Moving In The Wrong Direction Rather Than Solving The Problem

Antisemitism is currently a problem in America and around the world. It isn’t something that can be fixed by laws, although Congress is trying. Censorship of free speech is NOT the answer.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

The Democratic Party is engaged in civil war over the Israel-Gaza conflict, and Republicans can’t help but take a bullet for their supposed political enemies.

It comes in the form of H.R. 6090, a freshly-passed bill by the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at curbing antisemitism on university campuses. Antisemitism on American soil has indeed grown loudly since the Oct. 7 attack in Israel. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson has been unable to step aside and allow Democrats to expose themselves as radicals on the issue. Instead, he’s held multiple press conferences, including one where he was drowned out by protestors on the Columbia University campus, putting an unnecessary bullseye on the Republican party.

…Johnson’s apparent belief that tackling antisemitism is the key to uniting the GOP is doing the exact opposite. Sources in both chambers of Congress told the Daily Caller that members are frustrated with Johnson’s handling of H.R. 6090, known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and the target that’s now on their backs.

The dilemma, multiple GOP aides told the Caller: either back down on free speech, or be slandered as an “antisemite.”

“This botched antisemitism resolution is just the cherry on top of the crap sundae Mike Johnson has served Congressional Republicans for six months,” one senior GOP Senate aide told the Caller. “Whether through incompetence or malice, he is a worthy successor to Nancy Pelosi.”

The article notes:

“The Antisemitism Awareness Act will require, through the Department of Education, which has enforcement authority, institutions to crack down constitutionally protected speech. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, however well intended to provide institutions with more tools to address antisemitism on campuses, is overbroad and unconstitutional because it polices constitutionally protected speech,” lead counsel of government affairs for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Tyler Coward, told the Daily Caller.

Anti-Semitic speech is not a good thing–but it is protected by the First Amendment. In truth, we need to change people’s hearts. Limiting what people can say is not a step forward.

Protesting Is Legal; Civil Disobedience Should Have Consequences

On April 16th, Townhall posted an article illustrating how the pro-Palestinian protestors that tried to block roads on Monday were treated in Florida.

The article reports:

Pro-Palestinian protesters shut down major bridges, roads, and highways across the United States on Monday, with CNN reporting that over 150 arrests were made. But whether in Chicago, where demonstrators blocked a road to Terminal 1 at O’Hare, or in San Francisco, where protesters brought traffic to a halt on the Golden Gate bridge, there was generally tolerance of the disruptive and dangerous demonstrations by those tasked with upholding law and order.

…Traffic was also affected in two other areas in the Bay area by the protesters, with California Highway Patrol Chief Don Goodbrand saying “it was an orchestrated event.” 

“They blocked three separate locations on freeways. They prevented law enforcement, paramedics, ambulances from getting to their points of destination,” he added. 

The article includes a screenshot of how these protestors were treated in Florida (this is the address if you want to watch the video–  https://twitter.com/i/status/1779976321629565433):

Protesting is legal under the First Amendment; blocking roads and bridges is not.

 

A Very Skewed View Of The First Amendment

The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution to provide additional protection from the government to American citizens. The American Declaration of Independence declared,  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these rights–not the rights of the government. Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten that–including one Supreme Court Justice.

On Monday, PJ Media reported on the arguments regarding the First Amendment Case currently before the Supreme Court:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Joe Biden nominated to the high court, had a particularly disturbing position on the issue:

“So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” she told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga. “I mean, what would — what would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, ‘Kids, this is not safe, don’t do it,’ is not going to get it done.”

“And so I guess, some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country,” Jackson continued. “And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”

Jackson said she was “really worried about that” scenario because “you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

First of all, the First Amendment does hamstring the government because it limits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” among other things. That’s a feature, not a bug of the First Amendment. 

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to hamstring the government and empower the people. It is disturbing that a Supreme Court Justice does not know this.

 

This Is Where We Are

Posted by Charlie Kirk on Twitter:

Every facet of the legal offensive against Trump is utterly unprecedented in American history.

Nothing like today’s ruling in New York, imposing a $354 million fine and banning Trump from all business in New York, has ever happened before. New York’s law allowing for the total dissolution of companies is meant for businesses that are, in fact, fraudulent — those that impersonate other businesses, or rely wholly on fraud to do business. It’s never been used to decapitate a functioning business over a supposed “fraud” that had zero victims.

Nothing like the E. Jean Carroll case has ever happened in American history either. Carroll claims Trump raped her, yet can’t give a year and has a story that matches a TV episode. Trump has never been charged, and all he said is that the allegation was untrue — so he’s been hit with a judgment of more than $83 million. This utterly rewrites the entire concept of defamation law all to attack one person — and I mean that literally, because New York rewrote its state laws specifically to let Carroll bring her ridiculous case, and then had the law sunset six months later.

Nothing like the Alvin Bragg criminal case against Trump has ever happened. Bragg is charging Trump with a felony for falsifying business records. But New York law only allows that to be a felony if it’s done to cover up a separate felony. Yet no other felony has ever been charged — instead, Bragg claims Trump violated FEDERAL election laws simply by making payments to Stormy Daniels. The insane claim is that ANYTHING Trump does to protect his reputation is an election expense that must be reported to the FEC. No court has ever ruled this, and no federal prosecutor has even tried to prosecute Trump for this, yet Bragg, a LOCAL prosecutor, claims the authority to interpret the law this way. Unprecedented.

Nothing like the Fani Willis indictment of Trump has ever happened in this country’s history, either. Fani accused Trump of furthering a “conspiracy” by urging lawmakers to vote a certain way on proposed legislation, and by encouraging the public to watch televised hearings on OANN. Even if Fani Willis’s personal life weren’t a mess of scandal, her case would be a travesty.

And of course, nothing like Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump has ever happened either. No politician in modern US history has ever been charged with a crime for giving a speech where he explicitly told supporters to be peaceful. No American politician has ever been held criminally responsible for every action by any person who supports him. Jack Smith’s case throws out a century of First Amendment law…and it has to, because everything about it completely undermines the First Amendment.

One day, future observers will be shocked and astonished at how America’s leaders ripped up every rule, every norm, and every right that had guaranteed America’s well-being, all for the sake of destroying one man out of hatred.

Moving Away From The U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Biden administration has worked very hard to abridge the right of free speech in America.

On Saturday, Townhall reported:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley had a few choice words for President Joe Biden after he used his first 2024 campaign speech to assault democracy. 

On Friday, Biden spent a significant portion of his campaign speech demonizing former President Trump and fear-mongering Americans by focusing on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill protests. 

Turley suggested to Fox News that Biden’s speech was hypocritical by talking about the freedom to vote despite his own party attempting to strip Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot. 

During his speech in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Biden said that defending democracy was a “central cause” of his administration. However, Turley pointed out that the Democratic Party has gone to great lengths to suppress the constitutional rights of Americans and their freedom to choose who they want running the country. 

Jonathan Turley stated:

He lost me in the specifics. He talks about democracy being on the ballot but the ballot isn’t very democratic, his own party is trying to strip ballots of Donald Trump’s name to prevent people who want to vote for what appears to be the leading candidate for the presidency from doing that. So when he’s talking about the freedom to vote and have your vote count, his party is actively trying to prevent that and saying, really, you’re not just voting for me, just think you’re voting for democracy. For those people, they really feel like, if we vote for you, do we get democracy back next time? Are we going to have all of the candidates on the ballot? I don’t think that effort will succeed. It’s worth noting when he talks about the freedom of speech, the Biden administration I have written before, is the most anti-free-speech administration since the administration of John Adams. I mean, his administration has carried out what a federal court called an Orwellian censorship program with the help of social media companies. 

If you want your rights preserved as they are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, you cannot vote for a Democrat in 2024.

What First Amendment?

The strength of a republic is partially determined by its media–does the media have the ability to inform the public without being threatened or coerced into reporting what the government wants reported? Right now the mainstream media (which can also be described as the government media) is neither holding elected officials accountable for their actions or reporting the truth to Americans. The government has also taken an aggressive stance against reporters who do not parrot the government narrative on current and past events.

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about another government attack on someone for committing journalism.

The article reports:

Steve Baker is a journalist for TheBlaze.com (Blaze Media) & was formally charged by the FBI for documenting the protest and unrest around the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.

This isn’t the first journalist the Biden DOJ has attempted to prosecute, as Owen Shroyer of Info Wars was recently incarcerated for 47 days based on comments he made during his nightly news broadcast. There were several other reporters who have been investigated and charged.

However, Steve Baker’s case is drastically different than Shroyer’s situation. Steve was a well established reporter (not even a Trump supporter at the time) who attended the Trump rally with the intent of documenting the transfer of power during an important day in American history.

The FBI harassed him in July of 2021, but left him alone after becoming aware of his status as an established reporter. The only issue is, Steve eventually began investigating the federal government’s role in the events of January 6th and uncovered corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement. This apparently upset federal prosecutors who are now formally charging Baker despite him working actively as a credentialed journalist for TheBlaze.com.

The attack on opinions that do not agree with the government narrative is going to continue under the Biden administration. Eventually it will be aimed at all Americans who do not support the administration. Considering only about 30 percent of Americans approve of the job President Biden is doing, that could get interesting. Consider the fact that FISA has been extended despite having been abused and will probably be abused in the future. If you want your country back, do not re-elect anyone who voted to extend FISA, and remove the Democrats in the White House who have misused it.

When Teachers Fight Back

On Sunday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a former teacher at a  middle school in Ludlow, Massachusetts, who was fired for informing a female student’s father that the school was secretly referring to his daughter as a boy.

The article reports:

A teacher fired over her concern for a student’s welfare is not going down without a fight.

Bonnie Manchester, whom MassResistance reported is a Christian, was sacked from a middle school in Ludlow, Massachusetts, back in 2021 after informing a female student’s father that the school was secretly referring to his daughter as a boy.

Two years on, Manchester is filing a $10 million lawsuit against Ludlow, its school board, current and former school district superintendents, and several former school employees.

One of the defendants, the school’s former librarian, is a woman who identifies as a man. She allegedly pushed books on children containing sexually explicit content, “either in the form of illustrations, explicit descriptions of sexual activity, or both.”

“Some promoted a gay lifestyle, others trans,” the lawsuit states. “All advanced a view wherein gender confusion, sexual experimentation, promiscuity, or all three were considered normal.”

It used to be that teachers were concerned about the moral character of students. Now it seems that many teachers are undermining the moral values that most children are being taught at home.

The article concludes:

When Manchester decided to inform the girl’s father of his daughter’s secret “gender transition,” the school launched an investigation into her behavior on the grounds that she had shared “confidential information.”

She was placed on administrative leave for several months as the investigation was carried out before eventually being fired after a decades-long career at the school. Her conduct, she was told, was “unbecoming a teacher.”

The school claimed Manchester had violated “a purely fictitious School policy of confidentiality that simply did not exist,” the lawsuit states, accusing the defendants of engaging in “invidious and egregious viewpoint discrimination violative of the First Amendment.”

The suit was filed on Nov. 11 in a Massachusetts federal court.

MassResistance reported that the parents of the female student also filed a federal lawsuit against the school district in April 2022. That lawsuit was dismissed but is on appeal, according to the outlet.

This case is taking place in Massachusetts, so it is in no way a sure thing that the teacher will win the lawsuit, but hopefully she will start a pattern of teachers being willing to tell parents what is going on with their children.

What Was The Basis For The Warrant?

On Tuesday, Trending Politics posted the following headline:

DOJ Ordered Sweep of Trump’s Twitter Data for Everyone Who ‘Liked, Followed or Retweeted’ Trump

The article reports:

Attorneys for the Justice Department have revealed documents connected to their search warrant for Donald Trump’s Twitter account, indicating that prosecutors collected a massive collection of data about the former President’s social media activity—including information on every account that liked, followed, or retweeted him.

The extensively redacted search warrant was revealed as a result of a judge’s ruling on November 17, which came after a consortium of media organizations filed an application in August for the warrant and other data to be made public.

…Indeed, Special Counsel Jack Smith sought, and appears to have gotten, information on all users Trump followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked, as well as all users who followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked Trump.

Smith also requested that Twitter provide information on “all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by [Trump], as well as all tweets that include the username associated with the account (i.e., ‘mentions’ or ‘replies’).”

The DOJ’s request also wanted information on Trump’s geolocation, private messages, search history, and contact information. More outrageously, prosecutors allegedly wanted to know his pronouns, as reported by Headline USA in August, when court transcripts relating to the Twitter-DOJ battle became available.

The warrant’s release comes after Twitter objected to the search warrant as well as an accompanying gag order, claiming that the gag order violated the company’s First Amendment right to communicate with Trump and that Trump may have legal standing to use executive privilege to block the warrant.

The article concludes:

This is chilling: Not only did Jack Smith seek to violate Donald Trump’s reasonable expectation of privacy in search for a crime, he wanted to do it in secret.

Furthermore, Smith’s team sought to investigate everyone who interacted with Trump’s account on Twitter/X, as if they were implicated in a criminal racketeering enterprise.

The Justice Department has now devolved into a weapon for political partisans, rather than being an instrument of law enforcement.

Washington needs to be cleaned out and those who routinely violated the rights and Americans need to be sent to jail.

 

Injustice in Our Justice System

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

There is an old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are seeing glaring examples of this in our justice (maybe better our injustice system).    As any sensible person can see, President Trump is being singled out by the Democrat’s for persecution not prosecution. Their fear of him is palpable and they will do anything to stop him from running again. We must make sure they fail, or our constitutional republic will never recover. 

Some judges have become political pawns rather than fair arbiters of facts and truth.  The case in New York is a prime example. The judge issued a summary judgement  against President Trump before even hearing his defense. The judge is a lifelong Democrat as is the prosecutor Latisha James.  As in the other three cases against President Trump, this judge placed a “gag” order on President Trump that violates his first amendment right to free speech. The case in Atlanta about election interference also includes a gag order. There is no legal justification for preventing a defendant from commenting critically about the trial process or the motivation of the judge or prosecutor. The only legal justification for a gag order by a judge is based on 18USC1512 which is concerned with violence, threats and intimidation of witnesses. It says nothing about criticizing the judge, clerk or prosecutor. In today’s judicial system the outcome of a case often has more to do with the judge who tries the case than the facts presented. This is not blind justice. It is right out of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. 

Another troubling development, as shown by the fraudulent cases against the former president, is the prosecution or threat of prosecution of his attorneys and staff.  Prosecutors in the Atlanta case are using what is called RICO tactics that were designed to be used against organized crime. What they do is threaten the defendant’s attorney with felony prosecution if he or she does not reveal supposedly privileged conversation with their clients. The enormous cost of defending oneself is often sufficient to bankrupt the attorney. This actually amounts to blackmail. Who can trust the truthfulness of a person who is threatened with jail time, professional ruin and financial destruction if they do not go along with the prosecutors and turn states evidence against their client who came to them, expecting  attorney/client privacy? This is not the justice that our Founding Fathers expected would occur in our country. 

So what do we do about this trend?  First, as stated above we must support the re-election of President Trump to show the leftist Democrats that these tactics will not work in this country. Second, we must get our state legislators to pass legislation that makes the communication between attorney and client  absolutely privileged and cannot be used by any prosecutor in a trial or lawsuit. It should be similar to the spousal rule that a wife cannot be forced or coerced into testifying against her husband and vice versa. In fact, an attorney should not be allowed to testify willingly against a client based on privileged communications. Third, there should be an independent  process that can review the actions of a judge to ensure that political motivations are not influencing the judge’s actions and decisions.   

Without these or similar actions to protect the integrity of the justice system, the citizen’s confidence that we can receive justice before the law will continue to be undermined. 

A Temporary Victory For Free Speech

On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the gag order placed on President Trump regarding the federal 2020 election case has been paused.

The article reports:

A gag order against former President Donald Trump related to his federal 2020 election case has been paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals after Trump filed an emergency request on Thursday saying the order violated his First Amendment rights. 

The court issued an administrative stay, saying that the decision was made to give the judges more time to hear Trump’s arguments. The court said that the ruling “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, had imposed the gag order on Trump Sunday night after Trump criticized former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Chutkan is overseeing special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election case against Trump, who has denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

Imposing a gag order on a leading candidate for public office sets a scary precedent, and I hope it gets entirely removed. There really should be no question as to whether this gag order is unconstitutional, but our legal system has been turned on its head in order to ‘get Trump.’

A Subtle Difference That Matters

On July 6th, The Epoch Times reported that the Supreme Court ruled that Aaron and Melissa Klein, who operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery specializing in custom-designed cakes, did not have to make cakes to celebrate same-sex weddings. The Kleins said that being forced to make a cake for same-sex weddings violated their religious beliefs. There is something important that needs to be noted here. The Kleins did not say that they wouldn’t bake a cake for a homosexual couple–they simply said that they would not bake a wedding cake. Is a business allowed to determined what type of service it will provide? If a printing company is asked to print an image they consider pornographic or sexually inappropriate, are they required to print it? This is a civil rights case, but it is also a case about whether or not a business owner has the right to choose what services he will provide–not to whom he will provide services, but what services he will provide. I think that is an important distinction.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30 in favor of Christian bakers who said Oregon’s law requiring them to make cakes to celebrate same-sex weddings infringed on their constitutional rights.

The decision came hours after the nation’s highest court issued a landmark 6–3 ruling in favor of Christian website designer Lorie Smith of 303 Creative, who said a Colorado law that punished her for refusing to create websites for same-sex weddings violated her First Amendment rights.

“The First Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to speak freely and live according to their sincere religious beliefs,” said the bakers’ attorney, Trent McCotter of Boyden Gray and Associates in Washington.

“As the Supreme Court has recognized, carefully guarding these rights is all the more important when the beliefs expressed are controversial,” he said in a statement.

Left-wing activists have been targeting bakers for years for political purposes, asking Christian confectioners opposed to same-sex marriage to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage celebrations.

When the bakers refuse to make the cakes, these activists sue under anti-discrimination laws in hopes of securing favorable legal precedents.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It explains how some organizations are trying to use the courts to limit the religious freedom of Christians. Note that Muslim bakeries don’t seem to be targeted.

 

 

Going To Jail For A Sense Of Humor

Yesterday Fox News reported that Douglass Mackey, 33, of West Palm Beach, Florida, known as “Ricky Vaughn” on Twitter has been convicted of conspiring to deprive individuals of their right to vote in the 2016 presidential election. If he had actually done that, I guess the conviction would be valid, but that is not what was going on.

The article reports:

Mackey, who was arrested in January 2021, could face up to 10 years in prison. His sentencing is set for Aug. 16.

His lawyer, Andrew Frisch, said in an email that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will have multiple reasons to choose from to vacate the conviction.

“We are optimistic about our chances on appeal,” Frisch said.

U.S. Attorney Breon Peace said in a release that the jury rejected Mackey’s cynical attempt to use the First Amendment free speech protections to shield himself from criminal liability for a voter suppression scheme.

It wasn’t a voter suppression scheme–it was a joke!

The article notes:

The government alleged that from September 2016 to November 2016, Mackey conspired with several other internet influencers to spread fraudulent messages to Clinton supporters.

Prosecutors told jurors during the trial that Mackey urged supporters of then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to “vote” via text message or social media, knowing that those endorsements were not legally valid votes.

…Using social media pitches, one image encouraging phony votes utilized a font similar to one used by the Clinton campaign in authentic ads, prosecutors said. Others tried to mimic Clinton’s ads in other ways, they added.

By Election Day in 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “Hillary” or something similar to a text number that was spread by multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by Mackey and co-conspirators, prosecutors said.

This says more about the voters than it does anything else. Common sense should tell a voter that this is not real. It is frightening to me that so many voters are so clueless about how to vote and would believe what he posted.

 

Protecting The Right To Free Speech

Lawsuits seem to be the only way to protect Americans’ right to free speech–assuming you have a judge who has read the Constitution. An article posted at Townhall on Saturday provides one example of this tactic.

The article reports:

The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is about to get a lesson in constitutional rights, which could cost them. A mainstay of DC tourist season decided to kick some high school students out. No, they weren’t committing any acts of vandalism or other activities associated with hooliganism. It was an article of clothing that triggered the museum’s staff, reportedly eliciting mockery until they were finally asked to leave the premises. Staff claimed the location was a “neutral zone.” Their offense: they wore pro-life beanies inside the facility.

We live in a sad time when it is considered unacceptable to want to save babies. The suit is being handled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The article quotes a Fox News story describing the incident:

The group belonged to Our Lady of the Rosary School based out of Greenville, South Carolina, and had traveled to Washington, D.C., for the annual national March for Life. The students were all wearing matching blue beanies with the words “Rosary PRO-LIFE.” 

[…] 

The lawsuit details an encounter between the personnel and students, some of whom are minors. As they were making their way toward an exhibit, two employees allegedly said, “The f—king pro-life. What a bunch of s—t.” 

A Smithsonian security guard then approached the group, according to the lawsuit, insisting that they take their hats off or leave. 

“One of the security guards approached them, gleefully rubbing his hands together, stating they had made his day,” the ACLJ wrote in an online statement. 

When the group asked why other visitors in the museum were able to wear their hats and pride masks without issue, they were told that their hats were “political statements,” and that they were “not promoting equality,” according to the suit.

What is happening to free speech?

Why Many Americans Don’t Trust Politicians

On Monday, Breitbart posted the following headline:

SOURCES: McConnell Caves to Pelosi, Schumer, Allows JCPA Media Cartel Bailout Bill to Be Included in Defense Package

The laweconcenter points out some of the legal issues with the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. Please read the entire article for the details, but here is a summary of the problems:

1. JCPA MAY VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT

2. NEWS CARTELS HARM CONSUMERS

3. THE BILL CONFLICTS WITH COPYRIGHT LAW

4. THE JCPA SUPPRESSES COMPETITION

I can understand why the mainstream media would want to suppress competition–they are losing viewers and listeners at an alarming rate. I doubt the NPR would be on the air without government subsidies (another questionable spending priority by Congress).

Breitbart reports:

Over objections from House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, the likely next speaker of the House come January 3 of next year, other congressional leaders acquiesced to lobbyist pressure and agreed to include the JCPA in the base text of the NDAA. McCarthy was the only member of congressional leadership to fight back against the inclusion, but was overruled three to one after McConnell caved.

We obviously need new Republican leadership in the Senate.

In an article posted November 30th, Breitbart notes:

Even with the hastily-added Senate amendment aimed at addressing conservative concerns regarding collusion between the media industry and Big Tech on the censorship of competitors, the bill still contains plenty of ways for the cartel to sideline conservative media.

Provisions to ensure the cartel cannot discriminate on the basis of “viewpoint” are particularly unconvincing. The pretexts used by social media companies, “fact checkers,” and other arms of the corporate censorship apparatus are almost always viewpoint-neutral. No one is censored for being a conservative, say the censors: they are censored for “misinformation,” “hate speech,” “conspiracy theories,” and other purportedly viewpoint-neutral reasons.

Congress has no business meddling in the exercise of free speech or adding that meddling to a defense bill.

 

Politicizing Law Enforcement

I suppose politicizing law enforcement is nothing new. There are some cities in American where who you know is more important than what you did. However, some of our federal law enforcement agencies are acting on the advice of Lavrentiv Beria, the longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s term of office, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

On Thursday, Just the News reported:

Governments worldwide are voicing threats against Twitter’s new owner if he doesn’t censor narratives they dislike, as financially struggling Facebook gets even cozier with global authorities.

President Biden, who has been trashing Twitter since Elon Musk’s takeover and warning about the dangers of unfettered communication, even floated a national security review into Musk’s purchase.

The ire of the unpopular incumbent, whose approval ratings lagged far behind exit polls for Democratic Senate candidates in the midterms, may have been stoked by Twitter’s Birdwatch program adding a reader note about inflation to a since-deleted White House claim that President Biden is responsible for “the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years.”

Twitter also “froze” content moderation and policy enforcement tools for several Trust and Safety team employees ahead of the midterm elections, letting them penalize only “the most high-impact violations that would involve real-world harm,” Bloomberg reported Nov. 1.

I don’t mean to be difficult, but unfettered communication is called The
First Amendment.

The article reports:

One might believe Musk is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t with Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, based on members’ comments to the German business newspaper Handelsblatt.

Party leader Lars Klingbeil called on authorities to “take consistent action” to stop Twitter’s attack on “diversity of opinion,” while MP Jens Zimmermann called on the Federal Office of Justice to hold Musk himself financially responsible if Twitter can’t meet German moderation requirements due to staff cuts.

Stay tuned. There are those in America who appreciate free speech.

Why I Am Grateful For America’s First Amendment

On Sunday, Breitbart reported that Greek footballer Vassilis Tsiartas has been given a 10-month suspended prison sentence over comments critical of child sex changes.

The article reports:

Tsiartas, who played a key role in the Greek national team’s shock victory in the UEFA European Football Championship in 2004 and finished his career without receiving a single red card, was prosecuted under a supposed anti-racism law which, somewhat perversely, includes provisions against public incitement to violence or hatred on the basis of gender identity.

Evidently America is not the only country the transgender activists have been targeting.

The article continues:

In Tsiartas’s case, brought to the courts by the Transgender Support Association (SYD), the supposed incitement took the form of a Facebook post from 2017, in which the athlete remarked that he “hope[d] the first sex changes are carried out on the children of those who ratified this abomination” in reference to new legislation on gender identity, Greek media reports.

…Tsiartas, for his part, has vowed to appeal the decision.

In August, Breitbart reported:

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) new guidance lowers the recommended age for cross-sex hormones from 16 to 14 years, according to a guidance draft obtained by The Post Millennial this week. The age for double mastectomies, the removal of breasts, has been lowered to 15. Sixteen-year-old boys may seek breast augmentations, facial surgeries and tracheal shaves to reduce the appearance of an Adam’s apple.

Does anyone actually believe that a 15-year old has the emotional and mental maturity to make such a life-changing decision? Being a teenager is difficult enough without the current peer pressure from social media affirming the idea of being transgender.

In December 2017, PsyPost reported the following:

The National Post recently covered the CBC’s cancellation of a BBC documentary about transgender children (Why CBC cancelled a BBC documentary that activists claimed was ‘transphobic’).  In that coverage, the Post shared claims made by some activists criticizing some scientific studies, but did not apparently fact-check those claims, so I thought I would outline the studies here.  For reference, in a previous post, I listed the results of every study that ever followed up transgender kids to see how they felt in adulthood (Do trans- kids stay trans- when they grow up?).  There are 12 such studies in all, and they all came to the very same conclusion: The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.

So what happens to the children who have had permanent life-altering surgery as teenagers when they want to detransition? I really think we need to rethink this entire transgender thing. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. We need to treat the mental illness rather than do surgery that confirms it.

 

 

 

This Will Be Very Interesting

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted the following headline:

BREAKING: Dr. Fauci Will Be Deposed on November 23rd in Missouri-Louisiana Social Media Collusion Case with Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft as Plaintiff

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit has been one of the reliable sources for information about the Covid pandemic and the effective treatments that the mainstream and social media tried to suppress. The effective treatments that were suppressed oddly enough were the ones where the drugs involved were relatively cheap and the profits of the pharmaceutical companies were not as much as with some of the newer drugs that were less effective.

The article reports:

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in May that Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, filed a lawsuit (Missouri v. Biden) against the Biden Administration, including Biden himself, Anthony Fauci, the Department of Homeland Security and nearly a dozen federal agencies and Secretaries.

The suit alleges a massive coordinated effort by the Deep State (permanent administrative state) to work with Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans – from average citizens to news outlets – on issues including the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, 2020 Election Integrity, COVID-19 origin and extent skepticism, COVID-19 vaccine skepticism, among other issues.

…In June, The Gateway Pundit began assisting Missouri AG Schmitt’s team and providing critical evidence of Facebook and Twitter censorship of the Gateway Pundit on all of these issues.

The article details the development of the case:

As we reported, the turning point came in September when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a Joe Rogan interview that Facebook algorithmically censored the Hunter Biden Laptop for 7 days following a request from the FBI to censor election “misinformation.”  

…Zuckerberg’s admission came after the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit forced Facebook to turn over documents – he was going to end up admitting it anyway.

It constituted a turning point in the battle for the preservation of the First Amendment and Free Speech in America.  His admission proved that the US Government and Big Tech coordinated to censor speech.

Previously, the government’s lawyers kept trying to portray all of this as a conspiracy theory.

NOPE. NOW, IT’S A CONSPIRACY FACT.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office caught the Biden Administration red-handed. 

If the current Congress will not hold Dr. Fauci or the media accountable, then individual states need to take action.

 

The Long Reach Of The Government Just Got Longer

The Patriot Daily wire is reporting the following today:

The federal government is issuing warrants from compliant Google to turn over anyone typing in certain search terms.

But they assure the American public that they can be trusted. Just like the federal government assured Americans they would not abuse the secret FISA courts to spy on innocent Americans!

We now know that crooked feds were spying on Donald Trump, his family, his campaign and his presidency using the secret courts to obtain warrants.

Frankly, I use Duck Duck Go as a search engine. I am not sure if they have been hit by warrants yet.

The article includes the following excerpt from a Yahoo News article:

The U.S. government is reportedly secretly issuing warrants for Google to provide user data on anyone typing in certain search terms, raising fears that innocent online users could get caught up in serious crime investigations at a greater frequency than previously thought.

In an attempt to track down criminals, federal investigators have started using new “keyword warrants” and used them to ask Google to provide them information on anyone who searched a victim’s name or their address during a particular year, an accidentally unsealed court document that Forbes found shows.

Google has to respond to thousands of warrant orders each year, but the keyword warrants are a relatively new strategy used by the government and are controversial.

“Trawling through Google’s search history database enables police to identify people merely based on what they might have been thinking about, for whatever reason, at some point in the past,” Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, told Forbes.

“This never-before-possible technique threatens First Amendment interests and will inevitably sweep up innocent people, especially if the keyword terms are not unique and the time frame not precise. To make matters worse, police are currently doing this in secret, which insulates the practice from public debate and regulation,” she added.

The government said that the scope of the warrants is limited to avoid implicating innocent people who happen to search for certain terms, but it’s not publicly disclosed how many users’ data are sent to the government and what the extent of the warrant requests are.

This may be what eventually will change the focus of the American Civil Liberties Union to protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans, which is what they should actually be doing.

In Case You Had Any Doubts

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a recent op-ed posted at the Lawfare blog by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (Ret.). You should remember him from the first impeachment of President Trump. When you read his ideas, remember that this man swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Well, evidently he never read it or he forgot the First Amendment.

The article reports:

During the impeachment inquiry, Vindman made much of the fact that he and his family had fled the Soviet Union, and that he had “a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom.”

Now, lamenting that he had not responded by suing President Trump over tweets about him, and noting that the First Amendment “gravely” limits what government can do to stop “lies” by the media, Vindman argues that “right-wing media” (alone) should be held accountable through a lawsuit strategy:

The article includes some excerpts from his op-ed:

Recent events have made the need for accountability more pressing than ever. Should anyone be surprised that viewers of right-wing media are radicalized when media personalities themselves promote radical ideas based on lies?

But while the rioters are being held accountable through the criminal justice system—and Congress at least had a chance to hold the former president accountable through the impeachment process—how can Americans hold the right-wing media responsible for its role in the attack? The mob that attacked the Capitol was born of hatred fomented by the right-wing media. These insurrectionists were raised for years on a steady diet of disinformation and half-truths, which produced the fertile fields for radicalization.

The First Amendment gravely limits the available tools to seek accountability for the right-wing media. Policymakers cannot, after all, tell media organizations what to say. Except in the most extreme situations, which are unlikely ever to arise, prosecutors also cannot accuse them of incitement.

Civil consequences, rather than governmental restrictions on First Amendment rights, could be a meaningful way to take what are fundamentally money-making ventures and demand truth from them, instill rigor in their reporting, and uphold accountability. Like a tabloid being sued and paying severe penalties, media companies and right-wing media personalities will claim that what’s at stake is freedom of speech. But defamation is not covered by the First Amendment, so this is, by definition, not true. And the generous standards in defamation law for purposes of protecting the press offer a true safe haven for good-faith actors even when they err. Putting companies in fear of the real costs in civil damages for slander, libel, and false claims that can cumulatively incite violence and that can individually harm actual human beings should have a restraining effect on their behavior.

In case you have forgotten, no one has linked anything in the conservative media to any violence. The right wing media has not been proven to have told any lies while the left-wing media has recently been forced to retract many of its statements. Who can forget the picture of the left-wing anchor standing in front of a city burning and claiming that the protest involved was ‘mostly peaceful?’ The Washington Post recently had to retract an article that was stated as fact in President Trump’s second impeachment trial. Much of what the left-wing media has decried as ‘fake news’ regarding the 2020 election has been subsequently proven to be true.

 

Titles Can Be Very Misleading

H.R. 1 was introduced into the House of Representatives on January 4, 2021. The bill is titled, “For the People Act of 2021.” The bill is anything but for the people.

Heritage Action took the time to dissect the bill and see exactly what its impact would be. Here are some of the highlights:

At 600+ pages long, H.R. 1 contains many provisions that are unhelpful, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Below are just a few of the terrible policies contained within H.R. 1:

Sabotages state voter ID laws—When arriving at the polls, voters will not be required to show ID and can simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say they are. This undermines many states’ voter ID laws, which were enacted to combat impersonation fraud, voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals, such as illegal aliens.

Mandates same-day registration—States will be required to immediately register a person to vote upon request, even on the day of an election. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

Automatically registers ineligible voters—States will be required to automatically add to voter registration rolls every person, regardless of voter eligibility, who partakes in certain government programs, such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. Other provisions of H.R. 1 then restrict the ability of states to verify eligible voters and the removal of ineligible voters from voter registration rolls. This provision will automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens.

Unconstitutionally requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote—Upon release from prison, every felon would immediately be restored the ability to vote. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict voting rights to those who have participated in “rebellion, or other crime.” States have the constitutional authority to decide when or if to restore that right, as long as they do so in a manner that is not racially discriminatory. H.R. 1 would attempt to unconstitutionally overrule the 14th Amendment with a statute.

Violates the First Amendment—H.R.1 deters political free speech by inserting a provision that makes it a criminal offense to provide “materially false” information that will “impede or prevent” someone from registering or voting. This provision is so vague that it would likely interfere with free speech and other legitimate activities.

Requires ballots be counted outside of the voter’s precinct—This removes the integrity of the local government to verify voter rolls and oversee elections and gives the power to count votes entirely to the federal government.

Creates unaccountable redistricting committees—Currently, congressional district lines are drawn by state governments that are accountable to their constituents. Allowing unelected officials to determine congressional districts is a nakedly political ploy to draw more Democratic districts.

Alters Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization—Currently, the FEC has six members (three from each party), preserving its bipartisan nature. H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one party a majority and the opportunity to weaponize the FEC for their party’s benefit.

We are at a point in our constitutional republic where one political party is attempting to gain full control in both the present and future. This is not healthy for the republic. This bill needs to be stopped. Please share the above information.

 

Senator Blumenthal Needs To Read The First Amendment

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about some recent comments by Senator Blumenthal.

The article reports:

On Tuesday Senator Dick Blumenthal questioned Mark Zuckerberg on why Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit and Steve Bannon still have accounts on his platform.

Obviously, Blumenthal and today’s Democrats show NO REGARD for the US Constitution.

Conservative publishers have been censored and put out of business by Facebook since the 2016 election.

But this is NOT ENOUGH for these fascists.

The article includes a video clip of Senator Blumenthal calling for the removal of Breitbart, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and The Gateway Pundit from Facebook. There are also other videos requesting that other people be removed from Facebook.

Senator Blumenthal swore in an Oath of Office to support the Constitution.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Asking Facebook to kick people off their platform does not encourage free speech. A law prohibiting free speech will not be far behind if the Democrats manage to take control of the government.

 

Violating The First Amendment

On Monday The Christian Post posted an article about a recent lawsuit in California. As you know, the coronavirus has allowed the governors of some states to exercise power that exceeds their constitutional authority. Governor Gavin Newsom did this when he closed down churches in his state. Grace Community Church, led by Pastor John MacArthur made a decision to hold indoor worship services amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The County of Los Angeles has taken an action that appears to be in retaliation for that decision.

The article reports:

Los Angeles County has notified Grace Community Church, led by Pastor John MacArthur, that it will soon be evicted from a parcel of land it uses as a parking lot — a move lawyers say is retaliation for the church’s decision to hold indoor worship services amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a letter dated Aug. 28, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works informed the Sun Valley-based church that on Oct. 1, it is being evicted from a large portion of the parking lot of the church that has been in place continuously since 1975.

The county warns that if Grace Community Church fails to vacate the premise as required, “the District may enter the premises and remove Grace’s personal property in accordance with the Agreement and applicable law, and Grace will be responsible for any resultant expenses incurred by the District.”

Jenna Ellis, special counsel to Thomas More Society, said the move is clearly in retaliation for the church’s decision to fight Los Angeles County’s ban on indoor church worship services.

“Los Angeles County is retaliating against Grace Community Church for simply exercising their constitutionally protected right to hold church and challenging an unreasonable, unlawful health order,” Ellis said.

“In America, we have a judicial system to ensure that the executive branch does not abuse its power, and Grace Community Church has every right to be heard without fear of reprisal. The Democrats’ message to Americans is clear—if you don’t bow to every whim of tyranny, the government will come after you. The Church has peacefully held this lease for 45 years and the only reason the County is attempting eviction is because John MacArthur stood up to their unconstitutional power grab. This is harassment, abusive, and unconscionable.”

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Governor Newsom has shown a total disrespect for that concept. The County probably does have the right to terminate the lease, but the decision to do that is petty and harmful to the community. Elections matter, and voters need to consider the actions of all the people involved in this when they vote.

We Can, You Can’t

Spectator USA posted an article yesterday about the resumption of Trump rallies in the coming weeks. The article illustrates the double standard being applied to large gatherings of people.

The article reports:

Are you ready for the second blame wave? As the country braces itself for an inevitable repeat surge in COVID-19 infections, we’re told red-state governors ‘opened too soon’. The next outbreak, we can be sure, will be something to do with the fact the President decided to resume his political rallies, approximately two weeks from now.

What nobody says is that individual or social behavior is the cause. It can’t possibly be the thousands of people closely together marching down city streets yelling and chanting, some with masks, some not. The guidelines fell completely by the wayside for the Democrats and much of network cable news.

In the middle of May, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser extended her lockdown order through to the June 8. Two days prior to her own lockdown order was to be reviewed, on June 6, she encouraged mass gatherings of protests, in a tweet saying ‘Let’s all meet here soon #BlackLivesMatter’, with a photo showing off her big block yellow letters painted down a DC street. In a press release about a possible spike in coronavirus cases in her city, after two weeks of protests she encouraged herself, Bowser announced that ‘DC Health has confirmed that a new peak was detected in the data, resetting the Districts Phase One count to nine days of sustained decrease.’

Florida congressswoman Val Demings, who features on the shortlist to be Joe Biden’s VP nominee, tweeted on June 8 that she had joined a ‘Healing and Hope Rally last night to speak with our community as America grieves.’ Two days later she scolded the President: planning to hold ‘mass rallies in Florida and elsewhere as we experience a resurgence in COVID cases is irresponsible and selfish’.

Wow! One set of rules for me, and one set of rules for thee.

The article concludes:

Either the funniest or most egregious behavior came from the Grim Reaper himself. Remember Daniel Uhlfelder? He is the Florida attorney who donned a Grim Reaper costume and harassed Florida beach goers with body bags, he secured through funds raised from Act Blue. Daniel was so serious about the deadly virus spreading through a state run by a Republican governor that he turned his novelty act into a traveling show. But those plans were apparently put on hold as he himself joined in and encouraged protests, as he tweeted on June 7, ‘We are here in the Florida panhandle in Deep South where hundreds have turned out for peaceful protest. No peace. No justice.’ Also, no virus, it seems.

These people want you to believe that this pandemic is caused by some magical woke virus, one which somehow skips those who have the right politics. What it actually does is raise the suspicion that Democrats and progressives have wanted to keep the economy shut down and people at home as long as possible to affect the outcome of the November election. Your job and your family or your church (also protected by the First Amendment) are not important. Our joining in large crowds to protest is.

There is almost assuredly going to be a spike in COVID cases and it will also almost assuredly be put on red-state governors and the President holding rallies. But Democratic activists and politicians themselves created this situation. They encouraged the world to disregard lockdown and people will now follow their lead, no matter how much they are scolded by the media. These people think we’re all stupid. We’re not.

What if there isn’t a significant uptick in coronavirus cases as a result of the protests? Would that mean that the past two months of lockdown was unnecessary? What kind of credibility would the CDC have if we simply see the normal increase due to reopening the economy? It’s going to be an interesting couple of weeks.

This Needs To Be Dealt With Quickly And Forcefully

The Gateway Pundit today posted the list of demands made by the Antifa group that has taken over a six-square-block section of Seattle. Before I get to the list, let that sink in a minute–an anarchist domestic terrorist group has taken over a portion of an American city. Can you image the experience of the people living within that area?

The article lists the demands:

Given the historical moment, we’ll begin with our demands pertaining to the Justice System.

    1. The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle.
    2. In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons, especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest.
    3. We demand an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the abolition of youth jails. Get kids out of prison, get cops out of schools. We also demand that the new youth prison being built in Seattle currently be repurposed.
    4. We demand that not the City government, nor the State government, but that the Federal government launch a full-scale investigation into past and current cases of police brutality in Seattle and Washington, as well as the re-opening of all closed cases reported to the Office of Police Accountability. In particular, we demand that cases particular to Seattle and Washington be reopened where no justice has been served, namely the cases of Iosia Faletogo, Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, Tommy Le, Shaun Fuhr, and Charleena Lyles.
    5. We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined.
    6. We demand that the City of Seattle make the names of officers involved in police brutality a matter of public record. Anonymity should not even be a privilege in public service.
    7. We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community.
    8. We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department. This includes the immediate release of all protestors currently being held in prison after the arrests made at 11th and Pine on Sunday night and early Saturday morning June 7th and 8th, and any other protesters arrested in the past two weeks of the uprising, the name Evan Hreha in particular comes to mind who filmed Seattle police macing a young girl and is now in jail.
    9. We demand that the City of Seattle and the State Government release any prisoner currently serving time for a marijuana-related offense and expunge the related conviction.
    10. We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunged.
    11. We demand that prisoners currently serving time be given the full and unrestricted right to vote, and for Washington State to pass legislation specifically breaking from Federal law that prevents felons from being able to vote.
    12. We demand an end to prosecutorial immunity for police officers in the time between now and the dissolution of the SPD and extant justice system.
    13. We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons.
    14. We demand in replacement of the current criminal justice system the creation of restorative/transformative accountability programs as a replacement for imprisonment.
    15. We demand autonomy be given to the people to create localized anti-crime systems.
    16. We demand that the Seattle Police Department, between now and the time of its abolition in the near future, empty its “lost and found” and return property owned by denizens of the city.
    17. We demand justice for those who have been sexually harassed or abused by the Seattle Police Department or prison guards in the state of Washington.
    18. We demand that between now and the abolition of the SPD that each and every SPD officer turn on their body cameras, and that the body camera video of all Seattle police should be a matter of easily accessible public record.
    19. We demand that the funding previously used for Seattle Police be redirected into: A) Socialized Health and Medicine for the City of Seattle. B) Free public housing, because housing is a right, not a privilege. C) Public education, to decrease the average class size in city schools and increase teacher salary. D) Naturalization services for immigrants to the United States living here undocumented. (We demand they be called “undocumented” because no person is illegal.) E) General community development. Parks, etc.

We also have economic demands that must be addressed.

    1. We demand the de-gentrification of Seattle, starting with rent control.
    2. We demand the restoration of city funding for arts and culture to re-establish the once-rich local cultural identity of Seattle.
    3. We demand free college for the people of the state of Washington, due to the overwhelming effect that education has on economic success, and the correlated overwhelming impact of poverty on people of color, as a form of reparations for the treatment of Black people in this state and country.
    4. We demand that between now and the abolition of the SPD that Seattle Police be prohibited from performing “homeless sweeps” that displace and disturb our homeless neighbors, and on equal footing we demand an end to all evictions.
    5. We demand a decentralized election process to give the citizens of Seattle a greater ability to select candidates for public office such that we are not forced to choose at the poll between equally undesirable options. There are multiple systems and policies in place which make it impractical at best for working-class people to run for public office, all of which must go, starting with any fees associated with applying to run for public office.

Related to economic demands, we also have demands pertaining to what we would formally call “Health and Human Services.”

    1. We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.
    2. We demand the people of Seattle seek out and proudly support Black-owned businesses. Your money is our power and sustainability.
    3. We demand that the city create an entirely separate system staffed by mental health experts to respond to 911 calls pertaining to mental health crises, and insist that all involved in such a program be put through thorough, rigorous training in conflict de-escalation.

Finally, let us now address our demands regarding the education system in the City of Seattle and State of Washington.

    1. We demand that the history of Black and Native Americans be given a significantly greater focus in the Washington State education curriculum.
    2. We demand that thorough anti-bias training become a legal requirement for all jobs in the education system, as well as in the medical profession and in mass media.
    3. We demand the City of Seattle and State of Washington remove any and all monuments dedicated to historical figures of the Confederacy, whose treasonous attempts to build an America with slavery as a permanent fixture were an affront to the human race.

Transcribed by @irie_kenya and @AustinCHowe. Special thanks to Magik for starting and facilitating the discussion to create this list, to Omari Salisbury for the idea to break the list into categories, and as well a thanks to Kshama Sawant for being the only Seattle official to discuss with the people on Free Capitol Hill the night that it was liberated.

Bringing in the National Guard would not look good, but I believe it needs to be done. This is the equivalent of a foreign entity taking over a portion of an American city. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The Right To Work

The American Spectator posted an article today about a recent decision by the West Virginia Supreme  Court.

The article reports:

This spring, the West Virginia high court upheld the state’s right-to-work law. That part of the ruling was no surprise, as courts for over 70 years have said right-to-work laws are constitutional.

Perhaps the more significant part of the ruling, which garnered less attention, is that the court essentially said the entire country should be right-to-work.

Right-to-work simply means that a union cannot get a worker fired for not paying the union. A right-to-work law gives workers the freedom to support a union if they are doing a good job, and refrain from supporting a union if they wish.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Janus v. AFSCME  that everything government unions do is political and that public employees have a First Amendment right to decide to support their union or not. The Janus case brought right-to-work to public employees across the country.

The article concludes:

Even West Virginia Justice Margaret Workman, who was critical of right-to-work, agreed in part and disagreed in part with the decision, writing, “I also believe that although Janus was a decision involving only public employees’ unions, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows; there is no principled basis on which to conclude that under the legal analysis upon which Janus is based, a prohibition on the collection of agency fees is constitutional for public employees’ unions but unconstitutional for private employees’ unions.”

Currently, 23 states can force private sector employees to pay unions. Similarly, airline and railroad employees, who are governed by a separate federal law, are also forced to support unions whether they want to or not.

If the U.S. Supreme Court does eventually decide the question with the same reasoning as the West Virginia Supreme Court, then all employees, public and private, will have the right to choose whether or not the union at their workplace is doing a good job and if they want to support it.

After all, freedom is blowing in the wind.

If a union is necessary in a company, the employees will support it. If it is not, the employees will not support it. That is called freedom.