History Facts vs. Censorship of Thanksgiving History

History Facts vs. Censorship of Thanksgiving History

Why the Pilgrims matter

Jordan Chamblee

Painting above, The First Thanksgiving by Jennie Augusta Brownscomb, 1914

Painting above, The First Thanksgiving by Jennie Augusta Brownscomb, 1914

November 2016 – Turkey and dressing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pecan pie, and all the trimmings. It’s almost here – the national holiday America takes pride in, and one that is intricately woven into the very fabric of American identity. But in recent generations, it seems the substance of the holiday has been watered down or replaced altogether in order to appease perceived social sensitivities.

In general, public school students are taught an entirely different Thanksgiving narrative than the one their grandparents grew up understanding. In today’s progressive version, the Pilgrims are no longer staunchly faithful pillars of Christian ideals, nor are the Wampanoag natives helpful and willing friends of the Pilgrims in times of trouble.

Stephen McDowell, president of Providence Foundation and prolific author, speaks to this decline in honesty and watering down of the true story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving.

censhorship-1st-amendmentAFAJ: What is the greatest threat today to the truth about the Pilgrims and their history?
McDowell: While some books and educators directly lie about the Pilgrims and their primary Christian motive for starting a new colony in America, the greatest threat to the truth about their story is what is left out when their story is told.

Revisionist history gives a false picture of these devoted Christians. For example, one elementary public school textbook gives 30 pages to present the story of the Pilgrims without once [making] any reference to religion; thus at the end of [the Pilgrims’] first year, they “wanted to give thanks for all they had.” But there is no mention it was God they were thanking.

Teaching about the Pilgrims without referencing God causes people to think that Christianity was not important to them. Revisionist history is a primary reason for the secularization of America. People are taught our history without mentioning Christianity, or if it is cited, it is often presented in a negative light, when in reality it is the most important influence in the birth, growth, and development of the nation.

AFAJ: Why do some contemporary educators revise U.S. history, particularly the story of Thanksgiving?
McDowell: Most teachers in our schools today are ignorant of the true story of Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims. They never learned it in school and few search out primary source documents so as to get to know the Pilgrims via their own writings.

William Bradford

William Bradford

William Bradford, governor of the Pilgrims for 33 years, wrote their history – Of Plimoth Plantation – which is one of the great historical and literary works of all American history, but few teachers have even heard of it, much less read it. You only need to read a few pages to see the sincere and deep faith of these men and women who served as “stepping stones” for those who would follow.

Some educators who know the history yet ignore it, evaluate the Pilgrims through their own secular bias – that is, the Pilgrims may have had a deep faith, but God is a construction of the human mind and consequently is not relevant, so they do not need to mention God when recounting their story. Or they have such a dislike for God that they do not want to give Him any place in history.

AFAJ: Why is it important that we remember and pass on the truth about the Pilgrims?
McDowell: The Pilgrims’ story teaches us many lessons. We learn of the great sacrifice they paid to exercise their freedom of religion and to plant the early seeds of our nation. Half of them died the first winter after arriving at Plymouth, and most of the others suffered from sickness and hunger. At one time, only six or seven could get out of bed, but they toiled night and day to assist their brethren.

In the words of Bradford they “fetched them wood, made them fires, dressed their meat, made their beds, washed their loathsome clothes, clothed and unclothed them. In a word, they did all the homely and necessary offices for them which queasy stomachs cannot endure to hear named – and this willingly and cheerfully, without any grudging in the least.” Their care for one another reveals their Christian character and practical love, “a rare example and worthy to be remembered.”

Their motive to spread the gospel is evident from Bradford’s words (which are inscribed on his monument in Plymouth): “A great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world.”

Mayflower-compact-hero2-AThe Mayflower Compact, a document the Pilgrims drafted and signed before going ashore, shows their ability to reason biblically regarding civil affairs: “Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith … [we] do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic.”

Learning the unique covenant nature of our founding political documents is an important lesson in understanding why America was founded as the freest nation in history.

AFAJ: What is the most important aspect of the Thanksgiving story that parents can teach their children?
pilgrimprayingresizeMcDowell: The most important thing parents can teach their children about the Thanksgiving story is the most obvious: We call it Thanksgiving for a reason. Our Pilgrim forefathers, who are reflective of most of the founders of America, were firmly devoted to Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ. In recognition of His gracious hand upon them, they set aside regular public days to give thanks and glorify Him.

This was not done merely once or twice but regularly throughout their entire lifetime. They set an example that was followed by those who came after them, even up until today. Throughout most of our history, Americans understood thanksgiving days were to thank God. The Pilgrims’ love and devotion to God, and their reliance upon Him in abundance and lack, are evidenced not only by their private lives but also by their public days of thanksgiving.

McDowell recommends:
Of Plimoth Plantation by William Bradford
Available at online and retail booksellers
Monumental, Restoring America as the Land of Liberty by Stephen McDowell
Available at providencefoundation.com
America’s Providential History by Stephen McDowell
Monumental, documentary DVD hosted by Kirk Cameron
Available at afastore.net or 877–927–4917

Advertisements

Scientific Facts: Truth about Climate Change, Climate Change Hoax

Scientific Facts:

Truth about Climate Change, Climate Change Hoax

Lunacy from the Climate Stack

Rush Limbaugh

In science there is no consensus because scientific reality is not up for a vote.

Not Scientific Fact

Now to the Climate Change Stack. I’ve been alluding to this, and here’s the value of this. You know, when you boil it down, folks, what is climate change? Climate change is a political issue. It is not scientific fact. It is not settled science. It requires them to say they have a “consensus of scientists” that agree that X = Y = Z.

But in science there is no consensus because scientific reality is not up for a vote.

  • Water is H2O. It’s not something else.
  • The earth is round, it’s not flat, and if somebody thinks it’s flat and you put it up for a vote, it doesn’t mean that the earth is round because there’s a consensus of scientists who say so. It’s round because it is and it has been established and proven scientifically.

Well, climate change can’t be proven scientifically because the predictions of it say it will not happen for the next 30 to 40 years. It’s all computer models.

There is no empirical data.

There is none. These people don’t realize it but they tell us climate change is gonna happen the next 30 to 50 years, maybe even the end of this century.

 

Other Climate Change Hoax Lunacies

STUDY: Concern Over Climate Change Linked to Depression, Anxiety — ‘Restless nights, feelings of loneliness and lethargy.

Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming.”

FOXNews: CNN Claim that an Unmonitored Asteroid Could Slam into Earth During Government Shutdown is Debunked

Wikipedia Censorship

Wikipedia Erases Record of Accomplished Scientist — ‘Censored’ for His Intelligent Design Position

 

History Facts: The Founding Fathers of America Also Faced Fake News

History Facts:

The History of Fake News in the United States

Jarrett Stepman

Part 1: The Founding Fathers of America Also Faced Fake News

Though Trump has caused concern by calling members of the press “enemies of the people,” his threats against the press come through mockery and rebuke rather than official sanctions. Presidential media hating has been around since George Washington was in office, but there have been few serious proposals to actually crack down on reporting.

Intentionally misleading news has been around since before the invention of the printing press. In fact, our Founding Fathers grappled with this very issue when they created our system of government. They saw that while it was tempting to censor fake stories, ultimately, the truth was more likely to be abused by an all-powerful government arbiter than the filter of unimpeded popular debate. Attempts to weed out factually incorrect news reports can quickly morph into fact-checking and manipulating differences in opinion.

Fortunately, there have been few serious calls in the United States for official censoring of political news or media, in contrast to most of the world, including Europe. Freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and even the freedom to be wrong make America great and exceptional.

In addition to preserving liberty, our free-wheeling tradition gives the United States an edge in adapting to the increasingly decentralized media landscape that is a natural product of the Internet Age. Most importantly, it produces a more critically informed populace in the long term.

The Founders and Freedom of Press

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the power of the press, for good or ill. After all, many of them, such as Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, were newspapermen and pamphleteers. The revolutionary ideas they disseminated throughout the colonies found eager readers, putting them high on King George III’s enemies list.

Three years after the Constitution was ratified, the American people amended it by adding the Bill of Rights, which included the First Amendment and its protections of the media. However, the Founders understood that a free press was not an entirely unqualified blessing; some had reservations.

The Founders saw that while it was tempting to censor fake stories, ultimately the truth was more likely to be abused by an all-powerful government arbiter than the filter of unimpeded popular debate.

Franklin also warned about the power of the press, which the public must put so much trust in. In a short essay, Franklin explained how the press acted as the “court” of public opinion and wielded enormous unofficial power.

The Founders wrote constitutional protections for the press with open eyes, as their written remarks record. Yet, the evils that come through the occasional problems of a free press are heavily outweighed by its benefits. Lies may proliferate, but the truth has a real chance to rise to the top.

Thomas Jefferson said that the most effectual way for a people to be governed by “reason and truth” is to give freedom to the press. There was simply no other way. He wrote in a letter to Gerry:

I am … for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.

Liars and scandal mongers may occasionally have success in a system without censorship, but truth was ultimately more likely to be found when passed through the people as a whole.

Jefferson wrote:

It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness.

Despite full knowledge of the media’s often unscrupulous power over public opinion, the Founders chose to grant broad protections to a decentralized press, opting to place their faith in newspapers checking one another with more efficacy and less risk of bias than heavy-handed government crackdowns.

A Tale of Two Nations: Freedom of Press vs. Censorship

Calls for liberty ended with censorship and ultimately the guillotine for unbelievers. Clearly there was a difference between the American and French regimes and cultures, both nominally standing for liberty, but arriving at radically different ends.

18th Century Fake News Issues in U.S.

When the Federalist Party passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams to clamp down on “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government in the midst of the “Quasi War” with France, there was an immense backlash. A few journalists were arrested, but the governing party was crushed in future elections and ceased to exist shortly thereafter. In the United States, press freedom would become an almost unquestioned element of American culture and policy.

France: Revolutionary Government vs. Freedom of press

Things worked out differently across the Atlantic. In France, a popular uprising, stoked by a rabid press, led to mob violence, tyranny, and oppressive censorship. Revolutionary scribblers initially brought an end to the Old Regime and the royal restrictions on speech, but freedom of the press didn’t last. After the monarchy was crushed, the revolutionaries censored the press even more ruthlessly than had the Bourbon kings. The radicals argued that press freedom was leading people astray and impeding their revolution.

Maximilien Robespierre, leader of the Jacobin party, called journalists “the most dangerous enemies of liberty.” Robespierre and his allies in the French government created a state-sponsored newspaper to counter what they saw as the media’s lies. Then, seeing that even that was not enough to prevent alternative opinions from growing, began to arrest and execute those who opposed the policies of the government. Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” gripped France for more than a year, during which 16,594 official death sentences were handed out.

France never really changed. It continued a cycle of crackdowns on the free press as new regimes took power. Instead of decentralizing the press of the monarchical regime, each successive set of revolutionaries seized the central apparatus for their own purposes. In 1852, when the Second Empire under Napoleon III took power, the government said that censorship would be implemented for public safety.

Who Has the Better System?

Who has the better system? Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, France has gone through five republics, two empires, and four monarchies. Despite the bumptious nature of American politics and media, it would be foolish to bet on France’s fifth republic outlasting America’s first.

Learn the truth, not fake news, about Judeo-Christian heritage—and pass it on. 

Culture Wars: YouTube Censorship of First Amendment Freedoms, Educational Truth Videos

Culture Wars:

YouTube Censorship of First Amendment Freedoms, Educational Truth Videos

YouTube censors my videos

Dennis Prager: 16 posts now ‘restricted’ despite millions of views, no explicit content

keyAny responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It’s hardly conducive to censorship.

Dennis Prager

dennis-prager-logoLast week, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos – down from 21 – that were created and posted online by my nonprofit educational organization, Prager University. The subheading read, “YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.” The Journal said:

“Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. … Dennis Prager’s ‘PragerU’ puts out free short videos on subjects ‘important to understanding American values’ – ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State.

“The channel has more than 130 million views. … As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content. But more than 15 videos are ‘restricted’ on YouTube. … This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering – say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and ‘based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.’

“PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed. YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for ‘free expression.’”

It is a good sign that YouTube’s censorship of respectful and utterly nonviolent and nonsexual videos made it to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is a very bad sign that it had to. And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal but not that of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

To understand what YouTube, which is owned by Google, has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to.

Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one five-minute video presentation online. These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers – some very well-known, some not.

PC-TruthThe list includes dozens of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point, among other universities;

  • a black member of South African Parliament;
  • comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff;
  • two former prime ministers (one of Spain, and one of Denmark);
  • Pulitzer Prize winners George Will, Bret Stephens and Judith Miller;
  • Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs”;
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Arthur Brooks; Jonah Goldberg;
  • Alan Dershowitz; Nicholas Eberstadt; Larry Elder;
  • Steve Forbes;
  • Walter Williams; Christina Hoff Sommers; George Gilder;
  • Victor Davis Hanson; Bjorn Lomborg;
  • Heather Mac Donald;
  • Eric Metaxas;
  • Amity Shlaes; Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan;
  • and many others.

I also present some videos.

magnifying-glass-lightoftruthAny responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It’s hardly conducive to censorship.

YouTube placed restrictions on the following videos.

  • Two videos on race: “Are The Police Racist?” and “Don’t Judge Blacks Differently.”
  • Six videos on Islam: “What ISIS Wants,” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” “Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do,” “Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?” “Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology” and “Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?”
  • Two videos on abortion (the only two offered): “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?” and “The Most Important Question About Abortion.”
  • Two videos on Israel: “Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army” and “Israel’s Legal Founding” (the latter video, presented by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, was reinstated after much publicity).
  • Three videos on America: “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” “Did Bush Lie About Iraq?” and “What is the University Diversity Scam?”
  • One on politics: “Who NOT to Vote For.”
  • And one on men and women: “He Wants You” (a video I present about men and women).

Think of these topics, and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent content or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn’t want your minor child to view? The only possible “yes” might be to the video titled “He Wants You.” Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet most still wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples.

Obviously, then, the explanation is not that “algorithms” catch violence and sex. Rather, YouTube doesn’t want effective conservative videos to be posted (each video has at least 1 million views). Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? If so, it doesn’t have to. Left-wing viewers simply flag our videos and others’ as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest.

I have never devoted a column to PragerU. But I have done so today because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU – after a major editorial is published in the Wall Street Journal, after coverage in the New York Post, the Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review and many other places, and after a petition signed by over 70,000 people (which is on the PragerU website) – what will happen to other conservative institutions?

For the probable answer, see your local university.

The question, then, is this: Will YouTube do to the Internet what the left has done to Prager University?
Read more at

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/youtube-censors-my-videos/

 

 

 

Culture Wars: Liberal Censorship

Culture Wars:

Liberal Censorship

Liberals Are the True Censors

Jerry Newcombe

cartoon-socialist-Black-Lives-OnlyThere’s an old story that my pastor, Dr. D. James Kennedy, used to tell. On Monday morning, the janitor found the preacher’s notes. It said in the margin at one spot, in a handwritten note: “Argument weak — pound pulpit here!”

And so it is that many times weak arguments must be bolstered with emphatic shout downs.

How many times do we read of conservatives speaking at college campuses, only to be shouted down by protesters? In some cases the conservative is not even able to deliver his speech.

If ideas are so good, then they should be allowed to be heard in the marketplace of ideas. While conservatives get accused of censorship, it seems to me that in our day, the liberals and what I call “the shock troops of tolerance,” are the real censors.

Over the weekend, presidential candidate Donald Trump canceled a rally in Chicago because of a real threat of violence. Feel free to disagree with the Donald. But engage in violence because you disagree with him? That’s beyond the pale.

sweet-cakes-liberal-censorWriting for The Washington Times (3/13/16), Kelly Riddell notes, “Moveon.Org is conducting fundraising activities from the Chicago protests against Donald Trump that prompted the Republican presidential front-runner to cancel a rally there Friday, and promises that more disruptions are on the way.”

How long can society remain free with such bare-knuckle tactics—where “might makes right”? Look at what is happening:

  • If you in your conscience cannot agree to celebrate a same-sex “marriage,” then you might be stripped of your livelihood and your money. In the case of bakers Melissa (“Sweet Cakes by Melissa”) and Aaron Klein, who declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, they even lost their free speech. They were put under a gag order to prevent them from even speaking about what happened to them.
  • If you disagree with man-made global warming (what they call now “climate free-speech-washingtonchange”—but climate always changes), our nation’s top cop, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, testified before Congress that the administration has considered taking civil action against dissenters. Despite email scandals documenting that some of the leading proponents of global warming fudged the raw data, liberals want to silence dissent among scientists by punishing the dissenters.
  • If you warn about radical Islam, you may find that your First Amendment rights go thus far and no farther. The brave blogger Pamela Geller is fighting in the courts to place ads about the link between terrorists and some of the proponents of Islam, despite facing censorship from some city governments.
  • Pro-lifer David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress makes a series of stunning videos, engaging in classic investigative journalism techniques, and documents that Planned Parenthood is trafficking in baby body parts. But in a Houston court, Daleiden suddenly faces indictment, while Planned Parenthood gets off scot free, at least for now. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

free-speech-ben-franklinWhen commenting on this overall trend, Gary Bauer noted in his End of Day report (3/11/16): “The culture war is real, my friends. The left’s assault on the First Amendment—from free speech to religious liberty—is total. Nothing is exempt from the tyrants of tolerance.”

Perhaps the biggest censorship of all by liberals comes in the form of political correctness. It is censorship before the fact. Censorship in speech not even yet given. Censorship of perceived thoughts.

 

 Rockwell Freedom of Speech

Rockwell Freedom of Speech

After writing the first draft of this, I came across an article by Erick Erickson and Bill Blankschaen in the Daily Signal (3/11/16) entitled, “The ‘Compassionate Bullying’ of the Left.”

Erickson and Blankschaen note:

Around the country, progressive bullies have attacked Christians for daring to put their faith ahead of the pet causes of those who feign compassion while destroying life-giving liberties. What we are seeing is a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach as the wildfire burns across our land. It is not enough that Christians be quiet. Christians must be silenced and punished. Their faith cannot be respected. Legislation that ensures people are free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being punished by government must be stopped and decried as discrimination.

And why do they do this? To force people to accept what they don’t agree with. Erickson says: “There is one key reason that those on the Left must force their beliefs on the rest of us: if they didn’t force their craziness on us, we would never embrace it.”

I can’t help but feel that there’s a double standard on the part of liberals when it comes to this issue. “Free speech for me, but not for thee.” The argument is weak; therefore, pound the podium harder and unleash those “shock troops of tolerance.”

But as John Adams noted, “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”

Censorship, High School, and Freedom of Speech

Dinner Topics for Thursday

From WND

freedomofspeechA Texas high school principal reportedly threatened to torpedo a student’s future in the United States Naval Academy over the student’s expression of faith during a high school graduation ceremony, but he’s remaining silent on the issue for now.

Principal Mick Cochran declined to respond to a WND request for comment today on the issue that erupted after student Remington Reimer “deviated” from a school-edited speech by expressing his faith and asking listeners to protect their religious and constitutional rights. School officials had responded instantly by turning by turning off his microphone.

A letter from Liberty Institute to the school district about the dispute contains allegations of Cochran’s apparent attempt to retaliate against the student.

Read about “the mother of all Obama scandals” in this special, in-depth WND report, “OBAMA’S WAR ON CHRISTIANS.”

“On Friday, June 7, 2013, JHS Principal Mick Cochran met with Remington’s father, Todd Reimer, and informed him that he intended to punish Remington for his perceived misdeed during the graduation ceremony,” said the letter, from Liberty Institute Director of Litigation Hiram Sasser to the Joshua Independent School District.

“Specifically, he threatened to send a letter to the United States Naval Academy where Remington will matriculate in June 2013, advising them that Remington has poor character, or words to that effect,” the letter said.

The letter noted, “After consulting with a JISD attorney, Principal Cochran temporarily retracted his threat. As of his letter, Principal Cochran has not stated his intended action.”

Fox News reporter Todd Starnes noted the sentences that Reimer included in his speech, which the school district tried to prevent listeners from hearing:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished. Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or constitutional rights from you.”

“It was intimidating having my high school principal threaten my future because I wanted to stand up for the Constitution and acknowledge my faith and not simply read a government approved message,” Reimer told Liberty Institute.

Sasser now is representing the teen and is seeking a statement from the school district clearing the student of wrongdoing. He explains that Texas state law, federal law and the district’s own policy require the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech, “including not editing or drafting Mr. Reimer’s speech and printing a disclaimer in the graduation program.”

Liberty Institute noted that statement must read, “the content of each student speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the district.”

“Contrary to the law and its own policies, Joshua ISD school officials did in fact edit and attempt to control Mr. Reimer’s speech and failed to include the required disclaimer,” Liberty Institute said.

The organization explained how four different school officials censored Sasser’s speech before they eventually approved it.

Reimer’s actions made headlines when on June 6 school officials cut off his microphone in mid-speech when he added to preapproved statements an explanation of his relationship with Jesus Christ.

According to the local Joshua Star, Reimer thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world.”

Earlier, Cochran said all procedures were followed correctly.

“The district has reviewed the rules and policies regarding graduation speeches and has determined that the policy was followed,” he told the Star.

Liberty Institute’s letter to the district, dated June 13, said it also served as formal notice under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Chapter 110 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

The letter said the school, through that, created a limited public forum for valedictorians, who are not supposed to be censored.

“The school officials in charge of the graduation ceremony violated state law and the policy established by the Joshua ISD Board of Trustees,” the letter said. “If school officials had followed the board’s policy, graduation would have taken place without controversy.”

“We would like to meet with the superintendent before June 24, 2013, to resolve the issues surrounding the Joshua High School graduation that took place on June 6, 2013. Specifically, we are seeking a public statement from Joshua ISD exonerating Remington Reimer of any wrongdoing. All he did was simply follow state law and Joshua ISD policy…

School Valedictorian censored

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/principal-threatens-valedictorians-navy-career/#szgduCbjeyfhm4Oc.99

Censorship, Politics, and Freedom of Speech

Dinner Topics for Monday

Month-Defining Moment

procrustesPolitical Correctness is like Procrustes. Procrustes was a legendary robber of ancient Greece noted for stretching the bodies or cutting off the legs of his victims to adapt them to the length of his bed.

Defining Moment:

Definitions: Political Correctness, Censorship, and Freedom of Speech

This blogger has been censored by Google for posting content on Biblical values.

From Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

freedomofspeechPeople have always been uncomfortable hearing things that they don’t agree with or hearing things that they don’t want to hear per se. Political correctness is all about that. Political correctness is nothing more than the censorship of free speech — and, as you know, it’s rising.

It’s not the government. Political correctness is happening within the bowels of our culture. It’s happening everywhere. It’s happening in schools and universities. It’s slowly permeating everything, and nobody can put their finger on it. You know, everybody speaks out against political correctness. It doesn’t have one advocate by name, there’s not one person who stands up and says they’re in favor of PC, but everybody’s scared to death of it. It has no advocates.

We’re led to believe everybody opposes it and disagrees with it, but yet everybody’s scared to death of it. So who is it? Well, it’s the power structure wherever you happen to be. If you’re in college, it’s the classroom, the professor, the administration. If you’re at work, it’s the boss. In some places it can be the government, but mostly this happening within the bowels of our culture. Now, I know you ask about me specifically. Let me tell you how it’s gonna happen if ever it does.

It isn’t gonna be the president, at least in my case. I know that if Obama could get rid of me, he would, and if he could shut me up he would. But we’re not to the point where he can, we’re not to the point where he can even try and get full-fledged support. Now, we may be trending that way. I think we’re a long, long way from that, but the trend can’t be denied. Yet it could happen in many other ways. I don’t want to detail them ’cause I don’t want to give people any ideas.

Let me remind you that I’ve said something over the past couple of years. I’ve mentioned it here and there, now and then, very informally, but I’ll mention it again. I fully expected expect, down the road at some point — and not just me, but I fully expect — to be denounced and held up as the primary problem for either people that agree with me or believe what I believe or same party or what have you. I fully expect that. It’s just the nature of things.

Everybody wants to blame somebody else for their problems and so forth. There’s always pressure on free speech. There’s always pressure on freedom of thought. There’s always, always societal or professional pressure. I’ve always been amazed at how people open themselves up to be offended. I’ve always been amazed how people give that much power away to other people. I’ve always been amazed at how words are so damaging. They’re just words! Whatever they are, whoever says them, they’re just words.

But be the right person saying the wrong thing and you can create an absolute avalanche, and it stuns me. Whereas people who commit deeds, actually do things that really hurt people, are excused or have excuses made for them or it’s said, “Well, we must understand that.” But words are an entirely different thing. Speech is an entirely different thing. So it’s a constant concern. I can’t tell you the number of times the staff holds their hands up, “Don’t say it! Don’t say it!”

The only thing that I was trying to say when I was tiptoeing around with the guy earlier who called about this is that there are people who can’t win, and they’re not gonna blame themselves. They’re gonna look for scapegoats and excuses, and they’re gonna point fingers at me and people like Ted Cruz and others — other people on talk radio and so forth — as the scapegoat, as the cop-out reason. It’s gonna happen. It already does, now and then. But it’s just the way of the world.

Censorship, Social Media, and Declaration of Independence

See what Facebook calls ‘spam’

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have suffered and died for what this represents.

Facebook calls it “spam.”

Someone decided — despite millions of views — no one should see it anymore.

A new rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” by rock band Madison Rising has had millions of views online, and among fans is one of the favorites for posting online at social media sites such as Facebook.

And the traffic reflected it, giving the band a huge boost in attention. Because of their patriotism, they are a victim of censorship.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/see-what-facebook-calls-spam/#WOFGofDPPeo1vLzz.99

decofindependenceHappy Independence Day! Read the Declaration of Independence!

If you don’t have a copy of the Declaration of Independence in your home, look it up online. Order your own copy at Hillsdale College, or at any conservative website, before our tyrannical government censors it and makes it impossible to get!

Blogs, Censorship, and First Amendment

Democrats want Censorship of Blogs, opposing ideas

From WND

freedomofspeechAre Democrats in Congress looking to create brand-new government controls on journalists in America?

Broadcaster Rush Limbaugh believes so, following remarks over the weekend by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Durbin said it was too early to call for a special counsel to investigate the recent monitoring of journalists at the Associated Press and Fox News by President Obama’s Justice Department.

Durbin said he supported a “media shield law,” but wasn’t sure if such a measure would protect bloggers or “someone who is tweeting.”

“You’ve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel,” Durbin said. “I’m not ready to do this at this moment. I would like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what we heard when it comes to the Fox case.”

“But here is the bottom line – the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

“You see what they want to do, folks?” noted Limbaugh on his national radio program Tuesday. “That’s right, they want to set up licensing of journalists. That’s where the Democrats are headed on this. ‘You tweeters, you bloggers, you’re not journalists. We are going to determine who is a journalist and who isn’t. We are going to license journalists. I mean that Constitution’s 200-plus years old. It’s no longer relevant,’ is what he means.”

Limbaugh continued: “If a leading Democratic senator wants to talk about who’s a journalist and who isn’t, and if he thinks bloggers and tweeters aren’t and he wants to stop ‘em, how’s he gonna stop ‘em? You gotta license journalists. So the government will decide who’s a journalist and who isn’t and grant licenses and approvals. And if you don’t get your license and you start doing journalism, you could be sent to jail, or you could be reprimanded.”

“I just want to be clear he didn’t say those words [about licensing for journalists], but where does it go?” he concluded.