's jail this week when he was booked on the charges laid out in his Georgia indictment, which stem from his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. He included a caption that described the indictment as "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" and urged his followers to "NEVER SURRENDER!"
After taking over the platform that was then known as Twitter last year, Elon Musk, an avowed "free speech absolutist," reinstated Trump's account. But this is the first time that Trump, who started a competing platform that is still known as Truth Social, has made use of Musk's permission. The Washington Post, in a news story published this morning, portrays Musk's decision and the attitude underlying it as part of a worrisome trend that threatens "democracy" by allowing "political misinformation" to proliferate on social media. The piece nicely illustrates the confusion, obfuscation, and hypocrisy that characterize mainstream press coverage of that subject.
As is typical of this journalistic genre, Post reporters Naomi Nix and Sarah Ellison never address the question of what counts as "misinformation," a highly contested category. Nor do they grapple with the content moderation problem of how to deal with politicians who say things of public interest that are arguably or demonstrably untrue. And although they allude to a constitutional challenge provoked by the federal government's efforts to restrict speech on social media platforms, they never mention the First Amendment. That is a pretty striking omission by people whose profession relies on that amendment's protections and who claim to be worried about the health of our democracy.
https://reason.com/2023/08/25/the-washington-post-says-democracy-demands-less-freedom-of-speech/
-
LOL @ demoncrats saying their not trying to take our freedoms away, then trying to take our freedoms away. ;D ;D
-
-
They are in a psychotic cult - just witness how extreme and nuts Lurker Straw and the others have become
LOL! You and several other folks on Getbig should take a look in the mirror. The saying, 'pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind.
-
LOL! You and several other folks on Getbig should take a look in the mirror. The saying, 'pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind.
False. I’m for free speech and freedom. You liberal freaks went the opposite direction.
-
False. I’m for free speech and freedom. You liberal freaks went the opposite direction.
I can tell that you feel free to speak. Too bad you don't have something better to speak about.
-
I can tell that you feel free to speak. Too bad you don't have something better to speak about.
Keep advocating for pedophilia and Biden - so much better right ?
-
Keep advocating for pedophilia and Biden - so much better right ?
I do not believe I have advocated for either. Not Biden and certainly not pedophilia.
What is so much better? Sometimes we are given only bad choices, so we pick what we believe is the least bad.
Believe it or not, it is possible to not either of them, but not like Biden less than we don't like Trump.
-
I do not believe I have advocated for either. Not Biden and certainly not pedophilia.
What is so much better? Sometimes we are given only bad choices, so we pick what we believe is the least bad.
Believe it or not, it is possible to not either of them, but not like Biden less than we don't like Trump.
Haven’t seen you speak out about either. All it’s been is Trump Trump Trump
-
Worst ever. FJB! And F you who voted for this.
-
The Biden Administration Tried to Censor This Stanford Doctor, But He Won in Court
New York Post ^ | Sep. 20, 2023 | Rikki Schlott
Posted on 9/20/2023
A federal court of appeals ruled earlier this month that the White House, surgeon general, CDC and FBI “likely violated the First Amendment” by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”
The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech. Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
-
Megyn Kelly reports that youtube demonetized her interview of President Trump because he referred to "gender reassignment" surgery of minors as child mutilation. Liberals just cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints.
-
Megyn Kelly reports that youtube demonetized her interview of President Trump because he referred to "gender reassignment" surgery of minors as child mutilation. Liberals just cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints.
'demonetized'?
-
'demonetized'?
"YouTube demonetization is when YouTube takes away your ability to earn ad revenue, either from a specific video or your entire channel. This happens when content is found to violate YouTube's strict advertiser-friendly content guidelines."
-
BREAKING: Facebook CENSORS Nashville school shooter manifesto
"Your post may go against our Community Standards on violence and incitement."
The Post Millennial
Nov 6, 2023
Steven Crowder
@scrowder
🚨 BREAKING: Nashville School Covenant Shooter Audrey Hale’s “DEATH DAY” Manifesto Targeted “Cr*ckers” with “white privlages”
“wanna kill all you little cr*ckers”
“I hope I have a high death count”
"I'm ready...I hope my victims aren't."
"Ready to die."
#NashvilleManifesto
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-Qo7lHXcAAOnWQ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-facebook-censors-nashville-school-shooter-manifesto?utm_campaign=64487
-
"YouTube demonetization is when YouTube takes away your ability to earn ad revenue, either from a specific video or your entire channel. This happens when content is found to violate YouTube's strict advertiser-friendly content guidelines."
Thanks. I just learned something new.
-
They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...
And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.
Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬
-
Documents Shed New Light on Feds' Collusion with Private Actors to Police Speech on Social Media
By Ben Weingarten, RealClearInvestigations
November 06, 2023
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/11/06/documents_shed_new_light_on_feds_collusion_with_private_actors_to_police_speech_on_social_media_990672.html
-
-
-
-
Yet some mind numbed retards on here still believe the election
was fair & not interfered with ::)
Yep the man who hid under his table & didnt campaign broke every voting
record ever in the USA - :D ;D :D ;D :D
-
Yet some mind numbed retards on here still believe the election
was fair & not interfered with ::)
Yep the man who hid under his table & didnt campaign broke every voting
record ever in the USA - :D ;D :D ;D :D
They are in a cult
-
They are in a cult
It appears that way - As any semblance of normal rational thinking
has been removed.
-
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/11/06/documents_shed_new_light_on_feds_collusion_with_private_actors_to_police_speech_on_social_media_990672.html
-
February 6, 2024
Why Burn Books When You Can Bury Them? The White House Pressured Amazon to Target Dissenting Books
The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Monday revealed yet another facet of the Biden Administration’s sprawling censorship system that targeted dissenting books. It appears that, as with social media companies, it succeeded in getting the company not to promote disfavored books.
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan revealed on X that the White House was directly involved in the censorship campaign. That includes a 2021 email from one Biden official asking to discuss “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon?”
Amazon in turn appears to ask only how high the Biden White House wants it to jump on censorship: “s the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?”
After the meeting, Amazon confirmed in an email that it was actively doing what the government demanded in suppressing sales by not promoting disfavored books: “As a reminder, we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you.”
This effort notably parallels demands from Democratic leaders who have called for enlightened algorithms to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
It is important to keep in mind that these efforts at censorship targeted scientists who have been vindicated in many of their objections to policies and claims of the government. For example, a new scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”
The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
A lawsuit opposing these efforts was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Yet, universities joined social media companies and politicians in targeting dissenters and silencing opposing voices.
Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.”
Again, the objection to the censorship system is not that all of these views are correct, but that the public was being actively hampered in reading or hearing opposing views.
The new emails also show direct federal efforts supporting censorship. I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system. I warned that there was ample evidence of a system based on “censorship by surrogate” where government agencies used academic and media allies to silence those with opposing views.
Despite the determined opposition by Democratic members and the Biden Administration, the investigation has revealed a wide array of grants to academic and third party organizations to create blacklists or to pressure advertisers to withdraw support for conservative sites. The subjects for censorship ranged from election fraud to social justice to climate change.
Now we can add private demands to target dissenting books to suppress sales. It is far more appealing to certain sensibilities than banning publications or removing copies. After all, why burn books if you can bury them?
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/06/why-burn-books-when-you-can-bury-them-the-biden-administration-pressured-amazon-on-suppressing-sales-on-dissenting-books/
-
And liberals have the shameless nerve to accuse others of fascism.
February 6, 2024
Why Burn Books When You Can Bury Them? The White House Pressured Amazon to Target Dissenting Books
The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Monday revealed yet another facet of the Biden Administration’s sprawling censorship system that targeted dissenting books. It appears that, as with social media companies, it succeeded in getting the company not to promote disfavored books.
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan revealed on X that the White House was directly involved in the censorship campaign. That includes a 2021 email from one Biden official asking to discuss “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon?”
Amazon in turn appears to ask only how high the Biden White House wants it to jump on censorship: “s the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?”
After the meeting, Amazon confirmed in an email that it was actively doing what the government demanded in suppressing sales by not promoting disfavored books: “As a reminder, we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you.”
This effort notably parallels demands from Democratic leaders who have called for enlightened algorithms to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
It is important to keep in mind that these efforts at censorship targeted scientists who have been vindicated in many of their objections to policies and claims of the government. For example, a new scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”
The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
A lawsuit opposing these efforts was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Yet, universities joined social media companies and politicians in targeting dissenters and silencing opposing voices.
Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.”
Again, the objection to the censorship system is not that all of these views are correct, but that the public was being actively hampered in reading or hearing opposing views.
The new emails also show direct federal efforts supporting censorship. I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system. I warned that there was ample evidence of a system based on “censorship by surrogate” where government agencies used academic and media allies to silence those with opposing views.
Despite the determined opposition by Democratic members and the Biden Administration, the investigation has revealed a wide array of grants to academic and third party organizations to create blacklists or to pressure advertisers to withdraw support for conservative sites. The subjects for censorship ranged from election fraud to social justice to climate change.
Now we can add private demands to target dissenting books to suppress sales. It is far more appealing to certain sensibilities than banning publications or removing copies. After all, why burn books if you can bury them?
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/06/why-burn-books-when-you-can-bury-them-the-biden-administration-pressured-amazon-on-suppressing-sales-on-dissenting-books/
-
Tucker Carlson claims he was banned from speaking at his prep school Alma Mater despite offering to provide armed guards amid fears 'people could be killed'
Tucker Carlson was banned from attending his Alma Mater to speak to students
Staff from St George's School said that if he came to campus, 'people could be killed'
Carlson spoke to students on Zoom and recorded the session which has been shared online
By EMMA RICHTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 1 April 2024
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13258643/tucker-carlson-st-georges-prep-school-killed-banned.html
-
-
WTF - Ah Diddums must'n upset the easily triggered Leftists
Bring back the quiet rooms & counsellors ;D :D :D ;D
-
There was a time when networks and newspapers just reported the news. Those days are gone. The media has now openly admitted that they have an obligation to insert their opinions.