• Home
  • Free Speech/First Amendment/Censorship

Justice Thomas: America Now in Conflict Between Religious Liberty and Court's Decree on Gay Marriage


By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Clarence Thomas predicted that the court’s declaration that same-sex marriage is a right would ultimately lead to conflict between that purported right and religious liberty.

In his concurring opinion today in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Thomas concludes: “This case proves that the conflict has already emerged.”

In Obergefell, decided by a 5-4 vote in 2015, the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment creates a right for people of the same sex to marry one another.

“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built,” Thomas wrote in his dissent in Obergefell. “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti­tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.

“Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a ‘liberty’ that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect,” Thomas continued. “Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the government. This distor­tion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”

In his Obergefell dissent, Thomas went on to warn:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability,” wrote Thomas.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Is Trump’s Threat to Remove Press Credentials Really an Attack on Press?


By Selwyn Duke
TheNewAmerican.com

In threatening to deny White House access to news organs peddling “fake news,” President Trump has been accused of launching a full-court press against the press. But, ironically, the notion that such an action constitutes an attack on media freedom is itself an example of fake news.

The Daily Mail reports on the story:

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that he might revoke White House credentials for some journalists, following the publication of a survey that showed a dramatic leftward tilt in television news coverage about him.

The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, tracked the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC for the first four months of this year and found more than 1,600 ‘explicitly positive and negative’ statements about the president.

The group determined that nine out of 10 of those broadcast statements were negative. It did not include CNN and MSNBC in its research.

Trump vented, saying: “The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

Interestingly, the Mail did not fail to prove Trump’s point, writing in its headline that the president’s proposal was the “latest attack on [a] free press.” This itself is fake news.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Control the Words, Control the Culture


The culture war is first and foremost a war of words - and the left is winning. The consequences can be seen everywhere: in politics, in education, in media. In this video, Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show, explains why we should not cede another syllable.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

How Do Those Targeted By The Southern Poverty Law Center Survive The Persecution?


By Ruby Henley
InvestmentWatchBlog.com

I want to understand what motivates the Southern Poverty Law Center in its persecution of those of us, who are considered to be Conservative Christians, Alt-Right, or Sovereign Citizens of the United States.  It is abundantly clear we are under attack while groups like Black Lives Matter are given respect and left alone to “protest.”

Also, we know that Google secretly chose Southern Poverty Law Center to monitor YouTube, giving them the power over our First Amendment Rights.  Much of the Conservative YouTube community has been banned from YouTube, and it is a great loss and injustice.

The below video explains the relationship between Google and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled Dr. Ben Carson, Laura Ingraham, and Jeanine Pirro as Extremists.  Apple just gave SPLC one million dollars, and Eric Schmidt trusts them as the watchdog for YouTube. However, Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not labeled as Extremists.   Conservative figures are being targeted consistently by the SPLC. An apology needs to be given to Conservatives.

As I began to research the SPLC, I discovered it is much worse than I thought.  I believe at this point Conservative Christians and the “Alt-Right” are truly in danger.  As we watched as ISIS slaughtered and persecuted Christians, I think some of us sensed this was the beginning of what the Bible told us would occur.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project Veritas: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post Online” Including Private “Sex Messages”


Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view all of your private messages on their servers and analyze it to create a “virtual profile” of you which they sell to advertisers.

The footage features four current Twitter software engineers–Conrado Miranda, Clay Haynes, Pranay Singh, and Mihai Alexandru Florea.

Haynes, who was featured in part one of the Twitter exposé, admitted in a January 6, 2018 meeting that Twitter has hired hundreds employees with the express purpose of looking at these “dick pics,” stating:

    “There’s teams dedicated to it. I mean, we’re talking, we’re talking three or four… at least, three or four hundred people… Yes, they’re paid to look at dick pics.”

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project_Veritas - Sr Network Security Engineer Reveals Twitter Ready to Give Trump's Private Messages to DOJ


A Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a senior network security engineer at Twitter suggesting that his company turns over the private communications and deleted tweets of President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. If true, it is yet unknown whether Twitter is voluntarily disclosing this sensitive information or acting under a court order. Twitter is currently in the midst of defending itself from left-leaning criticism that President Trump hasn’t been removed from the enormous media platform for violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled "AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News." The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project Veritas -Twitter Engineers To "Ban a Way of Talking" Through "Shadow Banning"

Uses keywords like “America” and “Trump” to silence opposing views


In what represents a chokeslam of an exposé, Project Veritas has released undercover video of Twitter engineers admitting that they deliberately censor conservative opinions and are implementing a way of relegating “shitty people” so their content is shadow banned.

In the video, current and former Twitter employees confirm virtually everything that conservatives have long suspected about the left-wing company silencing people on the right.

Key quotes include;

Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, admits that Twitter is implementing software algorithms that down rank conservatives so “shitty people to not show up” on people’s timelines.

“The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content,” says former Twitter software engineer Abhinov Vadrevu. “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, reveals that the company’s machine learning algorithms are programmed with “five thousand keywords to describe a redneck,” which include words like Trump, America, as well as images of the U.S. flag, guns and Christian crosses and these terms are used to delete “bot” accounts as well as down rank conservatives.

Singh also revealed that the U.S. government routinely pressures Twitter to take down Julian Assange’s account and that this is the reason he isn’t verified Singh also says that governments ask Twitter to remove accounts belonging to other public figures because they don’t like their political views.

Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai admits that Twitter employees have the power to ban accounts if they merely disagree with someone’s political views, remarking, “Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?”

The video represents the biggest tech/censorship story in years yet will attract little or no mainstream media coverage.

However, it will lead to an increase in calls from the right for Twitter to be regulated as a public utility to ensure that free speech rights are protected given how social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google have basically become monopolies.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Has The Israel Lobby Destroyed Americans’ First Amendment Rights?


Editor's Note: You bet it has! This lobby is arguably the most powerful foreign agent operating in our country, so powerful in its ability to control members of Congress that it is exempted from having to register as a foreign agent.  Same with the Jewish organizations the ADL (Anti Defamation League) and SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) both foreign agents for Israel's interests not required to register as such.

 

Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel Lobby has shown its power over Americans’ perceptions and ability to exercise free speech via its influence in media, entertainment and ability to block university tenure appointments, such as those of Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. Indeed, the power of the Israel Lobby is today so widely recognized and feared that editors, producers, and tenure committees anticipate the lobby’s objections in advance and avoid writers, subjects, and professors judged unacceptable to the lobby.

The latest example is The American Conservative’s firing of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi.
Giraldi wrote an article for the Unz Review about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East. The article didn’t say anything that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz hadn’t said already. The editor of The American Conservative, where Giraldi had been a contributor for a decade and a half, was terrified that the magazine was associated with a critic of Israel and quickly terminated the relationship. Such abject cowardice as the editor of The American Conservative showed is a true measure of the power of the Israel Lobby.

Many seasoned experts believe that without the influence of the Israel Lobby, particularly as exerted by the Jewish Neoconservatives, the United States would not have been at war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 16 years. These wars have done nothing for the US but harm, and they have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and caused extensive death and destruction in seven countries and a massive refugee flow into Europe.

For a superpower such as the United States not to be in control of its own foreign policy is a serious matter. Giraldi is correct and patriotic to raise this concern. Giraldi makes sensible recommendations for correcting Washington’s lack of control over its own policy. But instead of analysis and debate of Giraldi’s proposals, the result is Giraldi’s punishment by an editor of a conservative publication anticipating the Israel Lobby’s wishes.

Americans should think about the fact that Israel is the only country on earth that it is impermissible to criticize. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy, especially toward the Palestinians, or remarks on Israel’s influence, is branded an “anti-semite.” Even mild critics who are trying to steer Israel away from making mistakes, such as former President Jimmy Carter, are branded “anti-semites.”

The Israel Lobby’s purpose in labeling a critic an “anti-semite” is to discredit the criticism as an expression of dislike or hatred of Jews. In other words, the criticism is presented as merely an expression of the person’s aversion to Jewishness. A persistent critic is likely to be charged with trying to incite a new holocaust.

It is possible to criticize the policy of Germany, France, Spain, UK, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, China, Iran, the US, indeed, every other country without being called anti-German, Anti-French, Anti-British, Anti-American, etc., although US policy in the Middle East is so closely aligned with Israel’s that the Israel Lobby regards critics of US Middle East policy as hostile to Israel. Despite the failures of US policy, it is getting more and more difficult to criticize it without the risk of being branded “unpatriotic,” and possibly even a “Muslim sympathizer” and “anti-semite.”

The power of the Israel Lobby is seen in many places. For example, the US Congress demands that RT, a news service, register as a Russian agent, but AIPAC, before whom every year the US Congress pays its homage and submission, does not have to register as an Israeli agent.

The many anomalies in the Israel Lobby’s power pass unremarked. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) defines criticism of Israeli policies as defamation and brands critics “anti-semites.” In other words, the ADL itself is set up in the business of defamation or name-calling. The incongruity of an organization created to oppose defamation engaging in defamation as its sole purpose passes unremarked.

Israel is very proud of its power over the United States. Israeli political leaders have a history of bragging about their power over America. But if an American complains about it, he is a Jew-hater. The only safe way for an American to call attention to the power Israel has over the US is to brag about it. It is OK to acknowledge Israel’s power if you put it in a good light, but not if you complain about it.

So, let me put it this way: Israel’s unique ability to discredit all criticism of its policies as a mere expression of anti-Jewish sentiment is the greatest public relations success in the history of PR. The stupidity of the goy is easily overcome by the more capable Jew. Hats off to Israel for outwitting the dumbshit Americans and taking over their foreign policy. Perhaps Israel should take over US domestic policy as well. Or have they already? It has been 30 years since the Federal Reserve has had a non-Jewish Chairman, and for the past three years Stanley Fischer, the former chairman of the Central Bank of Israel, has been Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Since the Clinton regime, the Treasury Secretaries have been predominately Jewish. We can say that their financial talent makes them natural candidates for these positions, but it is disingenuous to deny the influence of this small minority in American life. This influence becomes a problem when it is used to silence free speech.

Here is Giraldi:

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

New U.S. Law Blurs the Line Between Hate Speech and Hate Crime


By Michael S. Rozeff
LewRockwell.com

Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws. One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.” This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.

The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas? No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?

The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”

This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government. The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles out free speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”

This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.

I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)