Tag Archives: first amendment

‘Collidge Morons Demand to Control News Reporting’ (2015)

When I was a newspaperman, I sometimes encountered politicians and other characters with high opinions of themselves who demanded to approve and alter my story before I published it. This was shockingly bad form, and I told them so. Some of them understood. I mean, if we can’t report it like we saw it and we heard it, there’s no point in reporting it at all.

But now bad form seems to be gaining the upper hand. Remember this incident at Smith College, just a couple years ago?

https://leeduigon.com/2015/11/20/collidge-morons-demand-control-of-news-reporting/

Leftids just won’t stop until there’s no more freedom left.


Article Asks, ‘Is America Having Second Thoughts About Free Speech?’

See the source image

From The Week, Feb. 12, by Damon Linker–who is against the government putting restrictions on free speech, but can’t help seeing a disturbing trend in that direction (http://theweek.com/articles/753274/america-having-second-thoughts-about-free-speech).

Who can deny it? But to his argument I would like to add the observation that the proposed limitations on speech are mostly coming at us from the Hard Left/Democrat Party–while they themselves enjoy absolute freedom to say and publish anything they want, no matter how wrong, how vicious, how inane, how jejune, how childish, how spiteful, or how mean-spirited it might be.

We Christians and our friends are expected to just suck it up, yum yum, when we hear collidge prefessers and other pinheads declare that everything we hold dear and sacred is evil and stupid, white people are responsible for all the ills of the world and must be punished for it, every “value” in play before 1990 is wrong and must be erased along with the people who hold to them, America is a racist sexist stinking country and must be punished, only black lives matter, yours don’t–and on and on and on, no end to it. The past eight years have been especially trying.

Democrats, with a straight face, propose that people be “investigated” for the Crime of Climate Change Denial. What would they say if Republican Senators huddled with a Republican attorney general and discussed RICO sanctions against persons who had committed the Crime of Climate Change Affirmation–and made that a plank in their national party platform? Think they’d be upset? Think they’d invoke their First Amendment rights?

We are expected to listen to them, or at least not try to shut them down. Let’s make that a two-way street, shall we? See, we already have a frightfully good idea of what government restrictions on free speech would look like. The Democrats and their colleges have shown it to us.

A lot of this problem would go away if the government would stop funding universities. And we would be a better country for it.


France to Rein in ‘Fake News’

See the source image

French President Emmanuel Macron says he will propose new laws to crack down on “fake news” and its sponsors, and that persons who produce “fake news” will be “punished” somehow (https://www.politico.eu/pro/macron-proposes-new-law-against-fake-news/).

Does that mean I’d better not do any more jackalope stories?

How does Macron define “fake news”? Is it just reporting things that aren’t true? Gee, he’d have to ban almost all the America nooze media. Like, really–babbling away on Election Night, 2016, about Hillary’s impending landslide victory: how fake was that? Or the New York Times, year after year, printing Walter Duranty’s lies about the workers’ paradise being created in Russia by Stalin? It was all lies, and they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.

When you make laws against “fake news,” you have to anoint somebody to decide what’s fake and what isn’t, and that’s where the whole idea goes wrong. Suddenly “fake news” is any news critical of the punks in power. Try to imagine Loretta Lynch with the power to label and prosecute “fake news.” It ought to make your hair stand on end.

Our First Amendment guarantees, by law, the freedom of the press–without adding that the press is, of course, free to report all the news deemed “not fake” by the government. Because that freedom comes with no strings attached, we have always had to put up with “journalists” who are something less than a credit to their profession. We have always had to put up with a certain amount of bogus news. Our mainstream nooze media is, frankly, a disgrace. But because the First Amendment prohibits putting fetters on the press, alternative news outlets, made possible and effective by the Internet, have been able to develop and thrive.

Confound these power-hungry empty suits, like Macron, who are always trying to chop down the tree of liberty! Always for our own good, of course–which they know, but we don’t.

The partisan nooze media we have to tolerate now is an annoyance.

But giving some government dummy the power to decide what news is fake and what isn’t–well, that would be a lot more than just annoying.


School: Private Conversation Isn’t Private

Image result for images of duct tape over mouths

Our public education system continues to poison our society. Thanks (I think) to Linda for this news tip. (https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/05/17/augusta-school-department-punishes-employee-for-telling-coworker-i-will-pray-for-you/)

In Augusta, Maine, a public school employee was recently disciplined with “coaching”–can these people do euphemisms, or what!–for saying, in a private conversation with another employee who is also a member of her church, “I will pray for you.”

Well, hey, hey! She was “instructed” never to say such a thing in any private conversation. Hello! Aren’t private conversations private anymore? Not in a public school, they aren’t. The employee has filed charges against the school district for religious discrimination.

Even more disturbing, school officials told her that she cannot use “phrases that integrate public and private belief systems.”

Whoa! Hold it right there! Since when does America have any “public belief system”? Has the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment been repealed? Did it happen while we slept? Who established a “public belief system” that binds us all? (“One ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them…” –Tolkien)

These people have got to be sent packing, before we all wake up behind barbed wire. Who do they think they are?

Wake up, O spirit of 1776! Wake up!


College vs. Free Speech

Image result for images of violent student protests

If our country ever collapses into chaos and we lose our precious freedoms, our colleges and universities will be largely to blame for it.

The vice provost of New York University, one Ulrich Baer, has declared that trampling on free speech “ensures the conditions of free speech” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2017/04/30/nyu-administrator-goes-full-orwell-violating-free-speech-ensures-the-conditions-of-free-speech/#4f6ac8243718 ). Put that in your postmodern pipe and smoke it. It’ll make you as loopy as he is.

It’s simply “undebateable,” says this Stalinist wannabe, that we must kill our First Amendment to protect the fragile feelings of “minorities,” who must be rigidly shielded from ever hearing anything they don’t want to hear. It’s necessary to silence some of the people–us, he means–for the good of “a greater group of people.” This is what has been learned, he prates, by studying postmodernism and other forms of fractured logic.

He goes on to praise the Soros-funded thugs of Black Lives Matter, and other violent “protesters,” for “keeping watch over the soul of our republic.”

Don’t even ask for his definition of a “republic.” It’s bound to make no sense. For that matter, I’m not sure I want to find out what he means by “soul.”

So how about it, America? Are you ready now to stop pouring money into these institutions of “higher learning”? Or isn’t the pot boiling hot enough for you yet?


Has Berkeley Killed the First Amendment?

Image result for images of berkeley rioters in masks

Does Berkeley offer a degree in rioting?

“The graveyard of the First Amendment”–that’s what Anne Coulter called the Berkeley campus, after having to cancel her speech there for fear of student riots (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-coulter-speech-university-of-california-berkeley/). Left-wing students threatened to riot if she were allowed to speak, and, as usual, the university gave them what they wanted.

And the nooze media are on it, oh, yeah: calling it a battle of “the alt-right” vs. “anti-fascists.”

Is that honest? Is the Pope an astronaut? I still don’t know what “the alt-right” is, beyond being a pejorative term used by libs and progs. As for “anti-fascists,” well, that’s a nice term for a bunch of Stalinist wannabes who always act like fascists, isn’t it?

Here is a simple truth. Democrats do not believe in free speech, and will destroy it if they can. Any speech that doesn’t conform exactly to their own bizarre little worldview is “hate speech” and must be suppressed–violently suppressed, if need be. Like it is at Berkeley.

Political leftism has evolved (I get extra credit for saying “evolved”!) into a weird alternative religion whose idols are the state and pseudo-science and whose only creed is power.

It must be confronted, opposed, and utterly defeated wherever it exists.

May God give us the strength, the courage, and the resolve to do so. In Jesus’ name, amen.


Dem: Political Speech Must Be Controlled

Image result for images of suppression of free speech

Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”  –The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

The former chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ann Ravel, has declared that “political speech must be controlled on social media” ( https://heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/ ).

She has attributed opposition to her scheme to “misogyny.” Well, Ann, your idea would suck just as much if you were a man.

The Constitution is the law of the land, written in language that just about anybody can understand. But we all know what Democrats and other libs think of that whole “law of the land” business. Check out their position on immigration laws.

Gee, they’d sure be unhappy if Donald Trump ever proposed controlling political speech from his end of the stick. But we all know their position on hypocrisy, too: it’s only hypocrisy when someone else does it.

If we don’t exercise and defend our freedoms, there are a lot of people who’d be only too glad to take them away from us.

They must never, ever again be allowed to take power in this country.


Rove: Repeal 2nd Amendment

From out of the rotting underbelly of the Republican Party crawls Bush strategist Karl Rove, a “conservative” who conserves nothing, to suggest on TV recently that the only way to stop gun violence in America is to repeat the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/ ).

But, he added wistfully, “That’s not going to happen.”

Rove joins the usual gang of libs ‘n’ progs who think disarming the American people is going to make them safer, and that criminals, confronted with a total gun ban, will just snarl “Curses, foiled again!” and just forget to obtain guns illegally.

Be careful–it’s not just the Second Amendment that our beloved rulers want to take out. Obviously the First Amendment is on their hit list, big-time. And all the others, by and by.

You see, they view the Bill of Rights as something that gets in their way every time they want to do anything really sweet for the American people, like Saving the Planet or Creating a Utopia.

Dude! That’s precisely what it’s for–to get in your way!

But if we don’t defend those rights–well, they don’t intend to let us keep them. No way they’re gonna let us keep them.


Yes, We Need the Pastor Protection Act

Texas has it, and now Florida–the Pastor Protection Act, whose purpose is to prevent the state from forcing clergy and churches to perform homosexual parodies of marriage ( http://www.christiantimes.com/article/pastor-protection-act-gets-florida-gov-rick-scotts-approval/53778.htm ).

All 50 states ought to have it, and the sooner, the better.

Opponents of the bill–would it surprise you to hear they’re all Democrats?–say they don’t need such a bill, the First Amendment already gives churches and ministers all the protection they need, no way any state is gonna force them to do gay marriages…

Uh… Really, how could they be so ignorant?

In 2007 the state of New Jersey punished the Methodist church in the town of Ocean Grove for not allowing a church-owned facility to be used for a lesbian parody of a wedding. In 2012 a “judge” upheld the state’s action. ( https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on )

So, please, don’t anybody fall into the error of thinking the Constitution will protect us and our churches, because obviously it won’t. The Constitution only means what five Supreme Court justices say it does from day to day: the protection you have on Wednesday may not exist on Thursday.

Oh! And another opponent of the Act argued, “What would Jesus do?”, as if Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who proclaimed “I come to fulfill the law,” would set aside God the Father’s words and blithely perform unholy parodies of “marriage” of men with men, women with women. So we are treated to blasphemy on top of idiocy.

Helpful hint to our leaders, our–ahem!–thinkers, our movers and shakers–

We are getting awfully, terribly, unendurably sick and tired of all this, and we are truly, hotly, deeply mad at you. We want to live our lives in peace, just minding our own business, but you keep meddling, poking, taxing, and imposing your fundamental transformation of our country on us–and we have had just about enough of it.


Jale Them Climbit Change Deneyers!!

Ha, that stopid guy is out riding his bike so i got his blog, and i am a interllectural in Collidge so I can explane stuff that you ordrinary peple is not smart enuojhgt to undderstand.

So I say Congradurlations to our Tourney General Loreta Lunch for lookin for a way to prossacute anyboddy who deneyes Climbit Change, they has al got to go to Jale and Loreta Lunch is goin to find a waye to do it! Thay say maybe she can get this guy named Rico to go affter them, i dont kno his last name but he must be plenty smart!

Like whare to these hear peple get off, not beleavin in Climbit Change, and who do thay think thay are! Whare dose it say yiu got a rihgjt not to beleave in Climbit Change? My prefesser he is even smarter than me and He sayes the “First Amen-ment its” got to go becose its no good any more and peple is jist sayin things thay got no rihjgt to say and yuo Specally cant say nothin bad abuot Climbit Change!

So yiu jist wate till Hillery Is Pressadint and then al them deneyers she goin to Round them “up” and put them in Jale and she wil aslo fix anyboddy else what sayes anything bad and no body wil be aloud to say Wrong Things no more!

P.S. somboddy jist told me that Rico he is named Rico Petroselly and he uset to play base ball for the Red Socks but now he is a big Prossacuter for the Govermint. Wel i wuldnt kno abuot that, i dont follaw base ball but may be i wil now that Rico is goin to get rid of the Climbit Change Deneyers.


%d bloggers like this: