Category Archives: First Amendment

40% of young Americans support government censorship of free speech

Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of the United States of America, understood by our Founding Fathers as an “unalienable right” given to all human beings (“endowed”) by God (“their Creator”). As stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

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

An alarming percentage of U.S. Millennials, however, as many as 4 out of 10, support government censorship, i.e., abridging the Constitutional right of freedom of speech of anyone who makes public statements “offensive” to “minorities”.

Millennials are those born between 1981 and 1997 who are 18 to 34 years old in 2015.

Jacob Poushter reports for PewResearchCenter, Nov. 20, 2015, that American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

The poll comes at a time when America’s colleges and universities increasingly restrict free speech, in the name of racial and ethnic equality, “safe zones” and protecting delicate students from “micro-aggression”.

The survey asked people whether they believe that their fellow citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things.

While Americans as a whole are less likely to favor government censorship of free speech than other countries, U.S. Millennials stood out as the group that most favors censorship. Here are the survey results for Americans:

  • Overall, 28% of Americans are pro-censorship; 67% support free speech.
  • 40% of Millennials are pro-censorship vs. 58% pro-free speech.
  • The elderly (ages 70-87) are most pro-free speech: 80% are for vs. 12% who favor censorship.
  • Women are more pro-censorship (33%) than men (23%).
  • Democrats are more pro-censorship (35%) than Independents (27%) or Republicans (18%).
  • Non-whites are more pro-censorship (38%) than white non-Hispanics (23%).
  • The less educated — those with only a high school education or less — are more pro-censorship (31%) than those with some college (29%) and those with a college degree or more (22%).

2015 Pew Survey on free speech - USA

Here’s how Americans compare with Europeans. No wonder Europe, especially Germany, seems helpless before the tide of Muslim “refugee” invaders.

2015 Pew Survey on free speech - Europe

It appears young Americans are just waiting for a demagogue to mold and mobilize them into a new Hitlerjeugend (Hitler Youth), Communist Youth League, or Maoist Red Guards.

Remember this?


Obama’s DOJ considers “racist” and “anti-government” Americans to be domestic terrorists

Remember that 2008 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secret memo that identified Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic,” “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists”?

Now the POS is going one step further by creating a new position in the Department of Justice (DOJ) — the Domestic Terrorism Counsel — who is charged with coordinating investigations into “domestic terrorists,” specifically Americans who are “racist” (whatever that means) and “anti-government” (whatever that means).

Assistant Attorney General John Carlin

Eric Tucker reports for the AP, Oct. 14, 2015, that in a question-and-answer session after a George Washington University speech, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, head of the DOJ’s national security division, said that while the international terror threat occupies the public attention, federal officials are just as concerned about domestic terrorism from Americans motivated by anti-government views and racist ideologies. 

Carlin said that Americans inspired by racial hatred (whatever that means) — but without any ties to established terror groups — are a “clear and present danger” to the public. He claimed that more Americans have been killed in recent years in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.

The new Domestic Terrorism Counsel will be the main point of contact for U.S. Attorney offices nationwide and will work to identify trends across cases, help shape strategy and analyze legal gaps that need to be closed.

By the latter the Obama administration seems to mean a specific legal gap between how the DOJ deals with “international” terrorists like Islamic State sympathizers and how it deals with “domestic terrorists.” In the case of IS sympathizers, they are routinely charged with providing material (financial) support to foreign terror groups. But, due to First Amendment concerns, there’s no comparable legal statute for “domestic terrorists” like Americans who aid white supremacist organizations.

Carlin said, “To do that for a group here would mean, based on who the group is and what they’re doing, that the entire group is designated as the terrorist group.” 

In other words, the DOJ is proposing that any and all Americans whom the Obama administration deems to be “racist” or “anti-government” would be designated as domestic terrorists. 

How does the Obama administration define “racist” or “anti-government”?:

  1. Is it by behavior, and if so, what specific behaviors constitute “racist” or “anti-government”?
  2. Or is the Obama administration defining “racist” and “anti-government” not just by behavior, but also by speech and thought? — which appears to be the case, given the administration’s identification of the First Amendment, with its guarantee of freedom of speech, as a legal obstacle to going after “domestic terrorists.”

Welcome to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

To the liberals=Democrats=Progressives=socialists=commies who are applauding this chilling new notion of “domestic terrorists”:

Today, “racist” and “anti-government” Americans are designated to be “domestic terrorists.” Tomorrow, the definition of “domestic terrorists” may well be expanded to include liberals.

To those Americans (and who knows how many illegal aliens) who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012:

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

Founding Fathers were domestic terrorists

See also:


20 professors & scientists sign letter asking Obama to prosecute climate-change skeptics


There is no longer freedom of speech and of thought in America.

It is now a crime to hold a belief or opinion different from those of the Left.

20 academics from U.S. universities and research institutes are signatories to a letter asking Obama to prosecute Americans who are skeptical of man-made global warming climate change.

The 8 universities and 2 research institutes are, in alphabetical order:

  1. Atmospheric Research
  2. Columbia University
  3. Florida State University
  4. George Mason University
  5. National Center for Atmospheric Research
  6. Rutgers University
  7. University of Maryland
  8. University of Miami
  9. University of Texas
  10. University of Washington

Below is the letter, which you can also read for yourself by going here. I’ve added the professional titles of the signers.


Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and [White House Office of Science & Technology] OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-Rhode Island]– is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


Jagadish Shukla, Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, Director of Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, Associate Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, Professor and Chair of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
John Michael Wallace, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Professor of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, Senior Research Scientist at Earth System Science Interdisciplinary CenterUniversity of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Professor Emeritus of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Associate Professor of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, Professor of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Assistant Research Professor, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Professor of Earth and Climate Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Adjunct Associate Professor, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Independent Researcher at Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

~End of letter~

In their letter, the above 20 academics and research scientists present man-made climate change as a certified truth — “an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change”.

That is not true, according to a 2013 survey reported in the peer-reviewed journal, Organization Studies. The survey found that:

  • Only a minority (36%) of geoscientists (aka earth scientists) and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.
  • By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
  • Geoscientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.
  • Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of man-made global warming claims.

See also:

H/t Robert K. Wilcox


Thought Crime and Punishment in the USA

Dr. Eowyn:

So much for the First Amendment’s promise of freedom of speech.

Constitution toilet paper

Originally posted on Memory Hole:

James speaks with Southern California-based political commentator John Friend, a 29-year-old man who was recently terminated from his position in the Escondido City Manager’s office because after being targeted for his online political speech. He has been deemed a “conspiracy theorist,” “white supremacist” and “anti-semite” for challenging conventional historical narratives of 9/11 and World War II.

friend1 John Friend has been terminated by two employers since 2013 for his publicly-expressed political views

Friend appears to have entered the sites of anonymous forces who chose to use the press–in this case the San Diego Tribune (here and here)–in a campaign that pressured Friend’s employer to force him into relinquishing his position with the municipality. Tracy experienced a similar scenario when the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ran a smear campaign in early 2013 highlighting Tracy’s analyses of Sandy Hook school massacre press coverage.

View original 42 more words

Obama threatens Christians: “Gay rights” come before your constitutional right to religious freedom

A couple of months ago one Sunday morning, I arrived early at church and found the presiding priest — an orthodox and reverent priest — graciously standing outside to greet parishioners. There was no one around, so we began chatting.

Father X spontaneously said something very interesting. He said that, after the 2016 elections, Catholic priests will be imprisoned in the United States for defending their faith.

I questioned his timing. Referring to the creature occupying the White House, I said, “He won’t wait till the 2016 elections. He still has one and a half years to wreak more destruction on this country.”

Then I quoted — a quote with which Fr. X was even more familiar than I was — what the late Archbishop of Chicago Cardinal Francis George said in 2010 about the perilous state of religious freedoms in the United States (and across the western world):

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Cardinal George’s prophesy isn’t so far-fetched given what Obama recently proclaimed.

Barely hours after Pope Francis emphasized the importance of religious freedom in his speech to the United Nations, as Francis was en route in his flight back to Rome, Obama delivered a “F-you” by declaring a war against Christianity and against the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, declaring that homosexual “rights” come before any rights to religious freedom.

Obama at LGBT fundraiser in NY, Sept. 27, 2015.

Charlie Spiering reports for Breitbart that in a speech at a LGBT fundraiser in New York City on Sunday (Sept. 27, 2015) night, Obama praised the progress made on “gay rights” under his administration. He crowed:

“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions. But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Obama then accused Republicans of using the religious freedom issue just to earn more votes, as they did in 2004, and boasted that “America has left the leaders of the Republican Party behind.”

He then singled out three GOP presidential contenders for ridicule:

  • Dr. Ben Carson, for suggesting that “prison turns you gay.”
  • Sen. Ted Cruz, for saying he would introduce a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
  • Gov. Mike Huckabee, for saying that Americans should just disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Obama mocked Huckabee, “I’m sure he loves the Constitution — except for Article III. And maybe the Equal Protection Amendment. And 14th Amendment, generally.”

Obama proudly told the audience (that included DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and actor George Takei) that he would not back down in his efforts to make progress for the LGBT community, and called for all of them to remain vigilant to hold the line on important legal gains in the country. “What makes America special is, is that though sometimes we zig and zag, eventually hope wins out,” he said. “But it only wins out because folks like you put your shoulder behind the wheel and push it in that direction.”

See also “Judicial Tyranny: Dissenting opinions on Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage.”


Christians are leaving the U.S. military

Convoy duty

Jacqueline Klimas reports for The Washington Times, April 15, 2015, that Christians are leaving the U.S. military or are discouraged from joining in the first place because of a “hostile work environment” that doesn’t let them express their beliefs openly, according to religious freedom advocates.

They include:

1. Douglas Lee, an Army chaplain who, as president of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, is charged with finding people who want to be chaplains and make sure they’re also qualified to serve in the military. Lee said that growing religious hostility within the military is making it harder for him to find potential recruits and for the armed forces to maintain the chaplains it does have. “I know people who get out, officers and chaplains, who’ve said, ‘I can’t serve the way I want to in this environment. People who’ve said, ‘Because of the religious liberty challenges I see, I think I’ll serve somewhere else.'”

2. Michael Berry, senior counsel of the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America — in our schools, for our churches, in the military and throughout the public arena. Berry said that recent high-profile cases of military chaplains facing punishment for private counseling sessions that reflected the teachings of their religion could cause devout Americans who are qualified for military service to think twice about joining the military. “People of faith are going to stay away from the military. I can’t tell you how many moms and dads I’ve spoken to who say, ‘My son or daughter wants to join the military, [but] in light of what you’ve described, I’m not sure I want to let them join the military anymore,’ and I don’t blame them. I would have serious reservations about my own kids joining.”

Berry points out that not being able to recruit or retain Christians is very dangerous from a national security standpoint because they could be the military’s next group of leaders, but will never serve because they don’t think they’re welcome. Berry said he thinks the “hostile work environment” that is forcing the most religious persons out of the military is only getting worse, and that while in the past problems were mainly in the Air Force, religious liberty issues have spread throughout all the services. “The problem is getting worse, not better, despite our efforts. There is a culture [of] hostility [toward] religion in the military right now.”

3. Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, notes that the hostility is directed not at all religious groups, but against Christians in particular. He said he’s seen a recent uptick and pattern of Christians facing persecution for religious expression.

In effect, it is neither incorrect nor hyperbolic to describe the U.S. military under Obama as anti-Christ.

The military had 2,837 active-duty chaplains as of December 2014, according to numbers provided by the Defense Department. The largest group was the Southern Baptist Convention, with 437 members. More than 200 chaplains are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church, while 26 are Jewish, and just one is Hindu.

DOD spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen insists that “The Department of Defense respects, places a high value on and supports by policy the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to have no religious beliefs. The mission of the chaplain corps is to provide care and the opportunity for service members, their families and other authorized personnel to exercise their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.” Blah, blah, blah.

The Liberty Institute warns that the abuse of religious freedom within the U.S. military “has intensified under the Obama Administration, and its now reaching crisis level.”

Below are examples of such abuses, in which our service men and women – the very people who fight for our freedoms – are having their First Amendment rights taken away:

Mikey Weinstein

In the above cases, Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is the main instigator. Weinstein said that while chaplains can believe whatever their religion teaches, those who think they must act on religious teachings about sex or sexuality have no place in the military. “You can continue to believe that internally, but if you have to act on that, the right thing to do is to get out of the U.S. military, because you have no right to tell a member of the military that they’re inferior because of the way they were born” — which doesn’t make any sense.

Weinstein said he thinks the chaplain corps would work better if chaplains were totally outside the military force structure and didn’t have a military rank because having religious leaders in the military serves as propaganda for Islamic extremist groups who try to paint the U.S. military as religious crusaders — which is a straw-man argument.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV


Take the U.S. Citizenship Test!

people are morons

There are 25 questions in all.

To pass the test, you must get at least 15 correct answers.

To take the test, click here, then report back to us on your score!

H/t my sis-in-law Shireen. <3

P.S. I found this a really easy test. Regular readers of FOTM should all ace the test. (I scored 25/25 correct.)