Free Speech

Shameful anti-Semitic posture of America’s Duke University

Like so many of America's universities, North Carolina's Duke University began with a strong Judeo-Christian foundation. But, also like many of those universities, Duke has strayed from its original values.

In 2004 Duke raised eyebrows for sponsoring a Palestinian Solidarity Movement conference. As one might imagine, the movement promoted divestment from Israel and supported the outrageous claim that "Zionism is racism." The conference sold T-shirts calling for the destruction of Israel.

As Erosion of Free Speech Continues 34% Feel First Amendment Guarantees Too Many Rights

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) has adopted a new “Free Speech and Campus Civility” policy, which essentially disregards the First Amendment. Though initially the document espouses the benefits of free speech, it abruptly launches into an assault on the First Amendment rights of the FAU community. “What we do insist on, however, is that everyone in the FAU community behave and speak to and about one another in ways that are not racist, religiously intolerant or otherwise degrading to others,” the document reads.

But, this is in direct opposition to the First Amendment. The university has banned speech that is clearly protected under the First Amendment. It is also protected under Florida’s constitution.

As FIRE notes:

Sixteen Scandals: The Legacy of Eric Holder

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York and was raised in Elmhurst, Queens. His father (1905-1970) arrived in the U.S. from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker. Holder’s mother, Miriam, is American-born and the daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.

 
Holder attended Columbia University, enrolling in 1969. He was active in the Student Afro-American Society and according to Discover the Networks:

And, Even More Assaults on the First Amendment…

C_FreeSpeech_MR

The James Rosen incident is indicative of a trend, in recent years, of chipping away at First Amendment rights. In the Rosen case, the Justice Department claimed that it did not violate the press freedom of the Fox News Correspondent  as he isn’t press. Instead, the DOJ argued, he was an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a spy ring for having receiving classified information about North Korea from an intelligence analyst.

Evidence of Rosen’s spying consisted of an e-mail to Rosen’s source stating that he wanted to break “news ahead of my competitors” and that they could “expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.”

Only Government Approved Thoughts and Speech Allowed-Or Else! Guest Jerry Newcombe Comes Forth

Who would think one could be fined or even jailed simply from speaking?  No, this has nothing to do with the old laws against profanity. This is punishment for simply speaking an opinion about something, or someone, or a lifestyle with speech that is not considered, “Politically Correct.”  That term, by the way,  was coined and introduced by Adolph Hitler as he set out to subdue all people and control their lives. Thought control is an important element in raising a dictator and keeping him in power.

If an ethnic person attacks you and intends to kill you, and in the process of defending yourself, you call out something to do with his ethnic background, YOU will be the one arrested and jailed. Not the perpetrator who enjoys full protection from the government.  Because you thought negative about that person, possibly because of a past experience,  it becomes a ‘hate’ crime, that can be properly identified as, “Criminally Thinking.”

MilesTones Briefs Pulled Up: Weiner Poll Results

Is it men in general who suffer sexual abstinence anxieties (SAA)? Or does the disease especially target politicians?  The answer seems to be both. MilesTones conducted a purely irrational survey and found that 11 out of 10 men acknowledge a Weiner Problem, named for Congressman Anthony Wiener (D-NY).

Since the de-panting activitiies of the Beltway Congressman was unbuckled,  the medical profession has paid close attention to what appears to be a new strain of acute Obsessive Compulsive Disorder among politicans addicted to mating rituals which result in sexual over-drive symptoms that are, without treatment,  impossible to brake.

Since being revealed in this column, the medical profession( after intensive study), has officially re-catagorized the Weiner Problem (now published in the Diagnostic Reference Manual), as “Restless Weiner Syndrome.” (RWS)  It is a destructive disease that has fried Weiner’s political career and compromised a formerly powerful and rigid Democratic Party. See the story of the wayward congressman, “This Weiner Should Be Grilled,” at: www.revaustinmiles.com

No free speech rights for would-be fathers?

A would-be father in New Mexico is on a legal course to define whether or not men have an right to free speech when it concerns the activity of the women who carry their unborn children.  Specifically, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, can they speak out against it publicly?  What happens when the free speech rights enshrined in our First Amendment comes into conflict with the manufactured "right to privacy" which legalized abortion?

35 year old Greg Fultz of Alamogordo, New Mexico has paid to put up a billboard stating, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"  The billboard has a picture of Fultz with an outline of a baby in his arms.

The woman has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy.

From the story...

...Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

Christians sued for not allowing homosexual ceremonies

Once you start down the path of redefining marriage to include anything other than the exclusive union of a man and a woman, it's not long before those who firmly disagree with that redefinition begin to see their values come under assault.  And that is just what has happened in Illinois.

Christian bed and breakfast owners are being sued by homosexuals for not allowing the use of their facilities for a gay "civil union" ceremony.  And since (as of this June) the state of Illinois legally allows such unions, the complaint is over discrimination, and the Illinois Attorney General's office is investigating.

From the story:

The owner of the first B&B, the Beall Mansion of Alton, Ill., had told the complainant, Todd Wathen of Mattoon, IL, that they only let out their premises for weddings. The Christian owners of the second, Jim and Beth Walder of TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast of Paxton, had a similar response.

In the course of e-mail correspondence with Jim Walder, Wathen argued: “starting June 1st, a civil union is a wedding, you have to get a licenses at the county clerks office, it is just not a marriage ... but a legal wedding ... so aren’t you discriminating against me and my partner, because of our sexual orientation??”

Judge rules "anti-gay" Christian couple can't be foster parents

A judge in Great Britain has ruled that a Christian couple can no longer serve as foster parents due to their religious views that homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, really.  It's come to this.

The couple, Owen and Eunice Johns have been foster parents to over twenty children, but were banned from the program by social workers in 2007 as a result of interviews associated with the program where they expressed their opposition to homosexuality because of their faith.  Now a British court has upheld that ban.

The Associated Press reported that judges at London’s Royal Courts of Justice determined that laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination take precedence over the couple’s religious beliefs.

Britain, the judges ruled, was a “secular state, not a theocracy.”

Of course they failed to explain just what that has to do with anything.  I don't think it's lost on anyone who knows absolutely anything about history that England is not a theocracy.  But (at least until this point it seems), that hasn't stopped anyone from having their own personal religious beliefs.

“We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, views on sexual ethics,” Mrs. Johns said.

Federal Court rules cross unconstitutional

Here we go again.

The radically liberal 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court and found that a San Diego war memorial, shaped in the form of a cross, is unconstitutional, simply because it is on public land...which would constitute a government endorsement of religion.

Really?  Just curious, but does anyone really believe our government "endorses" religion?  How could a government that sanctions the killing of a million or so unborn babies every year be said to "endorse" religion?

From the story:

Capping a legal dispute brewing since the late 1980s, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision that threw out a legal challenge to the hilltop cross brought on behalf of Jewish war veterans.

The three-judge panel concluded in its 47-page opinion that the U.S. "district court erred in declaring the memorial to be primarily nonsectarian and granting summary judgment in favor of the government and the memorial's supporters." ...

The appeals court, recognizing volatile feelings generated on both sides by the case, wrote that America's war veterans can and should be honored, "but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion."

Syndicate content