Category Archives: First Amendment

Football player has brilliant idea to better their community: Criminalize hate speech

Not a US Civics expert: Myles Garrett

Meet Myles Garrett, a NFL football player for the Cleveland Browns. He attended Texas A&M where he was a two-time All American. I don’t know what he majored in at college as his Wikipedia page only speaks to his football stats and not his college education or degrees he received. I can guarantee you he didn’t major in US Civics.

The Browns recently had a meeting “to discuss ways they can better their community.”

Garretts’ brilliant idea? From Fox News:

“I’ve brought forth the idea of a petition for criminalizing hate speech,” Garrett said during a Zoom meeting. “I don’t believe it should be said, in forms … whether it’s on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or openly in the streets and marched and paraded. It shouldn’t be like that.”

Garrett was asked why he believes it will affect long-term change, and his response was that “It’s different this time. … It can’t be ignored.”

Read the whole Fox News story here.

I suggest Garrett use the power to access information at his fingertips and perhaps Google “US Constitution and hate speech,” “Bill of Rights and hate speech,” or the easiest, “First Amendment.”

He just might learn a thing or two.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Fordham University punishing student for “hate crime” photo on Instagram

NOTE: I’m not suggesting you donate to the NRA or this student’s GoFundMe. I have included them as sources to the story since the demorat-run media is silent about the harassment of this student.

———————————————-

Fordham University is a private research university in New York City. It is is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the northeastern United States. It is also a place where free speech and thought is not allowed.

Meet Austin Tong, a senior at Fordham. Austin posted this “offensive” picture with his “automatic” weapon on Instagram:

He’s now being punished for daring to exercise his Second Amendment right.

Here’s what happened to him at Fordham, from his GoFundMe page:

“On July 14th, I was officially punished by Fordham University in the name of probation suspension for the alleged crimes of “Violation of University Regulations relating to Bias and/or Hate Crimes”; “Threats/Intimidation,” an explicit attack on my freedom of expression for two Instagram posts I posted in June. I am no longer permitted on campus, with public safety coming to my home at midnight to question me on the day of the post, and face forced political reeducation through mandatory courses and to write an apology letter, or will face full suspension or expulsion – is this happening in America, or is this a Soviet nightmare?”

Read his story here or watch the NRA video:

UNBELIEVABLE.

But this is who the demorats are: You either comply with their ideology/demands or they will DESTROY you.

Feel free to contact Fordham University here on Twitter or send an email to the office of their president.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Take a look at one of WA ST Gov. Inslee’s new police force task members

In response to the shootings at CHAZ/CHOP, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee tweeted the following:

“We are going to take a hard look at how we manage independent investigations of police use of force in WA. Our new task force will recommend actions we can take to create a more just WA. It includes community leaders, impacted family members and law enforcement representatives.”

In this Twitter thread he lists all the members of the task force. This includes Livio De La Cruz – board member, Black Lives Matter SEA-KC.

He/Him: BLM SEA-KC board member and JD candidate Livio De La Cruz

Let’s take a look at Livio (he/him), shall we? From he/him Twitter bio: “JD Candidate 2022 at SeattleLaw. Freelance #Unity3D Programmer #GameDev, He/Him.”

Yes, Livio is going to study law. Which should make you very nervous considering this tweet by he/him on June 22:

“1. Police kill people
2. Seattle protests this
3. Republicans say, repeatedly, these protestors deserve to be shot and killed
4. White people agree, they bring guns, they shoot, they kill.
5. “It’s the protesters’ fault!”

There’s A LOT of presumptive and unproven statements in this tweet. You’d think a JD candidate would be able to back up all of he/him assertions with some facts, right? Here’s he/him following tweet:

“Do you know what it’s like to have people in power call for your death, to have them shout their bloodlust so loudly that the entire country hears it, only to have everyone blame YOU for the death that results from this?”

I’m no JD candidate yet I did take debate class in high school and learned how to prove my case. Here ‘ya go, Livio:

1. “Police kill people”

Yes, police do kill people. They kill in self defense, a criminal committing a crime, protecting a victim from a criminal, and in some cases of police brutality. They also kill people who are unarmed.

Police have contact with MILLIONS of people throughout the US every year. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s database of police-involved shootings, nine unarmed black people were shot and killed by the police, compared to 19 unarmed white people.

What’s your point, Livio, about “police kill people?”

“Police kill people” is a generic statement. Accidents kill people. Rioters kill people. Drugs kill people. A lot of things kill people.

My point is that police kill less unarmed black people than white. What is your point, exactly?

How Seattle “protests”/Q13 Fox News photo

2. “Seattle protests this”

Yes they do. Seattle protests that police kill people while they also loot, riot and burn down businesses. Because nothing says protestors are against police brutality by creating violence throughout your city.

I would also put forth that your definition of “protests” has been arbitrarily expanded to include the illegal occupation of public/private property and terrorization of fellow tax-paying citizens.

3. “Republicans say, repeatedly, these protestors deserve to be shot and killed”

Please provide evidence where republicans state that PEACEFUL protestors deserve to be shot and killed. We all know that the First Amendment, with qualifiers, applies to protests. Why leave out that one important word? I’ll wait.

For all those “protestors” who riot, loot and burn businesses, yes, they do deserve to be shot. That’s called self defense or affirmative defense, and one has a reasonable right to defend real or personal property. As a JD candidate, do you believe that law-abiding taxpayers and property owners should forfeit their legal rights to protestors?

4. “White people agree, they bring guns, they shoot, they kill.”

Livio, you provide no evidence of this statement. As a JD candidate, you should understand that you have a duty to provide a burden of proof and evidence that establishes the truth of your statement. Produce something that may pause me to consider your claim.

I know of no white person who showed up at the recent Seattle protests with their guns to shoot and kill. I’ll wait for your evidence.

5. “It’s the protesters’ fault!”

In the absence of rules of evidence, I guess this conclusion works for you.

Good luck in law school, Livio. And good luck in the courtroom.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Chris Cuomo: “Show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful”

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

A simplistic and juvenile insult of US military

The other day I say this on Twitter:

I thought it was insulting to healthcare workers because they have been at the frontline of this Wuhan virus, as is the job of medical professionals.

Yet depending upon the crisis/situation one may be facing, a hero exists in many aspects of life. For example: healthcare workers, random strangers, lifeguards, a good guy with a gun, EMTs, a tow truck driver and even children.

Then I saw this response to the above photo: “Those who serve in the us military aren’t heroes because anyone can pull a trigger.”

Way to belittle Americans defending your First Amendment freedom by using an insult to respond to an insult. So juvenile yet expected from progressives.

Just because one may be able “pull a trigger” doesn’t mean they are capable of doing so. See the following examples (second video NSFW due to language):

For the proggies in the second video: TAKE FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING SERIOUSLY. (BTW, this instructor completely FAILED in teaching these people trigger finger control!!!) If anyone can pull a trigger, you can learn the basics of firearm safety before shooting those scary guns, right?

Once these proggies have mastered how to “pull a trigger,” maybe they’ll enlist and learn other military basics: Communication, patrol, recon, cover and conceal, metric measurements, fire distribution and control, standoff advantage, first aid, survival skills (shelter, food, water, purification, etc.), waste disposal, position and location and land navigation (learn to use a compass!), weapons maintenance, rifle marksmanship, firearm and buddy tactics, infantry combat, vehicle maintenance, electronics, and so many, many other very important battlefield skills that will save your life and those of your fellow soldiers.

What do ‘ya know? It does take a lot more than being able to “pull a trigger” to serve in the military.

But that’s the beauty in the asinine things I see on Twitter: You can make insulting comments and get lots of likes for it, yeah! You’re special!!

Ain’t America great?

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Urges European Countries to Censor Political Speech

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, meets China’s president Xi Jinping during negotiations to allow the social media giant to conduct business in the world’s most populous nation.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called for Europe to regulate social media on  issues such as political messages, privacy and data portability — or risk losing ground to “authoritarian” rules set down by countries such as China.

Zuckerberg met members of the European Union’s Executive Commission in Brussels on February  15 and  later gave an address at the Munich Security Conference in Germany in which he made his pitch for censoring free speech.

He said regulatory boundaries would give citizens “confidence” that tech giants were following a set of rules agreed by everyone, and that users “don’t want private companies taking decisions on how to balance social equities without a democratic process.”

“I believe our responsibility is to build the operational muscle to be able to enforce policies, fight interference and have good auditing and controls,” he said, but governments should provide “more guidance and regulation … on political advertising or what discourse should be allowed or on [drawing the line between] harmful expression and freedom.”

Zuckerberg said the process would “create trust and better regulation of the internet.” He also emphasised urgency, saying he was “very worried” that countries such as China were encoding “authoritarian values” in their regulation of the internet.

“To encode democratic values, open values, we’ve got to move forward  and move quickly before more authoritarian models get adopted in a lot of places first,” he said.

And yet, as Zuckerberg delivered his pitch to Europeans urging them to regulate free speech on the Internet before China forces the issue, he neglected to acknowledge that he already had caved in to the communist demands for censorship.

Niko Efstathiou writing for World Crunch, detailed Zuckerberg’s nine-year effort to get the communists to allow Facebook into China, and how the Facebook CEO finally caved into China’s demands for total censorship control.

In his January 17, 2018 article, Efstathiou writes:

“It was a handshake nine years in the making.

Amid a mass of red and blue banners — with Facebook’s mission “Making The World More Open And Connected” written in big white letters  — Mark Zuckerberg and Ren Xianliang, China’s deputy head of cyberspace administration, sealed a long-awaited agreement in front of a pulsating crowd of students at Tsinghua University. Having been summarily banned from China in 2009, Facebook was finally re-entering the Chinese market after authorities deemed Facebook’s content-suppression software to be in full compliance with the country’s censorship laws.

“We are very happy that Facebook and China are restoring the world’s faith in the digital space, by making sure that all online issues are related to reality,” Ren declared before the well-orchestrated event, an odd blend of news conference and university pep rally.

Zuckerberg said he was excited to see where 750 million Chinese users would take Facebook’s community. He ended with a salutation in Mandarin, earning a foot-stomping ovation.

With all the smiles at Tsinghua, it was easy to forget how resistant China had been to Facebook’s attempts to enter its booming online market. The ban had come swiftly after independence activists in the Xinjiang region used the social media platform for internal communications. In the years that followed, and despite numerous visits by Zuckerberg, the Beijing authorities remained unyielding in refusing Facebook’s entry past the so-called Great Firewall of China.

The key to reverse the situation first came in 2016 when Facebook began quietly developing a news-filtering software that had the potential to satisfy China’s censorship demands. That project initially provoked controversy, but Donald Trump’s election and the furor around fake news became just the smokescreen the social media giant needed to make its Chinese dream a reality.

Following Trump’s surprise victory, fake news quickly had become the phrase of the moment, following a falsehoods zeitgeist that prompted the Oxford Dictionary to select “post-truth” as its word of the year in 2016. Stories ranging from Pope Francis endorsing Trump for the presidency to Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS sprung up on people’s news feeds in the weeks before the U.S. election.

Political leaders, newspaper editors and tech companies alike expressed concern about the risks that fabricated stories could pose for democracy. Clinton supporters blamed the phenomenon for her loss. Trump, meanwhile, assigned the fake news label to virtually any criticism of him that appeared in the media, making sure to hold on to the “k” in “fake” for extra theatrics.

Initially, Facebook had strongly resisted the idea that it should accept editorial responsibility for the content published on its platform; it was fearful of the costs and the extra regulation this could mean. But under intense public pressure — and a German bill that proposed up to a 500,000-euro fine per fake article — the company began to take steps to demonstrate it was acting against the truly and blatantly made-up stories. In January 2017, after a series of false reports targeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel surfaced on social media, the company released a fake news-filtering mechanism that allowed users to report articles as fake.

The system sent articles flagged by a sufficient number of users to Correctiv, a third-party fact-checking nonprofit staffed by investigative journalists who would work to determine the content’s validity. Stories found to be false were then marked as “disputed” and placed under a restriction by Facebook’s news feed algorithm, with a warning sent to users who chose to share them.

The U.S. version of the system arrived in May, with the fact checking delegated to major American news outlets as well as nonprofits. The Associated Press, ABC News, PolitiFact and Snopes signed on. The initiative earned early praise, with Facebook credited for a bold response to counter the post-truth age.

 Chinese officials quickly began labeling articles critical of their rule “假新闻”: fake news.

But after that initial enthusiasm, the new system quickly took a different turn. A number of the news outlets signed on to fact-check began to lose interest: Up against the armies of trolls, the value of experienced reporters dedicating their time to debunking often obviously absurd pieces seemed questionable amid ever-shrinking newsroom budgets. At the same time, users and media commentators asked why Facebook wasn’t simply removing the posts automatically.

But the controversy took on an entirely different dimension when people realized the tool that would allow this already existed: in China.

The mechanism built for China, unlike the U.S. version, did away with the flaggers and fact-checkers and simply deleted posts based on keyword analysis. Facebook was not responsible for choosing which posts were removed  —  that was handed to a third-party company, which set the keywords.

China almost immediately saw that the frenzy over fake news in Western democracies was an opportunity to expand censorship over their country’s online activity. Chinese officials soon began labeling articles critical of their rule “假新闻”: fake news.

From propaganda to censorship

The blurring of debunking and censorship happened quickly. Facebook had already had a long history of generally obeying foreign governments’ requests to suppress access to content: Between July and December 2015, the company blocked as many as 55,000 pieces of content in about 20 countries. But the new content-suppression mechanism became a faster and far more effective tool for authoritarian governments. Whereas previously the authorities had to make requests, their flaggers and supporters could now do the job for them.

In April 2016, Turkey became the first country to use the content-suppression software to not just restrict circulation and flag stories but also to remove content altogether. Articles deemed “insulting to the president” or to “Turkish identity” often evaporated from Facebook. Zeynep Gülec, a self-exiled former reporter for the newspaper Hürriyet, published an open letter in which she said “fighting for media freedom in Turkey was always hard, but with Facebook’s new tool it has become impossible.”

China, for its part, accepted Facebook’s opening to its market after delegating the fact-checking responsibility to Zhenli, a newly created Chinese company based in Beijing linked to senior Communist officials and staffed by veterans of state-run news agencies.

Back in the U.S., the effects of Facebook’s content filtering were less monolithic but no less momentous. The rollout of the system met with a fierce public backlash and a joint letter from the editors-in-chief of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and more than 50 other daily newspapers, giving Zuckerberg a lesson about both the U.S. First Amendment and the costs of playing ball with the Beijing regime.

A faster and far more effective tool for authoritarian governments.

Facebook, which had hired an editorial staff to help manage the filtering, became the focus of intense partisan criticism, particularly from Republicans who said the mechanism was “rigged.” President Trump, for his part, railed against the “pathetic fact-checkers” and “Mark Zuckercrook.” Democrats also attacked the mechanism after a series of embarrassing deletions of ironic posts and those examining troubling issues, such as gun violence and pedophilia. The civil liberties group ACLU filed several suits against the Palo Alto platform for limiting free speech, even when it is false.

Meanwhile, despite the 700 million potential users in China, the development of the past six months that matters most to Mark Zuckerberg is rooted in the U.S., where more and more of the most extreme users on both sides of the political spectrum have begun deleting their Facebook accounts, passing their time instead on two brand new alternative social media platforms that avoided any filtering. Their names, perhaps unsurprisingly, are Rightbook and Leftbook.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Enter the Gestapo: R.I Governor Closes State Borders, Searches Private Homes for Non-Residents

Welcom to Rhode Island. Pull pull over and show me your papers.

Rhode Island’s Democrat governor Gina Raimondo has closed the state’s borders and established a draconian set of repressive regulations that would have made Adolph Hitler proud. Now, armed military police man roadblocks at all interstate and major highways leading to into, and out of, the state. Armed National Guard soldiers and State Police officers search door-to-door looking for non-Rhode Island people. Local police drive through residential neighborhoods looking for out-of-state license plates. Armed National Guard soldiers are stationed at the T.F. Green airport, Amtrak train stations and at bus stops. The maximum penalty for not complying: a fine of $500 and 90 days in prison. (Prison time for disobeying a quarantine when actual felons are released by the thousands? What insanity!)

London Plague 1348 “Bring out your dead.”
Nazi Germany 1943: “Hand over your Jews.”
Rhode Island 2020: “Identify the the New Yorkers.”

And three golfers from Massachusetts, where all outdoor recreation has been banned, were arrested when they crossed the border to play on a Rhode Island course that was unrestricted for Rhod Islanders. Everyone who drives into the state is ordered to stop and submit to an interrogation. But Raimondo has an especially severe restriction on New Yorkers, since many have tried to avoid the New York outbreak by fleeing to other states. Raimondo’s order says any person coming into Rhode Island from another state for a non-work related purpose—especially from New York—must immediately self-quarantine for 14 days.

Issued March 28, the order repealed a previous emergency declaration that targeted only travelers from New York State. Anyone who doesn’t self-quarantine as ordered will face a fine, and for subsequent offenses could warrant large fines on top of prison time. Soldiers are relaying motorists’ and other non-residents’ contact information to the state’s health department. Health department workers are calling those people to check on their well-being and if necessary to keep track of any contacts they have had.

The lock down has had some truly bizarre, and quite frankly, frightening effects. It has turned ordinary citizens into spies and informants for the government. It is turned duffers who wanted nothing more than to play golf on an open-to-the public course into criminals.

One week after Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker ordered all outdoor recreational areas to be closedclosed, including golf courses and the rifle range where I shoot, Richmond, R.I. police bagged three golfers from Massachusetts on misdemeanor charges. Police said the three duffers went to elaborate lengths to hide their identities as out-of-towners so they could get in a round of golf at the Meadow Brook Golf Course in town.

Gregory Corbett, 51, Tyler Pietrzyk, 22, and Nye Cameron, 22, were apprehended at a nearby McDonald’s restaurant, where police say the men changed cars to drive to the club in a vehicle with Rhode Island license plates, the Attleboro (Mass) Sun Chronicle reported.

Employees at the McDonald’s ratted them out and called the cops.

Gib Mir deinen Pass!

Cops issued the three men summonses for violating the quarantine when they drove back from the golf course to their vehicles at the McDonald’s in the vehicle with the Rhode Island plates, the paper reported.

“It’s not the most heinous offense, but the reality is that we’re living in a whole different world this month, and it’s important we all follow the rules to keep one another safe,” Police Chief Elwood Johnson said.

The restrictions, however, are not without critics. The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union blasted the new rules, objecting to the collection of motorists’ contact information in particular.

“While the Governor may have the power to suspend some state laws and regulations to address this medical emergency, she cannot suspend the Constitution,” Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown said in a statement. “Under the Fourth Amendment, having a New York state license plate simply does not, and cannot, constitute ‘probable cause’ to allow police to stop a car and interrogate the driver, no matter how laudable the goal of the stop may be.

“The ACLU remains very concerned about the enormous breadth of the governor’s latest directive and its focus on out-of-staters at a time when the state acknowledges that half of Rhode Islanders themselves are not following social distancing rules,” Brown said. “A two-week quarantine solely for the ‘offense’ of coming from out of state, and with no opportunity to contest this demand, is deeply troubling.

“In addition,” Brown said, “targeting out-of-staters like this can only promote a divisive ‘us vs. them’ mentality that encourages vilification of others. We fully appreciate that the state is dealing with an emergency crisis that requires emergency actions, but it should not be at the unwarranted expense of our civil rights.”

Raimondo rebuffed the objections, pointing out that laws change during a state of an emergency, and added that she’s receiving federal guidance from the Trump Administration and legal advice from her administration as she makes these decisions.

“It’s the law,” she said. “We are serious about this.”

 

~ Grif

Checkpoint 13 – Check for contraband Line up the out-of-towners.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

The 8chan/8kun QResearch Board Search

I wanted to share this with y’all in case you were not aware of it.

  QResearch.ch,  The 8chan/8kun QResearch Board Search.

Free to use.  No advertising. No tracking.  No porn. No worries.  Just 13,083,277 documents from 38 Qanon related data sources. No loaded  pages from other domains.  Research  with privacy.

If you are into Qanon or just want to see some of the information we have, this is the best place to look.  No login.  No joining.  No vetting.  Just click the link provided at the bottom and start searching.

It’s not like the 8 chan that got shut down.  It’s not like the new 8 Kun.  It’s very simple to use.  You will see the following links at the top of the page for a general search.

For a more detailed search,

  • – specific keywords or keyphrases
  • – specific URL’s
  • – specific dates (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY/MM/DD)
  • – specific 8chan/8kun post ID’s

What can you search through?

3,894 Q-Posts from #Qanon
9,738 Answers to Q-Posts from spreadsheet
7,635,941 Posts in 10840 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board
4,045 Posts in 6 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – AUSTRALIA
2,654 Posts in 4 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – CANADA
646 Posts in 1 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – FRANCE
30,265 Posts in 43 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – GERMANY
1,393 Posts in 2 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – NETHERLANDS
2,117 Posts in 3 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – NEW ZEALAND
6,854 Posts in 9 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – UK
7,311 Posts in 11 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic ALIEN UFO
6,674 Posts in 9 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic CLOCKWORK
2,895 Posts in 4 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic NWO
38,440 Posts in 53 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QRB Board
29,619 Posts in 41 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch2Gen Board
224,669 Posts in 312 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s CBTS Board
30,175 Posts in 43 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s TheStorm Board
37,974 Posts in 54 Threads from Endchan’s qanonresearch Board
5,339 Posts in 15 Threads from Endchan’s qrbunker Board
46,571 Tweets from @realDonaldTrump
12,272 Resignations (since Sep. 1, 2017) from resignation.info
106 Corona Infection Cases from “CoronaVirus Notable Cases”-Spreadsheet
372 Death Cases from deathcas.es
143 Helicopter Crashes from “Helicopter Crashes”-list
2,412 Human Trafficking Arrests (events – since Jan. 1, 2016) from “Notable Human Trafficking Arrests”-list
378,295 Unsealed Indictments from https://bad-boys.us/
2,327 Epstein BlackBook from “Epstein BlackBook”
4,275 Epstein Flight Logs from “Epstein Flight Logs”-list
110 Mass Shootings (events – since 1982) from “Mother Jones – Mass Shootings Database, 1982 – 2019”-list
967 Executive Orders (since 1994) from federalregister.gov
33,709 Hillary Clinton Emails from WikiLeaks
59,148 Podesta Emails from WikiLeaks
44,041 DNC Emails from WikiLeaks
138,185 Bahamas Leaks (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
168,758 Offshore Leaks (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
212,321 Panama Papers (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
171,376 Paradise Papers (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
3,727,246 White House Visitors (2009-2014) from archives.gov
13,083,277 Total

Click here for main page

 

Credit and thanks to Qanon and all who helped make QResearch.ch available.

QResearch is administered by people that do it as a public service.  Just like everyone here at FOTM, there is no pay.  Just people that care.  Searching for the truth.  Because you deserve it.

WWG1WGA

Respectfully,

Deplorable patriot.

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Not content with destroying the 2A, Virginia now going after the First Amendment

Not content with working hard to disarm law-abiding citizens, Virginia is now turning their attention to silencing their citizens.

On January 16, Virginia House Delegate member Jeffrey Bourne (demorat) presented HB 1627 entitled, “Threats and harassment of certain officials and property.”

The bill is to amend other codes relating to threats and harassment of certain officials and property. Obviously threatening a government official should be a no-no. BUT, get a look at THIS text:

“§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty: If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Read the whole bill here.

Who gets to define these terms thrown in the bill: obscene, vulgar, profane or indecent?

And I love the fact that demorats are going to be able to determine what is an “immoral act.”

This is RICH coming from the party that promotes homosexuality, anal sex, self mutilation under the guise of transgenderism, child drag queens and fisting, among other degenerate acts.

The Virginia General Assembly didn’t care what the 22,000 gun rights rally attendees had to say about their Second Amendment rights. Yet apparently they are very concerned with what you have to say about them striping those rights.

Dangerous times in Virginia, very dangerous times.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pentagon bans Bible verses on dog tags, while Pres. Trump upholds right to pray in public schools

No Bible Verses on Soldiers’ Dog Tags

The Pentagon caved in to (((Mikey Weinstein))) of the atheistic Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) again.

Caleb Parke reports for Fox News, Dec. 3, 2019, that for the past 20 years, U.S. military members have been able to wear dog tags with Bible verses on them, giving them light and hope in some of their darkest times. For some Gold Star families, this is one of their most cherished possessions to remember their loved one who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Founded by Kenny Vaughan in 1998, Shields of Strength is a Texas-based company that makes Christian jewelry, beginning with a dog-tag with a Bible scripture which Vaughan had made for himself. The company now makes dog-tags with Bible verses for military members and their family, as well as other Christian-theme jewelry and apparel.

After Fox News reported on Shields of Strength last July, Weinstein complained to the Department of Defense (DOD), demanding the DOD ban the Bible verses dog-tags. “Soon after,” each military branch pulled or threatened to pull the trademark licenses that had been issued to Kenny Vaughan from Shields of Strength.

Berry, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Afghanistan, told Fox News: “Just when I didn’t think Mikey Weinstein could stoop any lower, he pulled a stunt like that. He’d rather take it away from them just to raise his own publicity than support our service members … that’s pretty cowardly and that’s cruel.”

Vaughan said he’s seen soldiers, who have to leave their Bible behind, carry their Shields of Strength dog-tags with them; oftentimes, the soldiers would stand in line for hours just to get one: “The love of Jesus changed my life forever. It’s the most valuable thing I have to offer anyone is God’s Word. No one needs it more than a young man or woman fighting for our freedom and we’re going to fight for them.”

An acquaintance of mine who’s a Constitutional Law attorney, says:

“While I would absolutely oppose the military issuing such tags (even with a request from the servicemember) it is outrageous that servicemembers can’t voluntarily inscribe their own tags. From a legal point of view, if the military allows any inscriptions at all (like “I Love Mom”) then banning religious ones is content discrimination. That triggers strict (constitutional) scrutiny.”

Prayer in School

Meanwhile, on January 16, 2020, President Trump followed through on his promise to the Evangelicals for Trump rally in Miami on January 3 to “safeguard students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights to pray in our schools” through a directive from the Department of Education.

As reported by the AP and Christianity Today, the Department of Education issued a guidance on school prayer, the first updated guidance since 2003. The directive orders states to verify that school districts have no policies limiting constitutionally protected prayer, refer violators to the Education Department, and provide ways for making complaints against schools.

From the Department of Education’s press release of January 16, 2020:

[F]or the first time since 2003, the Department will …issue today updated guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. The Department is required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, to update this guidance every two years. The guidance explains the ESEA’s requirement that states report which local educational agencies have not certified that they do not have any policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer. The ESEA also requires states to report complaints against a local educational agency that allegedly denies a person, including a student or employee, the right to engage in constitutionally protected prayer. The guidance clarifies that the ESEA requires states to provide a clear process for students, parents, and teachers to report violations of their right to pray. Under the ESEA, states must fulfill these reporting requirements by November 1 of each year.

Christianity Today reminds us that public schools have been barred from leading students in classroom prayer since 1962, when the Supreme Court said it violated a First Amendment clause forbidding the establishment of a government religion. Later decisions extended the ban to school graduation ceremonies and, under certain circumstances, school athletic games.

Civil liberties groups say the firewall protects religious minorities and ensures fair treatment of all faiths. But many Christians say courts and schools have pushed too far against the right to free religious expression. Surveys find that Americans remain largely in favor of prayer in public schools:

  • According to General Social Survey data analyzed by political scientist Ryan Burge, just 20–35% of Christians support a ban against requiring reading the Lord’s Prayer or the Bible in public schools, and the religiously unaffiliated are evenly divided on the question.
  • A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found 41% of teens in public schools, including 68% of evangelicals, said they view teacher-led prayer in class as appropriate. A majority of teens in general (82%) and evangelical teens (64%) say there are no religious support or prayer groups that meet in their school.

South Dakota’s Republican Governor Kristi Noem, 48, is also fighting back against the Left’s tyranny.

In March 2019, Noem signed a law requiring every public school throughout the state to display an “In God We Trust” sign on their premises beginning in the fall semester. The law went into effect last July. (H/t Tom Wigand)

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0