Judeo-Christian Culture: Freedom of Religion Theme Quotes

Judeo-Christian Culture:

Freedom of Religion Theme Quotes

“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Ben Franklin

Human Liberty is the mainstream of human progress. ~Ezra Taft Benson

Freedom can be killed by neglect as well as by direct attack. ~Ezra Taft Benson

The loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery. ~Marion G. Romney

American Covenant with God

by Jon McNaughton

If my people . . . shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

“No matter how serious the trial, how deep the distress, how great the affliction, [God] will never desert us. He never has, and he never will. He cannot do it. It is not His character [to do so]. . . .He will [always] stand by us. We may pass through the fiery furnace; we may pass through deep waters; but we shall not be consumed nor overwhelmed. We shall emerge from all these trials and difficulties the better and purer for them.” ~George Q. Cannon

This is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ. ~Ether 2:12

God made man free—and then gave him the commandments to keep him free. We cannot break the Ten Commandments. We can only break ourselves against them—or else, by keeping them, rise through them to the fullness of freedom under God. ~Cecil B. De Mille

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise. Doctrine and Covenants 82:10

 

True to the faith that our parents have cherished,

True to the truth for which martyrs have perished,

To God’s command,

Soul, heart, and hand,

Faithful and true we will ever stand.

~Evan Stephens

I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means. ~John Adams

Divine covenants make strong Christians. I urge each one to qualify for and receive all the priesthood ordinances you can and then faithfully keep the promises you have made by covenant. In times of distress, let your covenants be paramount and let your obedience be exact. Then you can ask in faith, nothing wavering, according to your need, and God will answer. He will sustain you as you work and watch. In His own time and way He will stretch forth his hand to you, saying, “Here am I.” D. Todd Christofferson

And every nation which shall war against thee, O house of Israel, shall be turned one against another, and they shall fall into the pit which they digged to ensnare the people of the Lord. ~1 Nephi 22:14

Therefore my people are gone into acaptivity, because they have no bknowledge. ~ Isaiah 5:13

 

He that thinks absolute power purifies men’s blood and corrects the baseness of human nature, need only read history to be convinced to the contrary. ~John Locke

“Oh!  What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive,” warned Sir Walter Scott.

We do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men. . .the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience. We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. ~D&C 134:4

There is a God. Evolution cannot explain Creation. A cat cannot  build a hospital and nver will. Not can a dolphin. Humanity is exceptional. And we each only get one life. Most people take it for granted. What is Life? How does it happen? Where does it come from? The answer is God .~Rush Limbaugh

“History repeats itself. It has to. No one is listening.” ~ Steve Turner, British poet

For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people.

~Alma 8:17

And that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by them that digged it. ~1Nephi 14:3

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. ~Proverbs 26:27

Advertisements

History Facts: Truth about America NOT taught in College Education

History Facts:

Truth about America NOT taught in College Education

In America, Hate is Taught, But the Bible is Not

Jake MacAulay

I am sure by now you all are aware of the recent devastating event in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a 20 year-old, sin-possessed man named James Alex Fields, Jr. plowed his car through a crowd of demonstrators practicing their First Amendment right of assembly.

Following this godless event, President Donald Trump made the statement, “Racism is evil… Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. We are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry, strike at the very core of America.”

I cannot tell you how important it is for the leader of our country to make such unequivocal and direct statements that condemn sin and exalt truth and the righteous standard on which our country laid its foundation – a foundation outlined in the phrase, “…all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  

This conceptual statement derived its authority from the Bible – the world’s foremost authority on law and government, where sacred truths were not only discovered by our founders and ancestors, but where truths still remain to be discovered and applied in our lives and the lives of future generations.

This sacred text written by our Creator placed the following words into perpetual authority: “God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.”

Because this inviolable concept is acknowledged and codified into the Law of our Republic, America can always be an example of freedom, equality, safety, and the respect for human dignity.

You see, equality depends on the command of our Creator to His creation that we are to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” and secondly, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

In the midst of the enormous turmoil, anger, rage, lying media outlets bent on dividing us for profits;  I plead with you this week,  politicians can and will never save this nation from self-destruction.  That responsibility, my dear friends, and Americans, belongs to us.

Just as hatred is taught, respect and love to our neighbor, our Creator, and His laws can be taught; and with that comes true liberty.  Restore biblical morality and our land will be healed.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

In America, Hate is Taught, But the Bible is Not

 

 

40 % of Americans Know Nothing about First Amendment Freedoms

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Yeah, right here it is, that Annenberg Survey from the University of Pennsylvania: 40% of Americans cannot name a single right or freedom in the First Amendment. Not a single one. Thirty-three percent were unable to name even one of the three branches of government. That’s exactly why we do the Rush Revere Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans book series for young people. That’s exactly why. This stuff is not being taught. Can you believe that 40% of Americans can’t tell you…?

As much as “freedom of speech” is bandied about and protested over, and as much as people’s freedom of speech is attacked, 40% of American people can’t tell you that the First Amendment is what guarantees it? Well, they can’t tell you that Congress cannot pass a law abridging freedom of speech or the establishment of religion, and 33% can’t tell you even one of the branches of government. They think it’s Republican, Democrat, independent. (laughing) I’m not kidding, folks. The Drive-Bys are dumbing people down, and the education system is just…[fill in the blank]

Big College Has Bankrupted Millennials — Meanwhile 40% of Americans Don’t Know the Purpose of the First Amendment

Education Created and Promoted Progressivism, ANTIFA, and BLM

Ileana Johnson

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

Instead of having a History Department, we will have the Fiction Department. Just like George Orwell had warned us in 1950.

He said, “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street, building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Ceausescu, the Taliban, and ISIS have ordered the destruction of history, books, painting, statues, and the renaming of schools and streets. It ended badly in the enslavement and death of millions of innocents.

The brain-washed fascist and progressive groups, with no solid point of historical reference, have painted every white person with the same brush of hate-mongers, even though most of the hate and the violence are coming from the left. Caucasians are suddenly evil “white nationalists.”

Since when is maintaining self-governance, sovereignty over one’s homeland, preserving a national identity based on culture, language, race, religion, political goals, patriotism, and belief in a common ancestry, hateful and racist?

The fads in education come and go but they are presented as facts and “evidence-based.”

 

Education Created and Promoted Progressivism, ANTIFA, and BLM

 

Truth in Journalism: Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

The Left’s War on Free Speech, Part 2

Kimberley Strassel
Author, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation.

Intimidation Game: Strategies for Abuse of Power

We’ve seen this strategy unfold, in a coordinated fashion and using a variety of tactics, since 2010.

***

1)  Intimidation by Bureaucracies

One tactic is the unleashing of federal and state bureaucracies on political opponents. The best example of this is the IRS targeting of conservative non-profits. To this day, Obama acolytes and Senate Democrats characterize that targeting as a mistake by a few minor IRS employees in Cincinnati who didn’t understand the law. That is a lie.

Congress held several investigations of this targeting, and the truth is clear. In the months following the Citizens United ruling, President Obama delivered speech after speech on behalf of Democratic midterm candidates, repeating the same grave warning at each stop—thanks to Citizens United, he would say, shadowy and scary organizations are flooding into our elections. He suggested these organizations might be operating illegally and might be funded by foreign players. He noted that somebody should do something about it.

These speeches acted as a dog whistle to an IRS bureaucracy that was already primed to act. Former IRS official Lois Lerner was well aware of Democratic demands that the agency go after conservative Tea Party and non-profit groups.

Senate Democrats and left-wing interest groups had been sending letters to the agency for months, demanding it go after the very groups it ultimately went after. And Ms. Lerner had her own biases—we know this from her recoverable emails—that put her politically and substantively in the anti-free speech camp. The result is that the IRS deliberately put some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, on political ice for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

It is hard not to believe that this was designed to help Democrats in those elections. We know that senior members of the Treasury Department were aware of the targeting abuse in early 2012, and took steps to try to slow it. Yet those officials did not inform Congress this was happening, and chose not to divulge the abuse until well after that year’s election.

2) Intimidation by Prosecutors

Another intimidation tactic is for prosecutors to abuse their awesome powers in order to hound and frighten political opponents.

The most terrifying example of this was the John Doe probe in Wisconsin. Democratic prosecutors in Milwaukee launched a bogus criminal campaign finance investigation into some 30 conservative groups that supported the public-sector union reforms championed by Governor Scott Walker. Wisconsin’s John Doe law gave these prosecutors the right to conduct this investigation in secret and to subject their individual targets to gag orders. Prosecutors secretly looked through these individuals’ financial records, bank accounts, and emails.

Intimidation of Innocent Young Boy

Prosecutors also conducted pre-dawn raids on some of their targets’ homes. In one horrifying instance, the target of such a raid was on an out-of-town trip with his wife, and their teenage son was home alone. Law enforcement came into the house and sequestered the boy, refusing to allow him to call a lawyer or even his grandparents, who lived down the road. They hauled items out of the house, and as they left they told the boy that he too was subject to the gag order—that if he told anyone what had happened to him, he could go to jail.

We only learned of this because one brave target of the probe, Eric O’Keefe, told The Wall Street Journal what was going on. We broke that story, and it became national headline news. But it ultimately took a lawsuit and the Wisconsin Supreme Court to shut down the probe. In its ruling, the Court made clear its view that the probe’s purpose had been intimidation. The prosecutors had been sending the message: if you dare to speak, we will turn your lives into a living hell and potentially put you in prison.

Support Climate Change Hoax Or Else!

More recently we have seen this tactic in the joint action of 17 state attorneys general, who launched a probe into Exxon and some 100 different groups that have worked with Exxon over the years. The implicit prosecutorial threat: get on board with our climate change agenda or we might bring racketeering charges against you.

3) Intimidation, Blackmail by Activists

A third intimidation tactic is for activist groups to use blackmail against corporations and non-profits in order to silence them.

One subject of such attacks was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that works to promote free-market policies at the state level. As a non-profit, it is largely funded by corporate donations. Because it is so successful, it has long been despised by left-wing activist groups.

These groups focused their efforts on ALEC in 2012, in the wake of the tragic shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. ALEC had played a tangential role in crafting the popular stand-your-ground laws that the Left attacked after the shooting. On that basis, left-wing activists branded ALEC a racist organization and threatened to run ad campaigns against its corporate donors, branding them as racists too—unless they stopped funding ALEC. In a coordinated action, Democratic U.S. Senator Dick Durbin sent letters to a thousand organizations across the country, demanding to know if they supported ALEC and suggesting they’d get hauled in front of Congress if they did. ALEC lost nearly half of its donors in the space of a few months.

We’ve also seen this tactic employed against private individuals. One such person was Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, who Barack Obama’s reelection campaign singled out in 2012, following a VanderSloot donation to Mitt Romney. The campaign publicly branded him a disreputable person, painting a target on his back. Not long after that, VanderSloot was audited by the IRS and visited by other federal agencies.

California Proposition 8

Out in California, left-wing activists targeted donors to the state’s Prop 8 ballot initiative, which supported traditional marriage. They combed through campaign finance records, and put the names and addresses of Prop 8’s donors on a searchable map. Citizens on this list had their cars keyed, their windows broken, their small businesses flash-mobbed, and their voicemails and emails flooded with threats and insults. Some of them even lost their jobs—most notably Brendan Eich, the founder and CEO of Mozilla. In later depositions, many of these targets told lawyers that they wouldn’t donate to future ballot initiatives.

 So the attacks were successful in silencing them.

Note the use of disclosure in these attacks. We have come to associate transparency and disclosure with good government.

But unfortunately, our system of disclosure has been turned on its head. Disclosure was supposed to enable citizens to keep track of politicians; but if you followed Hillary Clinton’s server scandal, you know that politicians have now become expert at hiding their business. Instead, disclosure is increasingly becoming a tool by which government and political thugs identify people and organizations who oppose them.

Sadly, our federal judiciary has refused to honor important precedents that protect anonymity in politics—most notably the famous 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama. In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against the Alabama attorney general, who had demanded a list of the state’s NAACP members. The civil rights group knew this was tantamount to making targets of its members in a state that was riven at the time with race-related violence. The Court held that some level of anonymity is sometimes required to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly. The Court expanded on this precedent until the Watergate scandal, when it too got caught up in the disclosure fad. Political privacy rights have been eroding ever since.

What Is to Be Done? Awareness Is Key

What is to be done? For starters, we need to be aware that this is happening, and that it is not random. The intimidation game is very real.

It is the work of left-wing groups and politicians, it is coordinated, and it is well-honed. Many of the targets of intimidation who I interviewed for my recent book weren’t aware of what was happening to them, and that allowed the intimidation to go on for too long.

Awareness is key.

Strip Powers from Unaccountable Agencies

We need to think hard about ways to limit the powers of the administrative state, to stop rogue agents at the IRS and other agencies from trampling on free speech rights. We can make great progress simply by cutting the size of federal and state bureaucracies. But beyond that, we need to conduct systematic reviews of agency powers and strip from unaccountable bureaucracies any discretion over the political activities of Americans. The IRS should be doing what it was created to do—making sure taxpayers fill out their forms correctly. Period.

We need to push corporations to grow backbones and to defend more aggressively their free speech interests—rather than leaving that defense to others.

Put the Onus of Disclosure on Government Rather Than Citizens

We need to overhaul our disclosure laws, and once again put the onus of disclosure on government rather than citizens. At the moment, every American who donates $200 or more to a federal politician goes into a database. Without meaning to sound cynical, no politician in Washington is capable of being bought off for a mere $200.

We need to raise that donation threshold. And we need to think hard about whether there is good reason to force disclosure of any donations to ballot initiatives or to the production and broadcast of issue ads—ads designed to educate the public rather than to promote or oppose candidates.

Expose Bullies

Most important, we need to call out intimidation in any form and manner we see it—and do so instantly. Bullies don’t like to be exposed. They’d rather practice their ugliness in the dark. And one lesson that emerged from all my interviews on this topic is that speaking out works. Those who rolled over merely set themselves up for future attacks. Those who called out the intimidators maintained their rights and won the day.

More Voices, More Vigorous Debate

Finally, conservatives need to tamp down any impulse to practice such intimidation themselves. Our country is best when it is engaging in vigorous debate. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a multiplicity of interests that would argue their way to a common good. We succeed with more voices, not fewer, and we should have enough confidence in our arguments to hear out our opponents.

 

War on Free Speech, Part 1

 

Culture Wars: Political Correctness stifles Freedom of Speech of Grade School Graduate, College Campus

Culture Wars:

Political Correctness stifles Freedom of Speech of Grade School Graduate, College Campus

Seth Clark was not allowed to deliver this graduation speech because it referenced God.

 

8th-grader barred from giving graduation speech over Bible verses. So he does the next best thing.

Dave Urbanski

The tiny rural town of Akin in southern Illinois might not have a post office, but it can now count itself among the players on the national stage after an eighth-grade boy was barred from giving a graduation speech over its religious content.

Akin Community Grade School salutatorian Seth Clark submitted his speech for approval, the Benton Evening News said,  but a local citizen complained about the content of the address, which included references to God and the Bible. So school officials told the 13-year-old he couldn’t deliver the speech, the paper reported.

“As a public school, it is our duty to educate students, regardless of how different they or their beliefs may be,” a statement from Akin Superintendent and Principal Kelly Clark to the paper reads. “While students are welcome to pray or pursue their faith without disrupting school or infringing upon the rights of others, the United States Constitution prohibits the school district from incorporating such activities as part of school-sponsored events, and when the context causes a captive audience to listen or compels other students to participate.”

Enter Rickey Karroll — a friend of Seth’s family — who told WSIL-TV he offered his property across the street from the school so Seth could give his speech.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Right after the May 16 ceremony, Seth — still dressed in his cap and gown — marched across the road along with classmates and dozens of supporters, the station said.

He then stood on the front porch of the house on Karroll’s property and read his speech.

Academic Freedom denied in Arena of Ideas on College Campuses

‘We’ve taught these kids this intellectual mush and this ideological narcissism’

Greg Corombos

Across the country, loud and sometime violent campus protesters are often met by administrators who ultimately give in to demands related to perceived slights on issues ranging from race to gender and sexuality to alleged hate speech. But one college president is fighting back, and he says the pursuit of truth – not unanimous political ideology – ought to be the goal of higher education.

Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Everett Piper burst on to the scene in late 2015 when he wrote an open letter to his students and famously explained their campus was not a day care but a university. He is also the author of the forthcoming book “Not A Day Care: A Coddled Nation is a Crippled Nation.”

“The liberal arts institution was founded some 1,000 years ago, let’s say at Oxford, for what? To educate a free man and a free woman, to educate culture and what it means to enjoy liberty, and liberation, thus the word liberal,” said Piper, in a follow-up interview to his column.

He told WND and Radio America the original purpose of a liberal arts education is now almost unrecognizable at most schools.

“The classical liberal is someone who stands for freedom, for liberty and for liberation. What we see today within the American academy is the shutting down of ideas. We see ideological fascism rather than academic freedom,” Piper said.

“The conservative voice is actually more classically liberal because we’re arguing for an open, robust exchange of ideas. Why? Because we can trust truth to judge the debate rather than politics or power.”

http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/meet-college-president-who-wont-tolerate-snowflake-rebellions/

 

Culture Wars: Judicial Watch gets Victory for Veteran’s Patriotism in displaying American Flag

Culture Wars:

Judicial Watch gets Victory for Veteran’s Patriotism in displaying American Flag

Court Rules Veteran Bob Rosebrock Not Guilty of Federal Crime for Displaying American Flags above Veterans Administration Fence

In a tremendous victory for Judicial Watch and our supporters, a U.S. District Court in California has declared 75-year-old veteran Robert Rosebrock not guilty of violating federal law for allegedly displaying two four-by-six inch American Flags above a Veterans Affairs (VA) fence on Memorial Day, May 30, 2016. The ruling was handed down in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (United States of America v. Robert L. Rosebrock, (CC11, 4920201; 4920202; 6593951).

Rosebrock had been charged with hanging the two napkin-sized American Flags on a section of the fence adjacent to the Great Lawn Gate at the entrance to the Veterans Park in violation of a VA regulation prohibiting the displaying of “placards” or posting “materials” on VA property without authorization. Rosebrock attorneys successfully argued that the VA’s case in chief did not, and could not, meet its burden of proving the charge as the VA violated Rosebrock’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the VA’s evidence fell short of proving Rosebrock posted the American Flags without permission.  Judicial Watch’s legal team also successfully obtained dismissal before trial of two separate charges that Rosebrock illegally photographed VA police on the ground that the VA regulation was not reasonable even under the most lenient First Amendment standard.

Rosebrock, 75, and fellow veterans have been assembling at the site nearly every Sunday and Memorial Day since March 9, 2008, to protest what they believe is the VA’s failure to make full use of the valuable West Los Angeles property for the benefit and care of veterans, particularly homeless veterans.

Culture Wars: Political Correctness vs. Freedom of Speech

Culture Wars:

Political Correctness vs. Freedom of Speech

Rush Limbaugh: Who Gets to Tell Us What We Can Say?

And what kind of speech is protected? What kind of speech? I mean, because people that work for the XYZ company get fired every day for saying things the company doesn’t like, so what kind of speech are we talking about here that’s protected? And what did they mean, the Founders wrote the Constitution; no abridgement against free speech. What’s the purpose? Why is it so important?

No, there’s a reason for it. There’s a reason why freedom of speech has constitutional protection, and it’s why there are prohibitions against anybody in government telling you you can’t, or anybody in a political environment telling you you can’t say anything. There’s a reason for it. There are many reasons for it.

How are you expected to counter propaganda, for example, without freedom of speech? How are you able to combat lies and distortions and misrepresentations without freedom of speech? If only certain speech is sanctioned by government, well, then you will not have a free nation for long. And that is precisely what is happening on college campus.

There’s something much more hideous going on, and it is a direct assault on the First Amendment.

No, there’s an all-out assault on free speech. Political correctness is part of it. That’s censorship. And now this effort to behave in felonious criminal behavior to start riots and fires and destroy property to prevent a speaker showing up on your campus with whom you disagree, and to have the university coddle that? To have the left say we must understand the very sensitive and delicate nature of these young students. We must understand that they’re so easily shocked, so easily depressed, so easily rendered helpless. We must accommodate them. No, it’s all a giant scam that’s being run here.

There’s a full-fledged, all-out assault on the First Amendment, without having a constitutional convention, without having an amendment, without having to erase it or write it out. It’s a fear and intimidation campaign. And it was joined and supported in an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday by somebody named Ulrich Baer. Ulrich Baer is vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, and professor of comparative literature at New York University.

That is specifically what the free speech clause in the First Amendment means. It is permission to say anything anybody thinks, and it has a political realm that was attached. Saying “fire” in a crowded theater is not something you think. That excuse is often given as a legitimate limit on free speech. You can’t incite riots. But we’re not talking about that and everybody knows it.

Ulrich Baer:“The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.”

RUSH:Yes, it is. That’s its power. And because it exists, free speech is how such speech is dealt with and answered. At any rate, listen to what comes next. This is just one excerpt. I’m not gonna read the whole piece. I wouldn’t do that to you. I couldn’t handle it myself.

RUSH: Here’s the upshot of what this guy, Ulrich Baer, is saying. Free speech means balancing the inherent value of a given opinion with the obligation to make sure it doesn’t offend anybody else in the community. That’s what he’s saying. Okay, now, you might think, “Rush, we ought not be offending people.”

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

Sorry, folks. It’s irrelevant, when we’re talking about political speech as a means of shutting it down. But that’s not the point here. Do you realize the real danger here are the words “balancing the inherent value of a given opinion.” Well, now, tell me, who gets to do that? Who gets to decide the value of what anybody is saying and then who gets to proclaim, “You can’t say that anymore, and because you did say it, we’re gonna punish you”?

Who gets to say that? Who has this power to determine the inherent value of something anybody says? Well, I’ll give you one clue: as big an authority as they can come up with, preferably run by them. Ideally, the federal government would determine the value of what you say and be able to shut you down if they determine that you are violating the inherent values that are important to them.

And that’s exactly what these people want. And that’s what the free speech movement on campus really is. It is a blooming, burgeoning effort at creating a central authority that will be able to eliminate and punish any speech that modern leftists don’t want to hear.

Teach your Family the Truth not found in Public Schools.

Culture Wars: College Campus Free Speech Assault evoking Fascism in America

Culture Wars: 

College Campus Free Speech Assault evoking Fascism in America

Judge Jeanine: Shutting Down Free Speech on College Campuses Pushing America Toward Fascism

Trent Baker

Saturday during her Fox News Channel “Justice” opening statement, Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted to University of California at Berkeley disinviting author Ann Coulter from speaking on campus, saying the shutting down of free speech on college campuses is pushing the country to a fascist and totalitarian society.

“America is in trouble,” Pirro began. “They are trying to silence you. A monstrous and pervasive movement is putting the First Amendment and your free speech, the most basic and fundamental tenets of our nation at risk and in danger of extinction. And whether you are on the left or right, free speech is essential to our democracy, the reason the country was found, the reason people risk so much, even die to come here. Yet, as you sit there, you are watching a silencing in real-time. Where people are not allowed to express their opinion if it does not align with the thinking of others.”

“It’s putting us on the course where we are in danger of becoming a fascist totalitarian society where there is only one accepted point of view; no other will be tolerated, and it’s time to fight back,” she added.

Push back against Fascist stifling of Free Speech

 

First Amendment Freedoms: Geert Wilders and Freedom of Speech

First Amendment Freedoms:

Geert Wilders and Freedom of Speech

Update: Free Speech Under Fire: Dutch Court Convicts Geert Wilders

free-speech-washingtonWilders was not in court for the verdict that came just over three months before national elections. Wilders’ party is currently narrowly leading a nationwide poll of polls and has risen in popularity during the trial.

Even before the hearing, Wilders vowed not to let a conviction muzzle him.

“Whatever the verdict, I will continue to speak the truth about the Moroccan problem, and no judge, politician or terrorist will stop me,” he tweeted shortly before the verdict.

He had denied the charges and insisted he was performing his duty as a political leader by pointing out a problem in society.

Prosecutors say that Wilders, who in 2011 was acquitted at another hate speech trial for his outspoken criticism of Islam, overstepped the limits of free speech by specifically targeting Moroccans.

We should all be Geert Wilders, use your free speech while you have it!

by Ann Corcoran

November 26, 2016

“Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of the Netherlands.”

Geert Wilders

Every one of you should take a few minutes and read Dutch leader Geert Wilders’ final statement to the court that is seeking to convict him on hate speech charges.  I’ve snipped a bit of it below.

free-speech-ben-franklinIn the US we still have our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech because the founders understood that being able to freely speak about vital issues facing the country was the best way to keep chaos and violent conflict from tearing the country apart.

Granted there are far left organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center who are seeking to silence you.  Your response should be to speak up even more forcefully. (See SPLC will have a DC press conference this week, they use their free speech!)

Every one of you who is concerned about immigration/refugees where you live and is working to expose problems must speak up! You MUST write a website, a blog, letters to the editor, a facebook page, or hold public meetings to get the information out while you can! LOL! You need to counter the fake news from the likes of CNN!  And, if thousands of you are publishing your research and opinions, they can’t stop us all!

Sorry for the harangue!

geert-wilders-defends-free-speechHere is Wilders (imagine living like he does, under 24 hour guard, because people want to kill you for what you say!):

When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am. Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and the Netherlands.

For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.

When one says Netherlands, one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition. And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.

[….]

So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in the Netherlands. You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.

Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of the Netherlands. And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of the Netherlands. And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.

More here.

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/

 

 

 

National Security: Supreme Court Justices are Key to American Survival

National Security:

Supreme Court Justices are Key to American Survival

The Next Supreme Court Justice

Reprinted by permission of Hillsdale College

keyThe next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.

Scott Pruitt
Attorney General, State of Oklahoma

cartoon-scalia-D-WoundedThanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this February, talk turned almost immediately to who would replace him—although in a large sense he is irreplaceable. Even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia acknowledge his profound impact. His scholarship and judicial opinions, through brilliance and wit, transformed how we think about the law and the Constitution. He inspired a generation of law students and lawyers. He provided a foundation for the work of judges and legislators, as well as attorneys general like myself. And all who knew him personally will attest that his brilliance was matched only by his warmth, cheer, and grace. He will be deeply missed.

Scalia’s Principles of Jurisprudence

1) Textualism

Antonin Scalia, supreme Court Justice

Antonin Scalia, supreme Court Justice

In thinking about the kind of person who should take his seat on the Court, it is worth reflecting on Justice Scalia’s principles of jurisprudence. One of the chief principles he championed, as a scholar and as a judge, is that the law, whether statutes or the Constitution itself, must be applied according to its text. In other words, judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they suppose Congress may have intended (but did not express) in passing legislation.

2) Originalism

In addition, Justice Scalia believed that the words of the law should be understood as they were understood by the people when the law was enacted. For example, if you strike a bargain with someone, and later there is a dispute about that bargain, how do you interpret the words of your contract? Do you look to what the words of the contract meant at the time you agreed to them? Or do you look to what those words mean ten or 50 years after the fact? There are some who believe that the meanings of words change over time, untethered from any objective measure. Thus what is legal one day may be illegal the next without any textual changes to the law. Justice Scalia rejected this notion. He held fast to the idea that the meaning of laws is fixed by the meaning ascribed to their words at the time they were enacted.

3) Opposition to Creative Interpretation of the Constitution

These two principles, textualism and originalism, are rooted in a third characteristic of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence: an unwavering respect for the idea of popular government. Laws, including the Constitution, receive their legitimacy from the people. The Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that spins out new “rights” and obligations to which the people have not given their consent. Rather than discovering new rights in the Constitution, judges should respect the constitutional prerogative of the people to pass laws through their representative legislatures, limited by the restraints imposed by the Constitution—which was itself ratified by popular means.

4) Natural Rights should be tenaciously defended

signers3Along with this opposition to creative interpretation of the Constitution, a fourth characteristic of Justice Scalia’s life work was a conviction that the rights actually guaranteed in the Constitution should be tenaciously defended, from the right of free speech to the rights of criminal defendants. Beyond these enumerated rights, Justice Scalia recognized that the Constitution’s primary protection of liberty is its structure of checks and balances between branches and its division of powers between the federal government and the states.

Justice Scalia rejected Judicial Activism

In short, Justice Scalia rejected the judicial activism of inventing law while embracing judicial engagement by ensuring that the limits on government are strictly enforced.

Danger of Appointing a Liberal Justice

judicialtyrannyEnsuring that the next justice appointed to the Supreme Court is someone in the mold of Justice Scalia is surpassingly important. Not since the New Deal has the country had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. For 60 years, the Court has been either decidedly liberal or split between liberals and conservatives. For 25 years, the Court’s most controversial and closely-divided cases sometimes had a liberal outcome, sometimes a conservative one. At the time of Justice Scalia’s death, the Court consisted of four unwavering liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), three solid conservatives (Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), a fourth who votes with the conservatives much of the time (Chief Justice Roberts), and one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal would fundamentally alter that balance, creating a solid majority of five liberal justices that would ensure liberal outcomes to all controversial decisions.

Make no mistake: the liberal justices on the Court nearly always vote as a bloc. Whereas the conservative justices occasionally depart for reasons of judicial philosophy from what some might consider the conservative outcome—as Justice Scalia often did—one is hard-pressed to find decisions where a liberal justice’s vote is in question. To illustrate the point, in the Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the four liberal justices agreed with each other over 90 percent of the time—more agreement than between any two conservative justices. For example, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Justice Thomas in only 70 percent of cases. If the liberal wing of the Court is given a five-justice majority, we should expect that no controversial decision of the Court will ever be in doubt.

Important Issues Coming Up

Let me provide a survey of the important issues the Court might decide in coming years, once a ninth justice is appointed.

Freedom of Speech

freedomofspeechOne of the issues coming before the Court will concern a basic liberty essential to democracy: freedom of speech. Under assault these days is the freedom to spend (or not spend) money on political speech. For example, before Justice Scalia’s death, the Court voted to grant review of a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which public sector employees wanted the right not to pay compulsory union dues. This case raises an important question about free speech: can the government force you to contribute money to a political cause you oppose? Without Justice Scalia’s vote, the Court split evenly, leaving the issue to be resolved by a future Supreme Court—the deciding vote to be cast by the future ninth justice.

On the other side of the free speech coin is the continued vitality of the Court’s Citizens United decision. Let me clarify a common misconception: Citizens United did not hold that corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts to political candidates. In fact, the laws limiting the amount of campaign contributions to a few thousand dollars are still valid and in place. Rather, in Citizens United, the Court held that the government may not limit the amount of money spent—whether by individuals, unions, or corporations—on their own independent political advocacy. This case was decided 5 to 4, with Justice Scalia in the majority. If he is replaced with a liberal, Citizens United will likely be overturned, and the right to free speech will be greatly diminished.

freedom-religionThe First Amendment also protects religious liberty, another of our endangered core rights. Before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court granted review in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, a case which will decide whether certain state laws called “Blaine Amendments” are constitutional. Blaine Amendments are provisions added to state constitutions during a time of anti-Catholic fervor—they date back to the 1870s—that prevent any state funds from being used to benefit a church or a religion for any reason. This means that states running programs that provide resources to private institutions must discriminate against religious institutions, even if the program being funded is not religious. In the Trinity Lutheran case, a Missouri program was providing scrap tires for flooring in playgrounds to make them safer for children. Because of a Blaine Amendment, the State refused to provide tires to church schools. With other attorneys general, I filed a brief supporting the effort to get these Blaine Amendments struck down. The new justice is likely to cast the deciding vote on whether to remove this legacy of legal hostility to religion.

Freedom of Religious Conscience

freedom-of-religionFreedom of religious conscience also hangs in the balance. We have seen this in the Hobby Lobby case, where the Court protected the right of religious employers not to fund abortions. So too in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Court has, for now, narrowly avoided the question of whether Catholic nuns can be required to cover contraception in their health insurance plan. Other cases regarding freedom of conscience are on the horizon. The Court recently declined to review a case that upheld a Washington law that requires pharmacists to sell abortion drugs despite religious objections. Similarly, a case may soon reach the Court to decide whether civil rights laws can be used to force, for example, a Christian photographer to use her artistic skills to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

2nd Amendment

minutemanMoving to the Second Amendment, the next justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether to continue to recognize an individual right to “keep and bear Arms,” or whether to interpret that right so narrowly as to effectively do away with it. For example, just this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California held that the Second Amendment does not forbid laws that prohibit most people from carrying (i.e., bearing) a firearm in public. Without a justice willing to stand up for an effective right to bear arms, the Second Amendment might very well become a dead letter.

Other issues that hang in the balance include the death penalty, affirmative action, regulation of the abortion industry, and voting laws. But I want to focus on one final set of constitutional questions that have reached their tipping point in recent years—questions having to do with the structure of our Constitution.

Key to Liberty: Separation of Powers

obama-checks-balancesContrary to what many believe, the primary guarantee of our liberty in the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights. Rather it is found in the structure of government under the Constitution, which is designed to prevent accumulation of power and oppression of the people. The Constitution separates powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and divides powers between the federal government and the states. Those who wrote the Constitution expected that members of the different branches would be zealous in defending their powers from other parts of government that attempted to encroach on them. They expected state legislatures to do likewise. These constitutional structures provide the greatest and broadest guarantee of liberty by limiting governmental power. And today they are under threat.

Obama engaged in Lawmaking

Since at least the New Deal, the executive branch has been accumulating more and more power, and the current administration has taken unilateral executive authority to new levels. President Obama has on numerous occasions effectively engaged in lawmaking—an activity strictly delegated to Congress by the Constitution—when Congress refused to pass laws that he desired. Last year, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency instituted a new “Clean Power Plan”—an attempt to put the coal industry out of business, in the name of combatting climate change—absent any authority granted by Congress. Oklahoma, along with 28 other states, sued to have this rule blocked. In his last act on the bench, Justice Scalia voted to put this Clean Power Plan on hold while it is being litigated, providing a good indication that five of the justices thought it to be unlawful. With Justice Scalia gone, his replacement will likely determine the outcome of this case.

Bureaucratic Tyranny

tyrannyepaAlong the same lines, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers recently rewrote the definition of the term “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act to include almost every puddle and pond in the country, enabling a vast extension of federal regulatory authority at the expense of the states and the people. Again, this occurred without any grant of authority by Congress, which passed the Clean Water Act back in 1972. Again, Oklahoma and 26 other states have challenged this power grab.

Most recently, the President and his agencies have attempted unilaterally to mandate accommodations nationwide for transgender people by rewriting laws like Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. They are attempting to do so by redefining the word “sex” in the law—understood when Title IX was passed by Congress to refer to biological sex—to mean “gender identity,” which the administration defines as a person’s “internal sense of gender.” A new justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether courts should check this type of executive overreach as well.

“Chief Executive” Refusing to Enforce the Laws

impeach4constAnother way President Obama has expanded his power is by refusing to enforce laws he does not like, effectively repealing them. He has done this with immigration laws by designating entire classes of people as having “legal status,” even though the law clearly states that they are unlawfully present. Similarly, his administration has effectively legalized marijuana in certain states by refusing to enforce federal laws prohibiting it. The extent to which presidents must follow their constitutional mandate to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is a hotly contested issue on which the next Supreme Court justice might provide the pivotal vote.

Liberal Fascism

tyranny3The next Supreme Court justice will not only decide the outcome in pending cases, he or she will also influence the type of cases that make it to the Court in the first place. Businesses are less likely to challenge exorbitant or unfair rulings against them knowing there is a majority of justices hostile to their interests. Conservatives will be less likely to put their time and resources into defending the Constitution if they know the Court won’t enforce it. Meanwhile, liberal groups will be emboldened to bring cases that attempt to roll back First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms, among others. They will also bring cases attempting to establish new “rights”—to government welfare payments, to free attorneys in civil cases, to increased funding for public schools, etc.—as well as things like a prohibition on racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes, an exception to the First Amendment for so-called “hate speech,” and a prohibition on sex-segregated restrooms.

The Most Significant Legal Event in a Generation

constitutionThe appointment of the next Supreme Court justice could be the most legally significant event for our country in a generation. If the next justice is in the mold of Justices Ginsburg or Sotomayor, the rulings of the Court will shift dramatically to the left. If the next justice shares the principles and philosophy of Justice Scalia, the ideologically balanced Court that we have grown accustomed to in the last quarter century will likely remain. As someone whose job it is to defend the rights of the people of Oklahoma, this turning point is very important to me. But as I hope I have explained, the next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.

 

Scott Pruitt was elected Attorney General of Oklahoma in 2010. Prior to that, he served for eight years in the Oklahoma State Senate. A past president of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he established Oklahoma’s Federalism Unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government. Mr. Pruitt received his B.A. from Georgetown College and his J.D. from the University of Tulsa College of Law