Compulsory Schooling Laws Under Scrutiny in Michigan Following Deadly Tragedy

/in , , , , , , /by

The history of compulsory schooling laws says a lot about their true purpose.

In the wake of the devastating school shooting in Oxford, Michigan this week that claimed the lives of four teenagers and injured seven others, state board of education member Tom McMillin called for an end to Michigan’s compulsory schooling laws.

“Repeal compulsory schooling laws,” McMillin announced in a Facebook post on Thursday. “State needs to stop dictating terms of education of our kids,” he wrote.

The Associated Press reports that details have emerged indicating that the teen shooter’s parents—who on Friday were charged with involuntary manslaughter—met with school officials a few hours before the massacre, but the student remained at school.

“Should there have been different decisions made?” said Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald when asked about keeping the teen in school. “Probably they will come to that conclusion.”

McMillin, a Certified Public Accountant and former Michigan state representative who lives just 10 minutes away from Oxford, has long been in favor of eliminating compulsory schooling laws, but this week’s tragedy prompted him to come out publicly against the statutes for the first time.

“Oxford highlights that the mental health of kids often needs to be the total focus,” McMillin told me in an interview about his social media post. “School meetings with a troubled child, parents, and administrators need to not end with ‘we have to treat the child like all others.’ Parents should be able to get their kid out for a week, a month, a year. And open all kinds of alternative options of which parents can avail themselves,” he explained.

Compulsory schooling, or compulsory attendance, statutes date back to the 19th century, when Massachusetts enacted the first law of this kind in 1852. Horace Mann, then president of the Massachusetts state board of education who is considered to be the architect of the American public school system, was captivated by the Prussian model of education that hinged upon compulsion and standardization. Mann imported that model to the US, where widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in places such as Massachusetts made it easier to pass compulsory schooling laws.

In the first half of the 1800s, immigrants flocked to American cities seeking a better life and fleeing famine and oppression abroad. In 1847, for example, 37,000 Irish immigrants arrived in Boston, which at the time had a population of just over 100,000 people.[i] These Irish, mostly Catholic immigrants challenged the dominant Anglo-Saxon Protestant mores at the time, and were seen as threats to the social order. “Those now pouring in upon us, in masses of thousands upon thousands, are wholly of another kind in morals and intellect,” lamented the Massachusetts state legislature in 1848.[ii]

This xenophobia helped to spur the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, something that advocates of universal government schooling had been pushing for. In 1851, the editor of The Massachusetts Teacher, William Swan, articulated the widespread contempt for the state’s Irish Catholic immigrants. He wrote:

“In too many instances the parents are unfit guardians of their own children…Nothing can operate effectually here but stringent legislation, thoroughly carried out by an efficient police; the children must be gathered up and forced into school, and those who resist or impede this plan, whether parents or priests, must be held accountable and punished.”

One year later, Massachusetts passed the country’s first compulsory schooling statute which mandated school attendance under a legal threat of force. Soon, other states followed suit, with Mississippi the final holdout, passing its compulsory schooling law in 1918.

Prior to the passage of compulsory schooling laws, education was broadly defined and diversely offered. In the 17th century, early American colonies passed compulsory education laws that mandated cities and towns provide schools and teachers for those parents that wanted them, but parents were not compelled to send their children to these schools. Indeed, many of them did not. Homeschooling, apprenticeship programs for teens, and a wide assortment of public, private, and charity schools for the poor were ubiquitous in the country’s early years. Literacy rates reflected the success of these varied educational options, with historians estimating that three-quarters of the US population, including slaves, was literate at the time compulsory schooling laws began to emerge.[iii]

Eliminating compulsory schooling laws would remove the state’s authority and influence over education. Parents would be put back in charge of their children’s learning, choosing between a panoply of options supported by a bustling free market in education. New learning models would sprout, as entrepreneurs and educators rise to meet parent demand, free from the fetters of government oversight. Cities and towns could still be required to provide education services to parents that want them, just as they were prior to the passage of compulsory schooling laws, but parental choice would be paramount.

“Repealing compulsory schooling laws would enable complete and total parental education freedom to do whatever their child needs, without one glance back at truancy officers or any state statute,” said Michigan’s McMillin. “It would ‘allow’ parents to focus on exactly what their child needs, including mental health,” he added.

An xenophobic remnant of the 19th century, compulsory schooling statutes obstruct education innovation and hamper choice. More education officials should follow McMillin’s lead in calling for an end to these restrictive laws.

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

REFERENCES:

[i] David B. Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), 30.

[ii] Paul E. Peterson, Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2010), 26.

[iii] Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, “The Origins of Mass Public Education,” History of Education: Major Themes, Volume II: Education in Its Social Context, ed. Roy Lowe (London: RoutledgeFlamer, 2000), 78.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Dispelling 3 Common Myths About Abortion

/in , , , , , , , /by

As many of you know I am not a supporter of abortion.

As SCOTUS is about to make some very possible major changes, even the removal of Roe vs. Wade, I thought this article would be good reading for all of you as the subject may come up as we enter the next few months leading up to the ruling in July, 2022.

The MSM will be ramping up their opposition to any changes as these months go by, screaming to any that will listen falsehoods and major lies on the subject. They will want to load the court with liberal judges.

Abortion has become the newest genocide, in particular to the black population, whose ethnicity has seen the most murders of their fetuses.

They must be educated, especially in the fact that Planned Parenthood and its founder, wanted abortion to destroy and decimate the black population. This could end up being one of President Trumps best achievements if the judges he appointed to the Supreme Court vote correctly.

Please read and enjoy. Feel free to share.

Dispelling 3 Common Myths About Abortion

By Melanie Israel /  for The Daily Signal:

With the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case before the Supreme Court and the ongoing litigation over the Texas heartbeat law, the issue of abortion looms large in our national discourse.

Too often, pro-abortion actors make claims that are simply not true, and those claims are repeated without challenge in the media. Therefore, it’s vital that the American public be made aware of facts that challenge the pro-abortion narrative.

Here’s the truth you need to know about three core claims of abortion activists:

Myth 1: Abortions Are Safer Than Childbirth

Abortion activists claim that abortions are safer than childbirth. But that’s the exact inverse of reality—and for a number of reasons.

First, this framing of the debate denies the humanity of the unborn child from the outset. Because every fetus is a human possessing fundamental dignity, their health and safety must also be taken into consideration.

No procedure that destroys life can be considered safe. By definition, abortion is always fatal for at least one party involved; namely, the unborn child. Therefore, by definition, abortion is never “safe.”

Second, besides the fact that abortions necessarily involve the killing of unborn children, abortion is not necessarily the safer option for women.

After getting an abortion, women have approximately an 80% higher risk of experiencing mental health issues, including suicidal tendencies and substance abuse.

According to Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician-gynecologist, potentially fatal complications from abortions include “vaginal or intra-abdominal hemorrhage … infection … incomplete removal of the remains of the aborted baby, damage to the cervix, uterus, or other pelvic or abdominal organs … anesthetic reactions or overdoses, amniotic fluid, septic, or thrombotic embolisms, cardiac, or cardiovascular events.”

Such complications hardly render abortion safe for women.

Third, the assumption that abortion is the safer option for women ultimately rests on incomplete data.

The federal government as well as 22 states do not require abortion providers to report critical data on post-abortion complications. This inevitably skews abortion activists’ numbers, especially when a state like California, one of the states that doesn’t require abortion providers to report data, is estimated to have over a quarter of all abortions performed in the U.S.

Likewise, according to data collected in  2019, there were no states that required doctors, coroners, or emergency rooms that don’t provide abortions to report abortion-related deaths. So, if a woman goes to an emergency room with abortion-related complications and dies, the hospital is not required to report it as an abortion-related death. That skews abortion-related mortality rates.

Therefore, abortions aren’t safe for unborn children, and they aren’t always safe for women.

Myth 2: Abortion Is a Woman’s Only Practical Option

Studies show that most abortions are chosen for reasons related to factors such as finances or personal relationships.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 74% of abortions are chosen out of a fear that the baby would interfere with education or work, or that the baby would make it difficult to take care of dependents.

An overlapping 73% claimed they could not afford a child, and nearly 50% had relationship issues or did not want to become a single mother.

Even among third-trimester abortions, as reported by Dr. James Studnicki, “most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses.”

It’s clear from these numbers that medical emergencies do not motivate most abortions.

Watch: Abortion Advocates Take Abortion Pills And Scream ‘Abortion’ At Protest Outside Supreme Court.

In contrast, the pro-life movement stresses providing the resources women need to give birth and raise their children.

Pregnancy resource centers help pregnant women and their families navigate challenges such as the pregnancy itself, financial management and needs, threats to job security, unsupportive partners and family members, and more.

According to one study, in 2019, pregnancy centers performed ultrasounds for 486,213 mothers-to-be free of charge and provided mothers and families with material resources such as diapers, baby clothes, and the like.

In total, they provided $266,764,916 worth of services, and 9 out of 10 people working at pregnancy resource centers do so on a voluntary basis.

Despite activists’ claims, abortion doesn’t solve any of those problems. By reducing “care” for women to the elimination of the unborn life, the mother is not helped.

Myth 3: Most Americans Support Abortion

The claim that most Americans support abortion is misleading when checked against data from a 2021 Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll.

Despite a slight majority (53%) of Americans identifying as “pro-choice,” 55% of pro-choice individuals are in favor of abortion restrictions.

According to the poll, 76% Americans support significant restrictions on abortion, with 70% of Americans in favor of restricting abortions after the first trimester—which would bring U.S. law in alignment with the rest of the world, including 47 out of 50 European countries.

Likewise, when asked if they support abortion based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, 70% of participants opposed such an abortion. Additionally, 58% opposed taxpayer money going to abortions.

Ultimately, these numbers reflect a nation that wants to do more to protect unborn children and is not remotely aligned with the abortion lobby’s position of abortion on demand, for any reason, through all nine months of pregnancy.

Sadly, that hasn’t kept Democrats from calling for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment, which would clear the way for taxpayer-funded abortions.

Conclusion

The facts indicate that abortions are not safe for unborn children and carry significant risks for the mothers who receive them.

Most abortions are not done for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Lastly, most Americans do not support radically permissive abortion policies. In fact, most Americans support policies that further protect unborn children than what is currently permitted under Roe v. Wade, which allows for elective abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

We are being presented with the greatest opportunity of our lifetime to turn the tide for life. We must tell the truth about abortion and not allow pro-abortion arguments to rule the day unopposed.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Third Sex Trafficking Survivor Joins Lawsuit Against Nevada for Enabling Sexual Slavery

/in , , , , , , , /by

Lawsuit Adds Sapphire and Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club as Defendants

WASHINGTON, DC (November 23, 2021) – A third sex trafficking survivor has joined two other plaintiffs who were sex trafficked in Nevada in a lawsuit filed by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center (NCOSE) and Jason Guinasso, an attorney with Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, against Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, Aaron Ford, Attorney General of Nevada, the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, NV, Nye County, NV, the Chicken Ranch, Jamal Rashid and various businesses associated with him. The amended complaint filed on November 10, 2021, added Sapphire Gentleman’s Club and Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club as defendants, and seeks to hold the defendants responsible for protecting the sex trade and enabling sex slavery, in violation of the 13th Amendment.

Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 joins the lawsuit originally filed on behalf of Angela Williams and Jane Doe #1. All were induced through force, fraud, and coercion to engage in commercial sex in Nevada’s legal sex industry, including legal escort agencies, legal strip clubs, and a legal brothel.

“This lawsuit seeks to hold the Nevada defendants accountable for enabling and profiting from the sex trafficking of these plaintiffs. Nevada’s legal prostitution system gives legal cover to slavery – which the Thirteenth Amendment forbids,” said Christen Price, senior legal counsel at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 was sex trafficked in Nevada through legal strip clubs: Sapphire Gentleman’s Club and Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club. Sapphire and Hustler employed a system of fees and tipping that caused Jane Doe #2 to remain in debt to them. Her traffickers confiscated her actual identification documents, preventing her from leaving Nevada without their permission. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 engaged in commercial sex acts at Sapphire and Hustler, induced through force, fraud, and coercion from her pimps/sex traffickers, and through fraud and coercion from Sapphire and Hustler.

Plaintiff Angela Williams was sex trafficked in Nevada through legal escort businesses. Originally groomed into prostitution and then trafficked in Houston, she was eventually exploited by a Las Vegas-based licensed escort business, VIP Entertainment, owned by Jamal Rashid, also known as “Mally Mall.”

Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 was sex trafficked in Nevada by multiple pimps, including one that forced her to engage in street prostitution in Las Vegas. Doe was also exploited in legal brothel prostitution at the Chicken Ranch in Nevada. Doe was subjected to debt bondage while prostituted at the Chicken Ranch, while under the control of other pimps.

In the legal brothels, women are commonly subjected to practices that amount to debt bondage: being locked inside the brothels and not allowed to leave for weeks at a time, having to give the brothel 50% of their earnings, being required to follow the brothel’s rules or face fines, and being forced to live on the premises and pay the brothels for room and board to do so.

“Nevada’s legalized prostitution system increases the demand for sex. Men travel to the state to buy sex, even though it’s only ‘legal’ in a few counties. This is because Nevada permits de facto prostitution to exist through escort bureaus and entertainment by referral service, failing to implement or enforce laws limiting prostitution advertising, and failing to prevent debt bondage in legal brothels,” said Jason Guinasso, attorney at Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC.

“Compelling someone to engage in prostitution violates federal law, which bans sex trafficking, including coercing people into commercial sex acts. The plaintiffs deserve justice, as their rights under the 13th Amendment which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, among others, have been clearly violated,” said Price.

Filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, the lawsuit also asserts the rights of those who are currently being sex trafficked in Nevada, and because of this, are unable to protect their own rights.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center offers survivors a way to seek justice. More information can be found at: https://sexualexploitationlawsuits.com/. The legal briefs and more details about the plaintiffs’ stories can be found at NotSafeforWomen.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Geneva Conventions War With Forced Vaccines

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Combining various international treaties since its inception in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were originally intended for, and still stand as, protections for soldiers and civilians in wartime. So, with the vaccines for COVID being discussed as a possible crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code, which falls under the Geneva Conventions, the question arises: Are we at war? 

During what became known as “The Doctors’ Trial” after WWII, concerns arose about medical experimentation on humans.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. They showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation.” (Emphasis mine). Thus, the Nuremberg Code was created comprising ten points outlining acceptable medical research and standards.

Part I of this series is entitled, “How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine.” It explains the doctrine of voluntary and informed consent of the participant in medical applications under the Code. Its “adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave [it] international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime.”

More importantly, the term “medical experimentation” as stated in the Nuremberg Code is defined in Part 1.

My argument in Part I of this series asks why, since the Code falls under the Geneva Conventions, ought not the Conventions’ umbrella classification applying to “wartime” victims also extend to the Code’s intention by default? And, if true, where do civilians fall? Of course that’s a legal question and I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But it seems to me that the presumption could easily be made. Yet no one is making it.

That said, why have tens of thousands of doctors recently signed on to what’s being called the new “Nuremberg Trials 2021?” Legal proceedings have been filed against the CDC, the WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity by over a thousand attorneys worldwide.

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the “Nuremberg Trials 2021” team argues that the vaccines are in violation of Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It claims that Article 32 states that “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. And, “according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.”

Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that Article 32 specifies that “protected persons must not in any circumstances be used as ‘guinea-pigs’ for medical experiments. ‘Biological experiments’ are also prohibited by the other three Conventions of 1949.”

I believe, as laid out in Part 1, that there are convincing arguments as to why the COVID-19 vaccines fall into the “experimental” definition of the Nuremberg Code in multiple ways.

Regardless, on a deeper dive into Article 32, its title is telling. The formal document, shown in an uploaded PDF version from the United Nations, is called the “GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949.” Again the reference to wartime is notable.

Cornell Law School says that, “[t]he Geneva Conventions … provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” It doesn’t say ‘victims of unarmed conflicts.’

Multiple educational resources concur with the aforementioned references to “wartime” terms, including World Atlas. It states that “[t]he Geneva Conventions refer to international agreements that are made up of four treaties and three protocols that define the treatment of people during a war.” (Emphasis added.)

How can it be, then, that the Nuremberg Code, falling under the Geneva Conventions, could be used in any argument against the COVID vaccine during a time of peace? Recent history offers some clues.

In an intriguing article from Wired published on Nov. 7, 2002, it seems as a country we’ve travelled this road before. The article’s title reads, “Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets — Rule No. 1 in the Nuremberg Code for conducting medical experiments: Get the subjects’ consent.” The author explains how our soldiers were given non-FDA-approved drugs prior to deploying to Desert Storm. Many returned with assorted unexplained illnesses.

“‘We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf),’ said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment [had] yet to expire. ‘Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They wouldn’t tell us what they were for.’”

According to the article, the question of forced vaccines had been addressed years before. “In a February 1953 directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what [was] still the ‘law of the land’ governing such experimentation. Consistent with the Nuremberg Code, the directive’s cornerstone is voluntary consent,’ according to Wilson.

“‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,’ Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned use of ‘force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion’ in obtaining consent. When did that change?

“Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War? According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not. The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said, ‘the first instance in which an official government agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.’” And it was intentional!

“In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense, [the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] claimed that “‘[t]he results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked me,’ said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. ‘The Pentagon … threw caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no warnings and no safeguards.’”

“‘There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code,’ the Rockefeller Committee report concluded, ‘that allows a country to waive informed consent for military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war.’”

If it protects our soldiers then in time of war, one would think it would also protect our civilian populations who are NOT in a state of war, right?

Responding to the accusations at the time, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: “‘[i]n all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its ethical foundations…. But military combat is different.’

In other words, according to the Pentagon in 1994, the Nuremberg Code only applied to soldiers in peacetime. It seems the narrative changes by what the “powers that be” deem convenient, at any given time.

In my book and articles, I habitually reference radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, because it contains the tactics by which the left endeavors to transform America to socialism and then communism. As important as his thirteen tactics, however, are his lesser-known eleven rules of ethics of means and ends. They provide a window into why the left, and Democrats by extension, can justify their out-of-control unethical behavior.

“Alinsky’s third rule of ethics of means and ends, ‘in war the end justifies almost any means’, applies to the left’s unapologetic, unethical shaming of all things conservative.” (Rules for Deplorables, pg. 215)

Arguing for the new “Nuremberg Code 2021” wouldn’t require convincing others that we’re at war with China per se (as if they even needed such justification). In order for the experimental vaccines to be criminalized, just say: We’re at war with the left!

If, on the other hand, the Pentagon’s position in 1994 is considered, then the Code’s “informed consent and its ethical foundations” are binding “in all peacetime applications” stays. They can’t have it both ways.

Necessarily, Alinsky’s fourth tactic, “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” must be applied. If the original Nuremberg Code of 1949 falls under the “wartime” parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and the vaccine is indeed “experimental” as my Part I of this series argues, then the signers of the “new Code” may well have a case.

It’s a fact that the military knowingly condoned experimental medical treatment well after the 1949 Nuremberg Code was established under the Geneva Conventions. And, that they felt justified in doing so. Why on earth should Americans believe the government would follow ethical standards now?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. Whether Americans accept it or not, we are in a state of war for the very survival of our country. The enemy should neither be trusted nor obeyed.

We ought to be fighting for transparency, the right of informed consent, and most importantly, the right to freedom of choice. If we do not stand strong for these minimal protections now, we are not mere guinea pigs, we are the experiment itself.

COLUMN BY

CATHI CHAMBERLAIN

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at Cathi@RulesforDeplorablesBook.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

COVID-19 Outbreak Reported on US Cruise Ship Despite Fully Vaccinated Passengers

ER Doctor: Omicron May Provide Natural Immunity With Mild Symptoms

6th Circuit Court Rules Against Biden Administration in OSHA Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like us on Instagram

VIDEO: Project Veritas RESPONDS to New Twitter Policy

/in , , , , , /by

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THIS VIDEO*

Twitter updated their policies this week which no longer allows the sharing of media without people’s prior consent. This from Twitter safety: “Beginning today, we will not allow the sharing of private media such as video of individuals without their consent.” Twitter also says it will, “try to assess the context in which the content is shared,” and “if a particular image and the accompanying tweet adds value to public discourse or is shared in the public interest,” it will be allowed.

The exception provided is subjective, political, and one that will inevitably be applied unequally. With this policy, Twitter is essentially banning journalism. It’s also a direct attack on organizations like us, Project Veritas. Now, all of this comes on the heels of a Department of Justice filing with a federal judge last week arguing we’re not journalists. Why? Well, the government argued that our reporting, “consists almost entirely of publicizing, non-consensual, surreptitious recordings.”

There’s that consensual word again, just like the new Twitter policy, but here’s the thing: good journalism requires publishing what someone else doesn’t want published, making public disclosures others want kept secret for the wrong reasons. Anything else you do is just public relations, and public relations is not journalism.

In fact, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is currently asking the government questions about why the FBI raided the homes of reporters at Project Veritas, and in a court proceeding this week, a lawyer for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Katie Townsend, told the magistrate judge, citing Chief Justice Berger from another case, “It’s difficult for the public to accept what it’s prohibited from observing.”  Thank you, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Thank you, lawyer Katie Townsend for defending principles, journalism and investigative reporting.

Thanks to the ACLU for coming to our defense in recent weeks. I’m getting ready to release a new book, American Muckraker, next month. It’s an eye-opening glimpse into undercover reporting as seen by the muckrakers who defend press freedoms and a brave new world of video journalism. American history is replete with award-winning journalists who have used undercover reporting to seek truth, uncover corruption, and bring their stories to the world. Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, William Gaines of the Chicago Sun-Times, Pam Zekman, just to name a few. There’s a whole chapter called Privacy in my forthcoming book which outlines a lot of this.

Sissela Bok, an expert in ethical journalism, wrote, “It would be wrong to conclude that journalists ought to write only about persons who have given their consent. Those who use secrecy to cover up for abuse is often resort to spurious claims that privacy, confidentiality or national security it’s important for reporters not to take those claims at face value.” Some experts have argued that the ability to record something, as long as you’re next to the person you’re talking to, is closely connected to the ability to write and speak.

In fact, a Michigan appeals court argued in a 1982 case, “A recording made by a participant is nothing more than a more accurate record of what was said. Legal scholar Laurence Tribe has argued that the public’s right to know “means nothing more than a mirror of such a right to speak, a listener’s right that government not interfere with a willing speakers liberty.” If you think about it, a recording device is just a sophisticated piece of note taking equipment.  One of the lawsuits we’ve won before a federal jury trial — and by the way, you don’t know that because it’s never reported in the media and it’s certainly not on our Wikipedia page — a federal judge made the case for covert recording.

In a rare Rule 50 Directed Verdict, Judge Reidinger, a federal judge, pointed out to the people suing us and their attorney, Dixie Wells, that there was no distinction between a recording and, say, the taking of notes.  Here’s a transcript, again, in my forthcoming book, “James O’Keefe says we go out there, we interview people, we find out what the facts are and report the facts that we learn.” The lawyer’s response, “Your honor, you’ve called it an interview, and I may have slipped and called it that as well. This was taped at a bar in different places, where the person did not know they were being interviewed.” The judge’s response to that lawyer, “But he knew he was being asked questions.”

You see, without a recording device, the facts sometimes get distorted.  In the 1906 magazine article titled, “Is the Jungle True?” Upton Sinclair, you all know who he is, the most famous muckraker of all time, conceded that he had presented a selected version of the truth, having reserved the right to “dramatize and interpret” what he reported.  But with video, the speaker’s cadence, inflection, and tonality, as well as other important context captured in a recording, limit people to, “interpret.”

For Twitter to ban surreptitious audio and video recordings entirely, and for the government to consider that not journalism, would only remove information from the public sphere that offers a more accurate depiction of what actually occurred. Or, as another State Supreme Court has held, “Society would not consider reasonable an expectation of privacy which would result in a more inaccurate version of the events in question.”

Another expert on journalism we cite currently teaches at Stanford University, Theodore Glasser, who literally wrote the book, Ethical Journalism, and he vigorously defended the use of concealed recordings, which comes into conflict with what Twitter’s policy now says, which if you’re broadcasting videos of individuals without their consent they should be prohibited. As Glasser puts it, “The use of a concealed tape recorder, at least when one party is present.”  That means when you’re with the person you’re recording, “It’s not nearly the moral quandary its opponents would have us believe; it is not an invasion of privacy, it is not an active deception, it is not a form of eavesdropping, and it does not constitute entrapment.”

So, what then is the problem with photographing and recording people that you’re with? The newest attack on this type of journalism is that it harms people. The Twitter statement says as much. It says it could be, “threatening to broadcast images without people’s consent.” We saw that with our story in California, involving a teacher who said into a hidden camera at a coffee shop, he wanted to “scare the fuck” out of kids.  By the way, that’s a direct quote.

As a result of our reporting, and the parental outrage that subsequently followed, that teacher, Gabriel Gipe, was ultimately removed from the school. Parents made informed decisions in their communities and the correct outcome occurred. It wasn’t an outcome that we advocated for. We quoted the man, and people in this society have to make informed decisions about the information, but corporate media was not willing to identify his name in subsequent media coverage in order to protect him. This, from the Sacramento Bee, “The Sacramento Bee is not identifying the teacher because he has received threats. And it is unclear whether he consented to be recorded by Project Veritas.”

There’s that word again. “Consent.” We’ve seen it with the US government. We’ve seen it with Twitter’s policy, and this was after he said he wanted to scare children. You can see the irony in that. Now, reporting is becoming about safety of the people committing malfeasance, but in gathering truthful information, in the course of his or her duties, the journalist will affect certain individuals in a negative way.

In pursuing the right to know, this is almost inevitable. As former Washington Post editor, Leonard Downie, writes in a book called The New Muckrakers, “The investigative reporter must face the fact that his stories will hurt people.” Isn’t it interesting that all the sources I cite are from decades ago?  Maybe real journalism is falling out of fashion.

In fact, 20 years ago in a seminal Supreme Court case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the First Amendment provides protection even to speech that disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted communication, “Exposure of self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and the press.” Does Twitter think they’re now above the United States Supreme Court because what must never be forgotten is that in a free society, a free Republic like ours, protecting the people’s right to know is necessary if citizens are to make informed decisions.

Whether it’s Upton Sinclair using his pencil or a Project Veritas journalist using a button camera, we honor a tradition as old as the Republic itself with concepts that go back to Cicero. Critics of surreptitious recordings seem more troubled by the medium than with the findings. Video can be unflattering, but then again, the truth can be unflattering. So do not be fooled by a narrative about privacy, consent, and safety. These are not legitimate arguments as legendary 60 Minutes producer, Don Hewitt, said decades ago, “People committing malfeasance don’t have any right to privacy. What are we saying, that Upton Sinclair shouldn’t have smuggled his pencil in?”

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat Howard Dean: Unvaccinated Republicans Are ‘Irresponsible,’ ‘Disgusting’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Thursday on MSNBC’s The Beat, former DNC chairman and all-around loser Howard Dean dismissed Republicans who refuse the experimental vaccine against COVID-19 as “disgusting.”

Asked about reports that Donald Trump tested positive for COVID a few days before the first presidential debate in 2020, Dean launched into a bitter, angry smear of the former President: “Look, Trump was the most immoral and irresponsible president in the history of the country. He may or may not be the worst president, but he certainly is in contention. But he was certainly the one with the fewest morals and scruples and certainly the craziest in terms of psychiatric illness. So we are used to this kind of stuff. I am not shocked. I am disgusted. I am not shocked.”

Dean is a demagogic idiot with no standing even in his own corrupt, power-obsessed Party. Literally every sentence of his anti-Trump rant is demonstrably false.

He went on to complain that a recent poll revealed that “41% of Republicans today said they wouldn’t get the shot, but 24% of them said they would never get the shot, ever. If Republicans are a little less than half of the country, that means an eighth of the country intends never to be vaccinated, which means we’ll never get rid of this virus. There will always be a reservoir of this virus in the American population until we can get up over 85%- 90% vaccination. That is irresponsible, and that is what is disgusting.”

Dean and his leftist comrades are enraged that there remain Republicans who will not comply with their totalitarian vaccine madness, which has nothing to do with public health or “following the science,” and everything to do with seizing and holding power. Democrats don’t care about eradicating COVID; they want to eradicate political opposition.

Howard Dean

65 Known Connections

At a May 2014 Democratic fundraiser in Colorado, Dean denounced the Republican Party:

“This is a Republican party that has decided they like power so much that they think it’s okay to win by taking away the right to vote…. They are not American. They could be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia but stay away from our country. This is based on the right to vote…. We have had enough of the politics of anger. We have had enough of the politics of hate. We have had enough of the politics of division.”

To learn more about Howard Dean, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WHO: ‘No Evidence’ Boosting Entire Population Offers Greater Protection to Healthy Individuals

BLM Demands White Boycott: ‘Capitalism Doesn’t Love’ Blacks

Maloney: ‘We’re Not Even in a Democracy’ Without Abortions

Jen Psaki Falsely Claims Trump Told People to ‘Inject Bleach’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BOYCOTT GoFundMe … Another Woke Organization (AWO)

/in , , , , , , /by

On the night of July 25, 2020, at about 9:50 p.m. Sgt. Daniel Perry, an active duty soldier based at Fort Hood, Texas, was doing a part time job driving for Uber. ( Understand we do not pay our military what they deserve.)

As he was driving in downtown Austin, a liberal extremist nest of mentally challenged woke people, he turned onto Congress Avenue and ran into an illegal BLM protest. I say illegal because they did not have a permit to protest but were given free reign by the corrupt officials in Austin and watched by a pitiful Austin Police Department. (A very woke police agency!)

Many of the protesters were armed and carrying openly. Sgt. Daniel Perry’s car was swiftly swarmed by the mass of terroristic BLM protesters. Evil intent was everywhere.

One of the terrorists, a masked and BLM member, Garrett Foster, approached Perry’s car. Foster was carrying the weapon of choice of all good communist terrorists, an AK 47. This weapon was being carried in what is described as in a ready position.

Protesters began banging on Perry’s car and bricks were thrown at it. It must have been terrifying for a patriot soldier just trying to earn a few bucks. Police were present but did not intervene.

At this stage Perry saw the AK 47 barrel being raised and reached into his center console for a handgun he carried in there for protection. His right as a US Citizen but not permitted by Uber. However, in this day and age in the present political and racist climate, going anywhere unarmed makes no sense.

Perry, believing justly that his life was in imminent danger fired his handgun several times, striking Foster who later succumbed to his wounds. Perry at this time was also taking fire from other protesters. Remember, this was Austin, Texas and not Kabul!

Approximately a year later, despite the police report clearing the shooting as a case of self defense under the Texas Stand your Ground law which includes your automobile, the Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza charged Sgt. Perry with MURDER. Yep – MURDER. Oh – and aggravated assault!!

Now, this case has similar connotations with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, another where a politically motivated leftist DA presses charges deliberately knowing they are false and using all the money and power of his office to destroy a good man who did nothing wrong. It is a national disgrace.

A GoFundMe page was started as this was going to be an expensive case to fight. While money began pouring in, GoFundMe removed the page totally saying the case violated their terms of business as a violent crime was involved. This despite the obvious matter that this was a true case of self defense and therefore not a crime of violence.

The only criminals there that night were the BLM terrorists protesting illegally armed with guns and hatred in their black hearts.

Perry’s father had to pay an unreasonable and massive bond to get his son out of jail after he had been charged. This whole ordeal has taken a considerable toll on the family and on our military hero and true patriot Sgt. Daniel Perry.

Veteran Detective David Fugitt of the Austin Police Department, who had been the lead investigator on the case and us a 27 year veteran police officer, concluded that the shooting was justifiable homicide. The DA, after a year, decided to make an example of another white man. Detective Fuggit, a good man in a crappy agency, suggests that DA Garza’s office committed witness tampering by preventing the grand jury from seeing exculpatory evidence. Ring any bells with you all after watching and reading the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?

Now there is an alternative to GoFundMe, a company called GoGetFunding. They have opened a page to allow donations to allow this Sgts. defense team to do their work. Perry’s attorneys are asking patriots and those who wish to financially support Perry to do so via the GoGetFunding crowdfunding platform.

So far there is no trial date. This poor man and his family are living on edge, threatened and not knowing what will become of them all. This is a good family. An American patriotic family whose son joined the military to defend America and do good.

Trust me America. This is a national disgrace.

Interestingly the man shot and killed, Garrett Foster, was white and a former member of the US military who was attending the BLM illegal Protest and riot heavily armed with his black quadriplegic girlfriend. His political beliefs were very much to the left. The oath he had taken when he joined the military, was obviously either forgotten or just had no meaning or significance to him as he was advocating for violent, disastrous and racist change to the Constitutional Republic he swore to protect.

Makes him a worthless traitor and piece of human excrement in my eyes. Just saying ….

Now remember that the terror group of BLM is calling for a total boycott of white owned businesses over Christmas and support its BlackXmas from November 26 through January 1st., 2022. According to the Daily Mail the BLM statement says :- The three ways supporters can support the BLM racist Christmas program would be “ build black, buy black and bank black.” They must buy exclusively from black owned businesses as “white supremist capitalists” use policing and law enforcement to “protect their profits and to steal black lives.” They further added that blacks must destroy white businesses and their complicity in crimes by white police against blacks. Blacks must shake off the collective chains of slavery and consumerism. They must build new traditions and run an offense and not a defense. ( Sounds kinda racist and threatening to this writer!). Blacks must dismantle the existing ways business is done by whites and rebuild the country so blacks control the retail and banking business. Capitalism apparently, according to BLM, doesn’t live black people! The old failed capitalistic system is racist as it invented policing and slavery and put targets on every black persons back!

Of course, there is never any truth in what they say and the hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Hamas-linked CAIR’s Zahra Billoo: ‘Know your enemies,’ oppose even ‘the polite Zionist’

/in , , , , , /by

Elder of Ziyon notes: “Billoo declares that practically every Jewish organization in America is an enemy of Muslims. Not only that, but any organization that supports a two state solution is an enemy of Muslims. She doesn’t call them out explicitly, but that includes J-Street, that includes Peace Now, that includes Breaking the Silence. And she explicitly says that Hillels, the ADL, the Jewish Federations and even essentially all synagogues in America are the enemies of Muslims.”

Will this speech herald a crack in the coalition between Leftist Jews and Islamic supremacist groups? Stay tuned.

Original video:

MEMRI excerpt:

“CAIR Official Zahra Billoo: The Two-State Solution Is ‘Laughable’; Any Organization That Promotes It Is An Enemy; ADL, Jewish Federation, ‘Zionist Synagogues,’ Hillel Chapters Will Throw You Under The Bus,” MEMRI, November 25, 2021:

American activist Zahra Billoo, the executive-director of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), said in a panel at the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) Annual Conference, which took place in Chicago on November 27, 2021, that the two-state solution is “laughable” and that any organization that supports it is an enemy. She told the audience that the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federation, “Zionist Synagogues,” and Hillel chapters on “our campuses” are not their friends. Billoo said that they will throw the Muslims under the bus. She further urged the audience to donate monthly to AMP, because if they pay U.S. taxes, this means that they financially support “apartheid” every month.

The panel was streamed live on the American Muslims for Palestine YouTube channel, and CAIR executive-director Nihad Awad also participated in the panel (see MEMRI TV clips 9208, 3536, 3701, and 5279). Attendees included Linda Sarsour (see MEMRI TV clips nos. 6935, 6808, and 6111), Lamis Deek (see MEMRI TV clip no. 3430), and Taher Herzallah (see MEMRITV clip no. 7071).

Zahra Billoo: “We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses, because just because they are your friends today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights.

“So oppose the vehement fascist, but oppose the polite Zionist too. They are not your friends. They will not be there for you when you need them. They will take your friendship and throw your Palestinian brothers and sisters under the bus. Oh! You get along because you are all in Girl Scouts together? Talk to them about what is happening in Palestine, and see how that conversation goes.

“And so, when we think about Islamophobia and Zionism, let’s be clear about the connections. There is no difference between domestic policy and foreign policy when it comes to our human rights. There is no difference between domestic policy and foreign policy when it comes to those who seek to target us.

[…]

“By the way, you should be a monthly donor to American Muslims for Palestine. Build it into your budget and forget about it. Make it your monthly contribution, because you are contributing to the apartheid monthly. It is a part of your budget. You are paying your taxes, so you should be giving money to AMP monthly.

[…]

“The list goes on. Know who is on your side. Build community with them, because the next thing I am going to tell you is to know your enemies. And I am not going to sugarcoat that, they are your enemies. There are organizations and infrastructures out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations, I mean the foreign policy organizations who say they are not Zionists but want a two-state solution. I am not a Palestinian myself, but it is my understanding that that is laughable. So know your enemies.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Like Obama, Biden Silent on Iran Mullahs Killing Peaceful Protesters

CAIR’s Nihad Awad declares Tel Aviv ‘occupied,’ prays for its ‘liberation’

Afghanistan: Taliban had sleeper agents in every major city, dressed like Westerners

PA TV program glorifies murder: ‘The blood of the martyrs draws the borders of the homeland’

UK soap opera shows ‘the positives of the Islamic faith and the shocking Islamophobia of far right groups’

RELATED VIDEO: Is Islam More Violent than Christianity? Dr. Javad T. Hashmi vs. Robert Spencer.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Holding Politicians Accountable for The Border Crisis

/in , , , , , , /by

“The simplest things are often the truest.” – Richard Bach

Politicians who deliberately screw things up for people deserve to get punched in the nose – metaphorically speaking, of course!  Business owners are suing politicians in Seattle for egging Antifa rioters on in causing harm to businesses in the lawless CHOP zone.  Good, I hope the business owners win.  Today’s news brings the story that Texas landowners are demanding federal compensation for property damage caused by Joe Biden’s open borders policies. This comes as a report from Texas law enforcement detailed the extent of the border crisis, including the capture of illegal aliens from terror-prone countries.  OANEpoch Times  Joe Biden and his radical cronies deliberately caused this mess, so I hope the landowners are made whole and the money comes out of Joe Biden’s ice cream budget.

Joe is still screwing things up at the border.

A catch-and-release illegal alien from Honduras murdereda man in Jacksonville, Florida.  Twenty-three illegal aliens previously convicted of homicide in the U.S. have been caught illegally trying to reenter the country since February.

Biden’s Build Back Better bill would expand child tax credits worth billions of dollars to illegal aliens who don’t have Social Security numbers. Can you spell M-A-G-N-E-T?  Fox News

ICE terminated a 25-year-old relationship with a Massachusetts sheriff who had been running a detention facility under contract for criminal illegal aliens with immigration holds.  ICE claimed the facility was no longer needed, which the sheriff says is clearly not true given the exploding illegal immigration in the country.

Border agents encountered a large group of 47 illegal aliens in Texas late last month.  Among them was a 3-year-old boy from Honduras who had been abandoned by his mother.

Meanwhile, drug overdose deaths are way up because Mexican cartels are flooding the U.S. with fake pills laced with fentanyl.

In the face of all this chaos, all our insane DHS Secretary can do is yammer on about how his department is prioritizing ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.’  Alejandro Mayorkas has been accused of lying in Senate testimony, claiming he is working to deport catch-and-release illegal aliens who fail to show up for ICE appointments when ICE has been telling them they won’t be arrested.  That’s right up there with Joe Biden initially claiming that news reports separated alien families would receive million dollar payouts were “garbage”, then moving ahead with the scheme.

Here’s where it gets weird.  It’s been reported that DHS is deporting tens of thousands of illegal border-crossers from Central America and Haiti by air.  Some were supposedly protected from deportation.  This started in August and the deterrent power of such deportations may account for the declining number of alien border encounters in the last three months.   We don’t know why the removal flights are being done; the government isn’t talking.  Is it a confession of error?  Is it the result of infighting among different factions inside the Biden administration?  Does the secrecy indicate the administration is trying to avoid criticism from its open borders constituency?  Is the administration temporarily trying to make the border problem go away just in time for the 2022 midterm elections?

At this point, we don’t know. But, whatever the reason, the Biden administration still deserves a big punch in the nose for screwing things up at the border and lying about it – metaphorically speaking, of course!

Visit The Daily Skirmish for this and many other articles from friend and patriot Chris Wright.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Here’s Why You Aren’t Allowed to Watch the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

/in , , , , , , /by

This isn’t a conspiracy. This is just plain old government corruption.

The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the socialite who stands accused of procuring young girls for the sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, began last week.

Though the mainstream media has not focused as heavily on this case as other high-profile trials in recent months, the proceedings have certainly not been forgotten by the general public. But much to the chagrin of that public, the trial will not be filmed.

Some have even painted this fact in a conspiratorial light, a tint that has surrounded much of the story around Epstein, his death, and now Maxwell’s trial.

More specifically, many believe high-ranking officials across multiple governments and celebrities were caught up in the sex ring Epstein allegedly ran, and that the powers that be within our government are invested in preventing these details from coming to light.

People will be forgiven for having little to no faith in our government or our systems, and this wouldn’t be the first trial with foul play by the system (a fact supporters of our justice system, capital punishment, and qualified immunity would do well to remember when they approach public policies).

But, the vast majority of these reports have been flatly false. Maxwell’s trial will not be filmed for one reason and one reason alone: cameras have been banned in federal courts for decades, which is the level at which she will be tried. Media will still be allowed in the courtroom, as will a certain number of spectators.

According to the United States Courts website:

“Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946. Rule 53 states: “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”

Furthermore:

“In 1972 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a prohibition against ‘broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto.'”

Now, this isn’t to say there’s nothing fishy going on in this case, just that there’s nothing especially fishy going on with this practice in this case. It also does not mean there’s nothing wrong with the protocol, evenly applied though it may be.

Indeed, there is a very good argument to be made for why cameras should be allowed in all trials, but the courts, prosecutors, and judges all continue to argue stringently against it.

Some of their arguments are more valid than others, like the need to protect witnesses and victims. That’s a valid concern in a case like this one. The victims have all already suffered greatly, and the global attention on the case could be enough to scare away even the strongest of individuals from choosing to participate. But, there are better ways of addressing this concern than banning cameras from the courtroom. Witnesses could be allowed to testify remotely, utilizing technology that could obscure their identity, as one example.

As a whole, this is just another way the government avoids accountability and transparency. And knowing what we know about the justice system, there is nowhere that this scrutiny is needed more.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the need for transparency in government. As James Madison once said, “A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” It is essential that the American people have access to information about the inner workings of our government if we should ever hope to be able to hold its actors accountable. Without this essential component, our civil liberties will not stand for long—and this is already evident in our crumbling legal system.

As Thomas Paine said, “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” The rate of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct ought to be enough to back up this statement.

So as Americans are becoming more aware of the abuses in our justice system, we should demand that practices like prohibiting recordings be abandoned so all citizens have a greater ability to hold government actors accountable.

COLUMN BY

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Maxwell Trail Bombshell: World Shocked After Sick Epstein Photo Placed Into Evidence

Twitter Suspends Account Giving Updates on the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Sounds of Social Media’s Silencing of Americans is Deafening

/in , , , , , /by

“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.” – First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The First Amendment gives every American five basic rights:

  1. Freedom of speech,
  2. press,
  3. petition,
  4. assembly
  5. and religion.

Each of these is under attack.  For example:

  1. The legacy media (ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.) and social media sites have become the propaganda arms for the current administration in one form or another. These media bullhorns now determine what will be seen or heard or not seen or heard about certain topics, e.g. Covid and the impact(s) of the various vaccines on our bodies e.g. altering our DNA.
  2. We the people cannot petition our elected officials, e.g. the DOJ labeling parents who disagree with what is taught in public schools “domestic terrorists.”
  3. The January 6th, 2021 protest in Washington, D.C. was a peaceful assembly of the people to petition their government concerning massive voter fraud during the 2020 election. Many of these peaceful, patriotic and unarmed protesters were arrested and several were murdered, e.g. Ashli Babbitt.
  4. Religion is under attack in America. Not all religions just those who believe in Judeo- Christian morals and  values are now considered enemies of the state.
  5. Finally, speech is no longer free. Saying some things, like there are only two genders (male and female) will get you censored or even banned from social media sites or even causes some to loose their jobs.

Social Media’s Murdering of our Freedom of Speech

Social media protects some forms of speech but outlaws other forms of speech. In other words they determine what you can and cannot say on their websites. We’ve seen this before in Nazi, Germany, in the former Soviet Union and today in Communist China, Venezuela and Cuba.

For example:

  • If you believe that Communism is evil and those who support it are enemies of mankind then you’re banned on social media sites.
  • If you believe that sodomy is a sin you are labeled homophobic and banned.
  • If you believe that radical Islamists, by their actions, are terrorists you are banned as Islamophobic.
  • If you are a conservationist and not an environmentalist then you are a harm to the planet and are blocked.
  • If you disagree with the current administration’s executive mandates then you are forbidden from expressing these beliefs and blocked from expressing them.
  • If you have physically suffered or someone you know has died from getting vaxxed/jabbed then your are silenced. Or worse your pain and suffering is ignored.
  • If you are someone like Andy Ngo who’s reporting on the violence and destruction caused by Antifa then you are censored on Twitter by none other than Antifa. Insane but true.

What we are now seeing in America is the death of free speech on social media sites including, Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube. Some of these social media sites are blatant in how they ban some speech, but leave other speech untouched.

Twitter’s new CEO Parag Agrawal has said that the social media platform’s content censorship should not be restricted by the First Amendment and that Twitter should “focus less on thinking about free speech.”

Agrawal stated: “The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

So Twitter is working to “recommend content” but who’s content?

Discover the Networks reported:

Just one day after far-left activist Jack Dorsey was replaced as the CEO of Twitter by the company’s former CTO, Parag Agrawal, the platform has banned the sharing of any images or videos of people without their explicit consent. The totalitarian Agrawal stated, “The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.”

A healthy public conversation depends on the free exchange of ideas. A healthy public conversation depends on freedom of speech, but not yelling fire in a crowed theatre.

So is it the intent of Twitter to yell “fire” in their crowed platform for one group but not another?

The answer is clear. It was Twitter who banned President Donald J. Trump from its platform. That was the “tweet heard round the world” and led to many who supported Trump being shadow banned or outright de-platformed.

Bottom Line

In his novel 1984 George Orwell wrote this conversation:

“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?“

Winston thought. “By making him suffer”, he said.

Today Americans are suffering. Because of lockdowns, vaccine mandates and government policies the working classes are losing their jobs, their livelihoods and their dignity. But is there a light at the end of this dark tunnel we find ourselves in? Perhaps.

In the case Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta  the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Roberts wrote in the Court’s opinion:

“When it comes to the freedom of association…the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.”

Will this standard also be apply to an individual’s ability to join with others on social media platforms to voice their opinions?

The First Amendment is under attack because it defends our most basic inalienable rights. Without the First Amendment we the people become we the slaves of the governments at every level.

Be warned it is coming, an American Revolution 2.0. The revolution will occur on November 8th, 2022 mid-term elections. If conservatives take back one or both houses of Congress we may once again have hope. We may see power transferred back to the people!

Let me be very clear: We the people will not live with a government boot on our collective necks for ever.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How America’s woke media is undermining democracy

Lurch Toward Tyranny

RELATED VIDEO: Crimes or Cover-Up? Exposing the World’s Most Dangerous Lie

Twitter Bans Sharing Photos, Videos ‘Without Consent’ on New CEO’s 1st Day

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Just one day after far-left activist Jack Dorsey was replaced as the CEO of Twitter by the company’s former CTO, Parag Agrawal, the platform has banned the sharing of any images or videos of people without their explicit consent. The totalitarian Agrawal stated, “The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.”

“Feeling safe on Twitter is different for everyone, and our teams are constantly working to understand and address these needs,” reads his statement. “We know our work will never be done, and we will continue to invest in making our product and policies more robust and transparent to continue to earn the trust of the people using our service.”

Monday on FNC’s Fox News Primetime, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) offered his interpretation of the new rule. “I promise you what it won’t mean, and the people whose privacy won’t be protected, are normal Americans who want to express their views, particularly if they have conservative views. I promise that you their privacy won’t be respected. They will still get censored…

“Let’s just remember what Twitter does by the way how they make their money,” he added. “They track us around the web everywhere they — everywhere we go. They collect a dossier on us. They sell our information. They profit off of us. I promise you they are not going to stop doing any of that stuff. And at the end of the day, Pete, here’s the deal: the last thing America needs is another big tech robber baron who doesn’t care anything for free speech, and that’s exactly what Twitter is giving us.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Twitter’s New CEO Said Role Is ‘Not to be Bound by the First Amendment,’ But to Decide ‘Who Can Be Heard’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Spoken like a true Nazi. The left continues to tear this country apart and hurl us back to ore-revolutionary oppression.

Twitter’s New CEO Said Role Is ‘Not to be Bound by the First Amendment,’ But to Decide ‘Who Can Be Heard’

By Craig Bannister | CNS | November 30, 2021 |

Twitter’s new CEO Parag Agrawal has said that the social media platform’s content censorship should not be restricted by the First Amendment and that Twitter should “focus less on thinking about free speech.”

In a November 18, 2020 interview with MIT Technology Review Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield, Twitter’s then-Chief Technology Officer Agrawal was asked how Twitter can both censor misinformation from its platform and still allow free speech.

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation, Agrawal replied. Instead, Twitter’s role is to “focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed,” he said:

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.

“The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”

Because speech is so easy on the internet, Twitter emphasizes deciding “who can be heard,” Agrawal added:

“One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Twitter is increasing its influence over what content users see by wielding its power to “recommend content” and “direct people’s attention” to promote what it considers to be “healthy conversation,” Agrawal said:

“And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

The full exchange is presented below:

Lichfield: “You’re caught in a bit of a hard place as somebody in the audience is also pointing out, that you’re trying to combat misinformation, you also want to protect free speech as a core value, and also in the U.S. as the first amendment. How do you balance those two?”

Agrawal: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Uncovered Tweets By Twitter’s New Woke CEO Spells Bad News For Conservatives

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

TikTok suspends account of critic of Islam who has been inundated with death threats

/in , , , , , /by

Mila wrote: “Perfectly logical to hate the most problematic and dangerous religion these days!”

If she had expressed hatred for Christianity, would her account have been suspended? No, TikTok would have crowned her Queen of France.

‘Now that sucks, take a look’: Mila’s TikTok account suspended over comment on Islam

 

translated from ““Là ça craint, regardez bien”: le compte TikTok de Mila suspendu à cause d’un commentaire sur l’islam,” Valeurs Actuelles, November 30, 2021 (thanks to Medforth):

Mila, regularly harassed and threatened on social networks because of her positions that re deemed controversial on Islam, noted on Monday (November 29) the suspension of her TikTok account. The young woman made it known on Twitter, the same day, during the evening. “My TikTok account was suspended following this comment. I don’t mind losing my account, but this sucks, take a good look,” she said in her post. The cause of the suspension of her TikTok account was these few words: “Perfectly logical to hate the most problematic and dangerous religion these days!”

These words angered a number of users of this social network, who therefore massively reported Mila’s post. This was then deleted by the application, for the following reason: violation of community guidelines. Secondly, the young woman’s account, reported for the same reasons, was suspended.

On Twitter, Mila also shared in the context of this comment that she had been the victim of bullying: “I’ve received a huge amount of (completely unprovoked) abuse tonight, on my TikTok account of course, from our favourite Islamists and therefore in addition to the threats, insults and calls to murder, massive flaggings.” A few hours earlier, she had confided on social media that one of her videos had been removed from TikTok’s mobile app. She indicated that she had appealed the decision, but the content had not yet been restored.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is CAIR’s Complaint about the Misuse of ‘Islamic Terminology’ Actually a Confession?

France: Presidential hopeful slams out-of-control Muslim migration, vows to tear up migrant treaty with UK

Bennett as nuke talks resume: ‘Iran won’t just keep its nuclear program; from today, they’ll be getting paid for it’

Iran’s former Atomic Energy Agency top dog confirms: Islamic Republic has active nuclear weapons program

ISIS bride Shamima Begum asks to return to UK: ‘Westernized, less Muslim’ women’s tents ‘targeted by arsonists’

Jerusalem jihad murderer exhorted other Muslims to shed blood and ‘become actual role-models of jihad’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Salvation Army’s Woke ‘International Policy on Racism’

/in , , , , , /by

In case you’re interested.  Following is the Salvation Army’s International Policy on Racism. This is WOKENESS personified! I understand they might have withdrawn this  from their Guide to Employees .  under pressure from donors.

We have laws e.g. Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 65 which have eliminated so called “systemic racism” in the United States – yes there may be some individuals who are still bigots but, as a nation we are not nor are 99.99% of our white population.

Those who foster such Marxist principles espoused by BLM and inculcated into CRT; who extort businesses and charities into turning totally WOKE and keep people of color thinking they are victims of an evil, racist country are the true bigots and racists.

International Policy on Racism

PRACTICAL RESPONSES The universality of God’s love is clearly declared in Scripture, and must be actualised in the daily living of people (1 John 4:20).

Racism is a wrong that needs to be countered and calls for truthful acknowledgement, rectification and reconciliation on an organisational, individual and societal level. Responding at an organisational level: The Salvation Army is committed to equality, disavows discrimination and affirms racial diversity.

Sorrow and repentance are needed for any negative legacy that past shortcomings have created. We acknowledge that Salvationists have sometimes conformed to economic, political, social and internal pressures that perpetuate racism

  •  The Salvation Army will make and encourage efforts to challenge and overcome racism wherever it exists.
  •  The Salvation Army must always be vigilant and guard against the infiltration of racism in our organisation.
  •  The Salvation Army recognises the importance of robust systems to report and discuss racism without fear and will endeavour to provide these. • The Salvation Army will continue to make efforts to ensure ethnic diversity in international and territorial leadership.
  •  The Salvation Army will promote the value of ethnic diversity and inclusiveness in all expressions of Salvation Army life including prioritising resources for the education and development of all personnel.
  •  The Salvation Army will regularly review its investment portfolios to ensure that they are consistent with the values and beliefs it proclaims. Responding at an individual level: • Salvationists are expected to take personal action against racism motivated by their obedience to the example of Jesus and their respect of the image of God in every person.
  •  Salvationists are expected to seek to influence the attitudes of others by expressly rejecting racial stereotypes, slurs and jokes.
  •  Salvationists should raise their families to appreciate the diversity of cultures and ethnicities.
  • Salvationists are encouraged to join with others in combined efforts to bring about justice for the victims of racism. Responding at a societal level: The Salvation Army will seek to influence governments, businesses, civil society and other faith communities to:
    • Pursue goals of racial and economic justice. This should include efforts to achieve fair working conditions, adequate income, safe and secure housing, educational opportunities that will enhance life, and health care that is accessible irrespective of ethnicity.
    • Be aware of its responsibility to promote racial justice and ethnic diversity in private and public sectors of life.
    • Avoid and resist rhetoric that can contribute to ethnic stereotyping.
    • Encourage all people – especially leaders in society – to recognise the negative effects of racism in society and commit to rid the world of this injustice.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET: