Thursday, June 22, 2017

Free Speech

by -
Scalise Townhall
"I much prefer a rapid-fire question/answer session..."

Politically active musician Ted Nugent spoke to WABC Radio’s “Curtis & Eboni,” claiming that following the attack on GOP congressmen at a baseball practice session in Virginia, he doesn’t want to be a part of “hateful” political rhetoric any more.

“I cannot and I will not and I encourage even my friends/enemies on the left in the Democrat and liberal world that we got to be more civil to each other,” Nugent said. “The whole world is watching America where you have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we have to be more respectful to the other side.”

He continued and said, “I’m gonna take a deep breath, and I’m gonna back down. And if it gets fiery, if it gets hateful, I’m going away and I’m not gonna engage in that hateful rhetoric anymore.”

The musician also said that he was very frustrated and hyped up about the political climate when engaging in controversial rhetoric, including his previous remarks directed towards former President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“I’m not trying to make excuses, but when I made those wild a** comments on stage against then-Senator Hillary Clinton and then-Senator Barack Obama, I don’t know if you can grasp the degree of adrenaline and intensity and over-the-top animal spirit and attitude that I live on stage,” he said.

He added that going further, “I will avoid anything that can be interpreted as condoning or referencing violence.”

Nugent has previously suggested that Clinton should suck his machine gun. He also called Obama a “sub-human mongrel.” During the 2016 presidential election, he called on Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to “eat shit and die.”

by -

Free speech is under attack and the left is using Twitter to drown out the voices of conservatives.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a gay white man that is not liberal, and the left hates him. Milo is the Breitbart Tech editor and outspoken homosexual that stands with Trump.

Just minutes before Milo’s event, “Gays for Trump” kicked off at the Republican national Convention; he got the news that he was suspended from Twitter forever.

The permanent ban was supposedly because of “targeted abuse”. The thing is, he didn’t target or abuse anyone. He got into a little back and forth with Leslie Jones, the star of the new Ghostbusters movie, but it was the fans on Twitter that attacked her for being black. Milo didn’t attack her at all.

Here is what Milo said in a statement.

“With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.”

“Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left. Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?”

“Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans. We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.”

“This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.”

Milo makes a good point. Twitter has not done enough, or hardly anything, to stop ISIS from recruiting members on Twitter and using the platform to coordinate attacks.

Twitter doesn’t ban the people that say they want to #KillTrump or the people that want to kill cops.

Twitter has been flooded with anti-police tweets and people celebrating when cops died in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Those people are still on Twitter.

It is clear Liberals don’t know how to react when a minority defends conservative thought, but this is the wrong way. Banning free speech is wrong.

Twitter is in a tough spot in more ways than one. The company is financially unstable and is failing as a stand-alone company. Twitter is expected to be acquired by another larger company by the end of the year. If Twitter is not purchased, it won’t last much longer.

If Twitter continues to ban conservatives for reviewing a movie while allowing people to cheer for dead cops and to join ISIS, then they have much bigger issues than money.

What do you think about Twitter and how they support liberal causes while silencing conservatives? Let us know in the comments below.

Here is Milo’s speech at the Gays For Trump. It is a rough video.

by -

America is free because we allow for open discussion, criticism and opposing views. What happens when one party tries to criminalize opposing thought? We could find out soon.

This year the Democratic Convention is going to be unprecedented for two reasons.

1. Thousands are expected to protest outside in support of Bernie Sanders.

2. For the first time the DNC is going to propose the Department of Justice criminally investigate corporate climate change deniers.

See for yourself. The DNC posted this on their website to outline the platform Hillary will stand on.

“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.”

Despite the fancy phrases to distract you like “corporate fraud” or “unanimous consent”, the idea is to prosecute those who don’t agree with climate change.

How can they even say things like “unanimous consent”? I’m no ecologist, but I am positive that there are scientists who don’t agree with climate change.

15 years ago Al Gore said the east coast would lose the beaches due to rising seawaters. That didn’t happen. There has to be some disagreement, right?

Not according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is leading the team drafting the platform. She and the DNC now believe corporations that question climate change will be prosecuted.

How far off is prosecution for citizens who don’t agree? How is this possible in America?

If there is condemnation for those who “mislead” the public on climate change by questioning the severity, then shouldn’t the other side be prosecuted as well?

If climate change is a real, then shouldn’t people who overhype it and sensationalize the effects to scare people also be prosecuted? Al Gore should be prosecuted for sensationalizing global warming with his movie An Inconvenient Truth.

The thought that one political party will try to silence an argument by prosecuting those who don’t agree is unfathomable. It is un-American and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

What is really sad about the DNC platform is that it will become a reality if Hillary wins in November. You better question climate change while you still can.

Do you think climate change is real?

Let us know more on the matter in the comments below.

by -

An 87-year-old German woman has been sentenced to ten months in prison—for doubting the Holocaust.

Ursula Haverbeck was sentenced to jail on November 11.

The controversy arose when Haverbeck, who was the chairwoman of the now-banned free speech association, “Collegium Humanum,” gave an interview to Panorama magazine.

She claimed that Auschwitz, the famous Nazi concentration camp, wasn’t used for extermination—but, rather, forced labor.

She also claimed that the mass execution of Germany’s Jewish population actually never happened.

Unfortunately for her, Germany takes its war history very seriously—and it’s actually illegal to deny the Holocaust.

According to German law, anyone who “denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism [Nazi]… in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.”

This isn’t Haverbeck’s first run in with the law. She was fined thousands of dollars for her controversial views in 2009.

by -

An Australian libertarian senator is getting the last laugh about matters of free speech.

David Leyonjhelm clapped back at a self proclaimed, “anti-discrimination campaigner” with these words:

“Go f–k yourself you communist turd.”

What is important to understand about the statement is that Australia does not have the same kind of freedoms granted to U.S. citizens under the First Amendment. Instead of a blanket of protection Australians can be prosecuted for offending others. No doubt, this affects the quality of their stand up comedians.

Australia has instead, free speech codes that offer less protection than our Constitution does, but probably keeps people out of jail during the World Cup for what they may say.

Garry Burns got the Senator’s reply after attacking him for being for free speech. He told Leyonjhelm that if he does not like the terms of multiculturalism to “pack up the Mrs and the kids and f–k off out of our country” at the same time he accused the senator of being unpatriotic. He also went on to say that “there is no free speech in Australia”

In other comments Burns has compared Leyonjhelm and politicians of like-mind about free speech to the usual round of suspects like Hitler, of course –liberals love to call people Hitler– as well as calling him a bigot and other inappropriate terms that do not have much meaning anymore considering that anyone with a differing point of view to people like Burns is considered to be one.

Leyonjhelm was clearly unaffected by the slanderous comments. After a time he responded again:

Dear Gary,

It appears that you have not yet acted on my advice. Please do so. Go f–k yourself as soon as possible. The world will be a better place.


David Leyonjhelm

It took guts to stand up to someone like Burns without hiding behind politics or vague stances. I think our politicians could learn something from the senator about being direct and unashamed of what is right.

by -

Just when you thought leftist intolerance of anything patriotic or pro-American could get any worse, it does – this time in Ohio where state lawmakers find it necessary to take up legislation that recognizes the right of citizens to fly the American flag on their own homes – even if they are renters.

The legislation known as House Bill 18 will amend state law and reads in part that:

“…manufactured homes park operators, condominium associations, neighborhood associations, and landlords (shall not restrict) the display of blue star banners, gold star banners, other service flags, and the POW/MIA flag, and to prohibit manufactured homes park operators and landlords from restricting the display of the United States flag.”

In other words, the legislation would prohibit landlords from banning any type of American flag, including ones related to the military and government, from being flown by people where they live.

This legislation came about after an 86-year-old woman, Julia Lease, was told by her landlord that she could not fly the American flag on the front porch of her rented home.

Mrs. Lease received the command to remove the American flag in a note left at her house by her landlord. When she said “Not on your life,” her story began to go viral across the country. The landlord and his company tried to defend their actions by saying they were:

“…not against American flags, nor do they have any policy against American flags.” “Ultimately, the issue is that if you allow a display of something – from our point of view, from a fair-housing perspective – you’d have to allow a display of anything.”

This rental company said their “neutral” policy was adopted so other people would not be offended by people who may want to fly the flags of other nations according to Breitbart News. After the debate began to heat up beyond all expectations, the landlord caved and let the woman keep flying the flag. Lease said:

“It means to me that I live in a country worth fighting for…” “It belongs up.”

The Conservative Tribute reports that “stories like Lease’s have become all too common, and though it is great news that at least one state is taking legal action to ensure their citizens patriotic rights, the fact that such a law is needed in the land of the free shows the sad state to which our society has fallen. Ohio Representative Niraj Antani told WBNS:

“We must protect our First Amendment rights and this bill does exactly that,”. “Patriotic Americans should be able to display flags on their homes and I am proud to have voted for this bill.”

by -

Reddit has been one of the most popular social media sites on the internet since its founding 10 years ago. That could be changing.

In circumstances best described as contentious, Ellen Pao was installed as the company’s “interim” CEO in November. In May, Pao introduced Reddit’s first ever anti-harassment policy. Soon people began to notice things like news stories being deleted from the site, and posts disappearing for no immediately apparent reason.

Redditors were quick to come up with theories, though. Nicknaming the new CEO “Chairman Pao,” many users of the site posited that Pao was instructing moderators on the site to push the political agenda of “social justice warriors,” a term referring to left-wing advocates of extreme identity politics masquerading as a tolerance movement.

The theory seemed solid, given that Pao previously rose to fame by suing a prominent Silicon Valley firm for gender discrimination, and losing. The sordid details of the case painted Pao as someone aggressively pursuing victim status, merited or not.

Pao seemed to confirm these theories when she came out on May 20 and declared Reddit was not a free speech platform, and would be a “safe space.” References to “chairman Pao” were systematically deleted.

On June 10th, the moderators of Reddit, acting under the anti-harassment policy, shut down several popular sub-reddits (the site’s name for dedicated discussion groups), including one called “r/fatpeoplehate,” which was at the time the 13th most popular sub-reddit on the site. The group was admittedly devoted to fat shaming and fighting against the rise of fat acceptance in society.

Breitbart’s post on the subject quickly sparked a #RedditRevolt twitter hashtag, and popular writer and #GamerGate supporter Milo Yiannopoulis helped get the #GamerGate group involved. With the help of the dedicated #GamerGaters, #RedditRevolt went over 10,000 mentions in its first day.

Reddit’s actions were immediately compared to the demise of content aggregator and social site Digg, which followed a similar pattern of pushing out its userbase. Ironically, Reddit was one of the major reasons Digg lost its eminence as an aggregator.

Another similar development occurred on the infamous 4Chan message boards with the #GamerGate movement. 4chan allowed anonymous posting, and was a hotbed of #GamerGate activity until the site’s powers-that-be declared it to be a #GamerGate free zone. The movement simply switched to 8chan, and 4chan lost significant traffic – and thus revenue.

In point of fact, the #GamerGate movement has been extraordinarily successful at hitting websites in the pocketbook. Given their track record, and the vibe of history repeating itself, Reddit’s days as an internet juggernaut could be numbered.

There are some arguing that the purge of this content is for the good – including one of Reddit’s co-founders. So which is it? Let us know in the comments which is more important – free speech for users, or safe spaces for other users.



by -

This past week, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a red alert to members concerning President Barack Obama’s end-run plan around Congress to criminalize firearms-related Free Speech that should alarm every American not just gun owners.

According to the NRA, President Obama is quietly taking “Executive Action” – through the State Department – to censor online speech related to firearms.

The regulatory assault is hidden deep inside the “”Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives” – an Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) list of 19 gun regulations President Obama has in the pipeline and wants etched in stone before he leaves office.

These rules will regulate everything from the way guns must be stored and microstamping firearms and accessories to restricting the God given right of every American to write or even talk to other people about firearm technology and specifications.

Some Background

According to the NRA:

“…the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implements the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA).”

The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States.

These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers.

The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.”

That’s not all. The NRA says so-called “technical data” about defense articles regulated under ITAR includes but is not limited to:

“…detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

Currently, ITAR do not regulate technical data in the “public domain” meaning information that is already published, accessible or available to the public through libraries or other sources of public documents including websites.

But because ITAR was created in the days before the Internet, State Department officials appointed by President Obama claim that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported” since it would be accessible to foreign nationals both here at home and overseas.

As a result, once the new rule becomes final, the State Department says it will have the power to clarify rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.”

To put it another way, the new rule will give State Department bureaucrats the power to restraint free speech because all technical and specification releases related to firearms would require the “authorization” of the government before they could take place.

The NRA continues:

“The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.”

Can anyone imagine what this would do to the gun industry if law-abiding Americans had to get permission from the government every time they wanted to talk with another person about the technology and specifications of firearms and ammo?

Would the government use its vague powers under ITAR to shut down gun shows? Would the government use the murky language of the regulation to make the NRA’s Annual Meetings and Exhibits an illegal event?

These are questions that freedom loving Americans need to ask themselves and their elected representatives while there is still time to stop the president’s wish list of 19 new ATF gun control regulations from becoming final.


NSA Leaker

The Department of Justice recently announced in a statement, the charges against a government contractor who allegedly leaked classified documents to the media. The...