Tag Archive for: First Amendment

Nick Shirley SUES California Over ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’

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

California’s New Law Could Silence Journalists Exposing Fraud

Nick Shirley announced today on X that he is suing the state of California over the controversial bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that critics have dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

AB 2624 restricts the publication of certain identifying information about workers at organizations that provide immigration-related services when a worker submits a written request that the information not be published.

Critics of the law, including Shirley, argue the restrictions could interfere with journalists and others investigating those organizations.

“Now in a world where we all want more transparency and not less, it is more critical than ever that we do not just sit back and do nothing. That is why I’m filing this lawsuit against the state of California,” Shirley said in his post.

In making his case against the law, Shirley went on to describe who authored it, why he believes it was created, how he says it affects journalists, and the timeline that he argues shows the law was targeted at him.

That timeline began on Jan. 31, when Shirley announced he was in California investigating alleged fraud. Days later, Newsom said the San Diego Somali community felt “under siege” amid the arrival of what he described as “right-wing provocateurs,” a comment Shirley suggested was directed at him.

Shirley then pointed to a Feb. 5 news conference held by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who pushed back against allegations of widespread fraud in the state, describing the claims as “reckless, false, outrageous, and ridiculous.”

Over two weeks later, on Feb. 20, Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who is married to the attorney general, introduced AB 2624, known among critics as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

Shirley argues the timing was no coincidence.

“They needed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB 2624, to protect the fraud and stop people from exposing these locations inside of immigration support providers.”

Shirley is now taking that argument to federal court, claiming the statute violates the First Amendment. The journalist also stressed that he is not seeking monetary damages from the lawsuit, but instead is challenging the law to protect what he says are his and others’ First Amendment rights.

“It’s time for We the People to do something. This law never had anything to do with the Right or Left. It had to do with your dollars being defrauded, and now they want to prevent people like me from going out and searching for the truth about where our tax dollars are going,” Shirley said.

The Daily Signal reached out to the offices of Newsom and Bonta for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

AUTHOR

Angelina Delfin

Angelina Delfin is California correspondent for the Daily Signal. Follow on X angelina_talks.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Comer Targets Biden-Era DEA Policy That Allowed Fentanyl Loads to Move Unimpeded

Piker & El-Sayed: Comedy Gold

RELATED VIDEO: The Media Lies About The Pentagon — COL Rob Maness

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

‘Monumental’ California Fraud Bombshell: Whistleblower Begs Trump to Intervene as Newsom Hit With Lawsuit Threat

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

California’s fraud scandal makes the Minnesota look like ‘garden variety government mismanagement and its about to get substantially worse.

Newsom hit with lawsuit threat as whistleblower begs Trump for help with ‘monumental’ fraud scandal

DeMaio suggested that California’s fraud scandal makes the Minnesota look like ‘garden variety government mismanagement’

By Peter Pinedo, Fox News, August 30, 2026:

California’s “monumental problem” with rampant fraud is about to get significantly worse, according to Republican state Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that he warns will crack down on people investigating scammers.

Officially titled “Privacy for immigration support services providers,” the new law creates privacy protections for immigration support service providers, employees and volunteers, including shielding their addresses and imposing penalties on those who publish their images on social media. DeMaio told Fox News Digital the bill amounts to criminalizing investigative journalism and works to “silence citizen journalists and shield taxpayer-funded organizations from public scrutiny.”

“What does the Stop Nick Shirley Act do? It basically makes it illegal for a citizen journalist to document fraud of taxpayer money and post that on the internet in the form of an internet video,” he said.

Newsom signed the bill into law last week, and it is set to take effect Oct. 1. DeMaio told Fox News Digital that he and a “coalition of civil liberty protectors” are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the law.

“We have a plaintiff and are putting together the legal briefs,” he said, adding, “It is a matter of time before we’re going to get before a judge to stop this act.”

“It is our hope,” he continued, “that the U.S. Department of Justice will file to intervene in that case, because this is an open-and-shut infringement on our First Amendment rights.”

DeMaio said California’s fraud scandal makes the Minnesota fraud look like “garden variety government mismanagement.”

“If you were worried about Somali daycare centers in Minnesota not having children in the daycare, take a look at California government NGOs receiving taxpayer funds and not having any sort of public services that they’re delivering,” he said. “They say they provide public services to immigrants when, in fact, they organize rallies, they harvest ballots, they endorse candidates and ballot measures during campaigns, and they are an extension of the Democrat Party.”

DeMaio said the planned lawsuit follows discussions with the Justice Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio speaks during a California State Assembly meeting at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Aug. 21, 2025. (

“I have asked the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights to look at the Stop Nick Shirley Act … to see if they can do anything to intervene to prevent the implementation of this law. We have been dialoguing with the Department of Justice, and now we have a game plan as to how we will proceed forward in the courts to overturn this unconstitutional law,” he said.

Addressing Newsom directly, DeMaio said, “Gavin Newsom, once again, you’re a bully trying to silence citizen watchdogs into not exercising their First Amendment rights and exposing your fraud, the billions of dollars that you’ve allowed to be wasted of precious taxpayer funds, all because you want the benefit of these left-wing NGOs to help you politically.”

DeMaio said Newsom and California’s Democratic supermajority “created such a monumental problem with fraud of taxpayer money being abused that it’s clear that it is intentional.”

“You’re going to be exposed as a bully,” he told Newsom. “You’re going to be exposed as the fraud ringleader.

In response, Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo told Fox News Digital that “this law has nothing to do with Nick Shirley” and that “the real controversy here is that MAGA Republicans are either lying to create up fake conspiracy theories, or none of them know how to read.”

Crofts-Pelayo said the law does not affect Shirley’s journalism, which Newsom’s office previously referred to as “grifting” and “lying,” and does not hide fraud.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hijabed Hochul

Jewish Michigan AG Too Terrified to Attend Her Own Democrat Convention as Antisemitism Devours Democrat Party

Far-left Florida U.S. Senate candidate Angie Nixon praises Designated Terror Group CAIR

THE ISLAMIC TAKEOVER IS HERE: Turning US Cities Into ‘Beachheads’ for Islam

WATCH ‘BALL SACK ZIONIST’: Anti-Jew Jew Politician Brad Lander Fed Israel to the Crocodile—Then the Jew-Hating Mob Devoured Him

Study Exposes the Psychological Danger of Trans Activists

Trump Admin Revokes Visa of Iraqi Woman Who Received Award from Biden After She’s Found on Terror Watch List

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

Why Islamic Sharia Law is the enemy of our rights under the First Amendment

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

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, preventing the government from infringing on these fundamental rights.

Text and Core Protections

The First Amendment states: “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” Congress.gov+1. It is part of the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791 Wikipedia. The amendment is divided into several key clauses:

  • Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another Wikipedia+1.
  • Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals’ rights to practice their religion freely without government interference Wikipedia+1.
  • Free Speech Clause: Ensures individuals can express opinions without government restriction, including political, symbolic, and anonymous speech Wikipedia+1.
  • Free Press Clause: Protects the press from government censorship, allowing dissemination of information and opinions Wikipedia+1.
  • Assembly Clause: Guarantees the right to gather peacefully for protests, meetings, or demonstrations Congress.gov+1.
  • Petition Clause: Allows citizens to petition the government to address grievances or request changes

According to ConstitutionUS.com:

Political System

A vast majority of Islamic scholars and followers of the Prophet Mohammed believe Islam is a religion and a state. 

They think Islam should dictate government and public life while also serving as a religion. Dissenting voices have argued that Islam should serve only as a religion and should not be involved in governing the state. 

The debate continues to rage today, with hardline Sharia Law proponents arguing for Sharia law to dictate all aspects of life, including governance. At the same time, reformers say Islam should be used only as a religion, not a form of government.

Critics and legal scholars frequently highlight several primary concerns and dangers associated with traditional or strict interpretations of Sharia law, particularly when integrated into state legal codes or public governance.

1. Violations of Human Rights & Corporal Punishment

  • Hadd Penalties: Strict interpretations prescribe severe physical punishments (Hudud) for specific offenses, including stoning for adultery, amputation of limbs for theft, and public flogging. These penalties violate international human rights standards regarding torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

Capital Punishment for Religious Offenses: Traditional codes enforce the death penalty or severe criminal sanctions for apostasy (leaving Islam) and blasphemy, directly conflicting with universal rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

2. Gender Inequality & Restrictions on Women

Family and Personal Status Law: In traditional Sharia jurisprudence, legal rights regarding marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance disproportionately favor men. For example, female testimony is often weighed as half that of a male in certain legal matters, and daughters typically inherit half the share granted to sons.

Autonomy Restrictions: Codes enforced in strict regimes restrict female autonomy through mandatory guardianship laws (wilayah), restrictions on dress, constraints on freedom of movement, and barriers to employment or political participation.

3. Discrimination Against Minorities & Non-Muslims

  • Unequal Legal Status: Under classical frameworks, non-Muslims historically held the legal status of dhimmi. While granted protection, they faced legal inequalities, including limitations on building places of worship, restriction from high political or military offices, and lower financial compensation (diyya) in cases of injury or death compared to Muslims.
  • LGBTQ+ Persecution: Same-sex sexual relations are strictly criminalized under traditional interpretations, punishable in some jurisdictions by long imprisonment or execution.

4. Conflict with Secular Law & Democratic Principles

  • Undermining the Rule of Law: Replacing democratic legislation with divine legal claims restricts the ability of citizens to adapt laws to changing societal norms through democratic debate.
  • Dual Legal Systems: Attempts to run parallel Sharia tribunals alongside secular judicial systems can create conflicting legal standards, particularly when individuals (such as vulnerable spouses in divorce cases) face social or community pressure to forego their constitutional rights in favor of religious arbitration.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. Constitution is incompatable with Sharia Law.

This is the rational behind the Democrat Socialists/Islamo-Nazi eforts, if elected, to eleminate our Constitutional Republican form of government and replace it with a Marxist/Islamist culture and government.

Shariah demands dominance and cannot tolorate any Western or American values.

We have been waring about the Islamic invation of Western cultures like Great Britian and France. Mass immigration of illegal aliens from Muslin countries to any other nation state is in fact and invasion.

Recent history tells us that when Muslims gain control of any country then they implement Sharia law and the country becomes an Islamic state.

Islamist & Fundamentalist Regimes: When hardline Islamist movements have seized control—such as Iran after the 1979 Revolution, Sudan under Omar al-Bashir, or Afghanistan under the Taliban—they have typically instituted strict interpretations of Sharia law. This has historically led to:

  • Restructuring civil and criminal legal systems around traditional religious jurisprudence.
  • Significant restrictions on civil liberties, press freedom, political opposition, and women’s rights (such as mandatory dress codes and limitations on education or employment).
  • Increased pressure or outright persecution faced by religious and sectarian minorities.

Muslims are a threat where ever they go, 9/11 tells us so.

WATCH: Black Christian Pastor TORCHES Entire Muslim-Conquered Dearborn, Michigan City Council

Islam must be banned, period. Our Constitution demands it.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ambrose: Distinguishing Church from State

RELATED VIDEO: French reporter gets a rude awakening after a visit to Poland

The Problem With Using the First Amendment in Defense of Islam Is That Its Goal Is to Violate the First Amendment

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

Can we ban Islam?

To protect “Islamic rights,” therefore, means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion.

White Rose Magazine recently asked me to explore the subject of the legal status of Islam and I dived into that in the article Can We Ban Islam.

The article looks at the status of religion and the parameters of what kind of illegal activities operating under the color of religion that the government can take action against.

“The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a state religion, around the world and in America as well.

Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the U.K. have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.

This would, in effect, turn Islam into an established religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment. Furthermore, Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect freedom of speech and the press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect “Islamic rights,” therefore, means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Colombia Will Renew Ties With Israel and Move Its Embassy to Jerusalem

J Street Sponsors Conference Featuring Speaker Who Praised Hamas

Syria’s Time of Epuration

Massive ‘Islamophobia’ Hoax Falls Apart in the UK

Enforcing the Burkini Ban in Burgos

Pakistan’s Top Court Acquits Last Three Men in 2014 Lynching of Christian Couple, Leaving No One Convicted

Muslim branch of UK Scout Association tells children to ‘paint for Gaza’

Italy: Court upholds life sentences for Muslim family that murdered girl in honor killing

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Muslims murder 10 civilians in jihad attack on village, burn houses

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

PERKINS: Civil Leaders and Spiritual Authority

/in , , , , , , , /by

President Trump’s Truth Social post last weekend which seemed to depict him as the Great Physician (though he later deleted it) serves as a reminder of why the biblical principle often described as the separation of church and state still matters.

Yes, I support that separation and always have. Let me explain.

When many on the Left invoke “separation of church and state,” they often mean the exclusion of God from government, suggesting He has no authority or place in public life. That is neither biblically grounded nor practically sustainable. As the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1, “there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Civil leaders get their authority from God.

And when governments deny or marginalize that truth, they ultimately erode the very foundation of their own authority.

Scripture draws a clear boundary. Civil leaders are not to assume roles or authority that belong to God or His ordained institutions, yet spiritual leaders are responsible for upholding those boundaries.

We see this vividly in 2 Chronicles 26 during King Uzziah’s reign. Israel was flourishing, economically strong, militarily secure, and territorially expanding. But success gave way to pride:

“But when he [Uzziah] was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests…’” (2 Chronicles 26:16-18)

He entered the temple to burn incense, a duty reserved exclusively for the priests. Azariah and 80 priests confronted him, warning that he had crossed a line established by God. Uzziah’s judgment was swift and sobering.

The lesson is clear: God establishes both authority and limits. The king was not above those limits. The priests had the authority not only to defend the sacred but also to confront and correct the king. To do so, they needed to be independent of the king.

This is the proper understanding of the separation of church and state: civil leaders must not assume spiritual authority, and spiritual leaders must not surrender moral authority. It protects the church’s independence so it can speak truth to power — and it restrains the state from assuming spiritual authority it does not possess.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. captured this well in his sermon “A Knock at Midnight”: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

When any political leader is portrayed — or allows himself to be portrayed — in explicitly messianic terms, a line has been crossed. And when the church remains silent, the line fades.

The question is not merely about one post or one moment. It is whether the church will faithfully serve as the conscience of the state — or quietly surrender that role.

Because when the line disappears, both institutions suffer — and truth is the casualty.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

A Reflection on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Recalibration

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

In her March 2026 address, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff offers a chillingly precise dissection of how free societies surrender their foundational liberties. It is a speech that eschews the histrionics of modern political rhetoric in favor of a structural analysis, treating the erosion of freedom not as an explosion, but as a slow, tectonic shift in the hierarchy of values.

Elisabeth exhibits a remarkable analytical precision in her observation of this process, noting that a country may adjust its standards even while the populace remains convinced that it acts with responsibility. Her central thesis is as simple as it is unsettling: a society remains free only as long as truth is considered a sufficient justification for speech.

Elisabeth begins by correcting a common categorical error: the idea that freedom is primarily an emotional state or a feeling of relief. Contrary to popular sentiment, she argues that freedom is structural. It is an institutional design that rests upon a specific social pact where an individual can speak plainly without first performing a mental cost-benefit analysis of the social or legal consequences.

In this framework, the ability to speak remains contingent upon truth rather than social utility. A free society assumes that disagreement meets argument, not punitive measures. When a system functions correctly, the correspondence of a reality statement provides its primary protection.

Elisabeth possesses the rare insight to recognize that for a system to remain genuinely free, truth must be sufficient on its own.

The erosion of liberty begins when people prioritize the helpfulness or constructiveness of a statement over its accuracy. These inquiries appear responsible and appeal to a sense of social harmony, yet they shift the focus from truth to consequence. Speech ceases to enjoy protection because it reflects reality; instead, its preservation depends on whether its impact is deemed acceptable by the state.

Elisabeth demonstrates a keen diagnostic skill in her identification of this shift, where the focus moves from whether a statement is true to whether its articulation might produce effects that society prefers to avoid. This recalibration replaces the absolute value of truth with the relative value of social equilibrium.

Elisabeth’s perspective is particularly authoritative as she draws from her formative years in Chicago to contrast the American model with the European one. She views the U.S. First Amendment as a specific restraint on state power, acknowledging that the concentration of authority over truth within the state is more hazardous than speech itself.

In contrast, the European tradition increasingly allows stability to outweigh liberty. Within that framework, the state may limit speech because it creates disruption, regardless of its factual basis. Elisabeth identifies this as a fundamental difference in how these societies resolve tensions between competing values. While a healthy republic does not require total agreement, it does require the capacity to tolerate friction. However, the European experience suggests that this assumption is in decline.

The practical application of these shifts becomes evident in the courtroom. In the case Elisabeth describes, the legal proceedings in Vienna maintained an appearance of total decorum. No dramatic displays of force occurred; rather, the process was measured and respectful. However, the court did not dispute the accuracy of the historical facts she presented. Instead, it focused on whether the public articulation of those facts was compatible with religious peace.

The problem was not the falsity of her statements, but the fact that they were spoken aloud at all.

This case highlights Elisabeth’s unwavering commitment to principle, as she demonstrates how a system can adjust its hierarchy while preserving its outward form. When a legal system decides that factual accuracy does not guarantee protection, it creates a precedent that enters the legal bloodstream and encourages a general culture of caution.

Elisabeth identifies modern debates regarding Islam as a primary stress test for Western principles. While a democracy must protect all citizens from violence, a crisis arises when the critique of doctrine is equated with an attack on individuals. A healthy system maintains a clear distinction between the protection of persons and the examination of ideas. Elizabeth argues that the real inquiry is whether a society possesses the resolve to maintain its principles even when
their application creates discomfort.

Drawing a line to her childhood in Iran, she notes that the narrowing of speech began not with the revolution, but with caution. People lowered their voices, and certain words carried new, heavy consequences. The United States remains at a different stage of this process, but the preservation of this clarity requires a commitment to protect speech precisely when it is unsettling.

As Elisabeth concludes with profound clarity, once a society begins weighing truth against comfort, it has already begun to change. Individual choice and the structure of the law must remain firm, or freedom will recede when its conditions are quietly redefined. Her warning is a masterclass in political philosophy: do not mistake management for liberty.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: DISSENT TV: Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff an Austrian mother devoted to the preservation of freedom of speech.

Christian Teen Silenced on Zoom — Then the Governor Stepped In

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

The censorship was swift, but the correction was even swifter once Christians stood up. 

A junior at Arkansas Connections Academy (ARCA) learned a hard truth this year. In modern America, a young person can say almost anything in school — except the name of Jesus.

Every day, students at this online public school join a “social time” Zoom session. They can talk freely about anything they choose, as long as their comments are not violent, vulgar, or obscene.

On September 23, 2025, sixteen-year-old Zion Ramos decided to use his two minutes to speak about something deeper.

Inspired by the memorial service of Charlie Kirk, Zion told his classmates:

“We don’t know how long we have. One day, it’ll all be over. When our time is up, all we will have is eternity… and we need to decide where we want to spend it.”

He wasn’t shouting.

He wasn’t preaching hate.

He wasn’t attacking anyone.

He was sharing his faith.

The teacher monitoring the call muted him instantly. Moments later, she removed him from the Zoom meeting entirely — cutting off his message mid-sentence.

Why?

For talking about heaven.

For talking about eternity.

For talking about Jesus.

It was a brazen violation of Zion’s religious freedom, especially in an age where After School Satan Clubs are routinely allowed in elementary schools.

That same week, First Liberty Institute sent ARCA a demand letter reminding them of what the Supreme Court already made clear in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: The First Amendment “doubly protects” religious speech.

And then something remarkable happened.

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders ordered an investigation.

ARCA suddenly changed its tune.

The school invited Zion back to speak, publicly guaranteed him three whole minutes to share his faith, and agreed to complete religious liberty training. Officials also pledged that students’ free speech and free exercise rights would be honored going forward.

Zion won.

“We are grateful that school officials acknowledge how concerning this situation was,” First Liberty said in their statement. Zion himself responded with the courage of a young believer beyond his years:

“Christians must stand up, speak out, and defend our right to share what we believe.”

In a time when many students feel pressured into silence, one young man refused to hide his faith — and the state was forced to back down.

May his example inspire all of us.

In Scripture, God repeatedly uses the young to shame the powerful. David against Goliath. Daniel before kings.

Here, another young believer stood firm while the system tried to silence him. And when he refused to back down, the truth prevailed. This moment is a reminder that religious liberty survives not by accident, but because courageous Christians insist on exercising it.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. Subscribe for more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.

The Perilous Erosion of Free Speech in Europe and Beyond

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

In an era where truth is increasingly subordinated to comfort, my colleague and a close friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (an intrepid Austrian counter-jihad activist and human rights and free speech advocate), stands as a beacon of unyielding courage.

Sabaditsch-Wolff has endured personal persecution for daring to voice historical facts that challenge prevailing sensitivities. Her October 2025 speech in Dallas, Texas, delivered amid global tensions over censorship and cultural shifts, serves as a stark warning: Free speech is not merely a right, but the cornerstone of liberty, and its erosion threatens Western democracies. Drawing from her own trial and the broader patterns of suppression across Europe and beyond, her message resonates profoundly in 2025 — a year marked by political upheavals, including the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.

Sabaditsch-Wolff’s journey began in the heart of Europe, a continent once synonymous with Enlightenment ideals. In 2009, during seminars on Islam’s influence in Europe, she referenced Islamic sources detailing Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl (Aisha), consummated at nine, and posed a rhetorical question about its implications. This was no inflammatory rant, but a factual discourse rooted in historical texts. Yet a journalist secretly recorded her, leading to charges of “denigration of religious doctrines” under Austrian law. Convicted despite appeals reaching the European Court of Human Rights, she faced a chilling verdict: Her speech must be “balanced” against the right of others not to be offended. As she recounts, truth became irrelevant; tone and potential disturbance to “religious peace” took precedence.

This case, as analyzed by author Douglas Murray, established dangerous precedents. First, it nullified truth as a defense in speech-related prosecutions. Second, it empowered courts to police not just content, but delivery, prioritizing politeness over substance. Third, it granted veto power to those claiming offense, echoing what Murray terms the “mobster’s trick”: intimidation veiled as sensitivity. Strikingly, there were no direct complainants; the offense was manufactured. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s conviction has rippled internationally, influencing cases like that of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, prosecuted for quoting the Bible. In Europe, even sacred texts are now being put on trial if they risk causing offense or discomfort.

This personal ordeal illuminates a widening pattern of censorship across the continent. In Germany, laws initially targeting Nazi propaganda have ballooned into broad “hate speech” restrictions, criminalizing vast swaths of political and religious opinion. A 2022 60 Minutes segment even lauded these measures as a model for America, ignoring their chilling effect on discourse. France’s prosecution of Marine Le Pen for sharing ISIS atrocity images exemplifies this: Exposing terrorism was deemed “incitement to hatred,” valuing public comfort over awareness. In the U.K., “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” allow police to log offenses where no law is broken, creating Orwellian records that haunt individuals’ lives — over 12,000 since 2014, with thousands arrested annually for online speech.

Sabaditsch-Wolff ties these trends to a selective erosion of neutrality. Berlin’s recent amendment to the Neutrality Act, permitting Muslim headscarves for teachers while historically banning Christian symbols like small crosses, mirrors the “religious peace” rationale used against her. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party decries this as a “death blow to state neutrality,” arguing that it privileges one faith over others.

Across Europe, institutions have internalized censorship, creating an “autonomous censorship machine” post-pandemic, where silencing dissent justifies bureaucratic existence. As one German analyst notes, free speech cannot be halved into acceptable and unacceptable; once offense equates to crime, freedom vanishes.

At the supranational level, Brussels institutionalizes this threat through the Digital Services Act (DSA), empowering bureaucrats to purge “harmful” content online. Big Tech, acting as state proxies, deplatforms dissenters, extending Europe’s grip to global users. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned of potential sanctions against the E.U. for using the DSA to silence Americans, highlighting the transatlantic stakes. Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko critiques this as liberalism’s totalitarian turn, redistributing freedom the way communism once redistributed wealth — protecting some entities while demonizing others. Austrian commentator Bernhard Heinzelmaier describes it as “postmodern totalitarianism”: not tanks, but conformity, enforced by media cartels and digital oversight.

Austria, her homeland, exemplifies the endpoint. Post-2024 elections, the coalition government grapples with economic woes — inflation, unemployment, and bottom-tier E.U. rankings — while the Freedom Party surges despite smears as “far-right.” Elites focus not on root causes like migration policies, but on barring such parties from power. Sharia arbitration rulings upheld in civil courts, sharia-compliant banking, and unchecked Islamist offenses (up 41.5% last year) signal cultural surrender. Vienna’s schools, now over 40% Muslim, reflect a decade of unchecked migration since 2015’s “Mama Merkel” wave, fostering parallel societies where non-conforming girls face harassment. Honest critique risks prosecution, turning open borders into closed mouths.

Patriotism, Sabaditsch-Wolff argues, is the antidote — a “mystical bond of memory” fostering gratitude, not irrationality. Yet in Europe, it’s vilified as extremism. Britain’s labeling of flag-waving protesters as “Nazis” during Tommy Robinson’s rallies illustrates this: patriotism redefined as hate. Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig’s exile amid Europe’s pre-WWII collapse warns of civilizations losing defensive will, a “mental recession” where feelings trump facts.

The speech poignantly honors Charlie Kirk, assassinated in 2025, as a voice of courage. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, inspired youth with knowledge spanning history and theology, emphasizing that compliance, not cowardice, opposes bravery. His death — a message to silence dissent — prompts reflection on America’s crossroads. The Trump administration’s response, with Attorney General Pam Bondi blaming “hate speech” and threatening prosecutions, betrays free speech principles. Sabaditsch-Wolff urges rejection of this European import: “Hate speech is free speech,” as Kirk affirmed. America’s First Amendment must remain sacrosanct, lest it hollow out like Europe’s protections.

Trump’s 2024 return inspired European populists — Orbán, Le Pen, Wilders — gathering under “Make Europe Great Again.” Yet elites weaponize “Trumpian” as a slur to stifle debate on migration and speech. Vice President J.D. Vance warned at Munich: Europe’s gravest threat is retreating from core values. If America imports censorship, the free world falters.

In her call to action, Sabaditsch-Wolff echoes Belgian professor Mattias Desmet: Silence offers no safety. Resist hysteria, defend universal speech rights, foster dialogue. German commentator Eugyppius critiques “democracy” as a hollowed civic religion, where dissent is heresy. True democracy demands disagreement without punishment.

Sabaditsch-Wolff’s story is a clarion call: Free speech is a duty, not a gift. Surrender it, and soft totalitarianism — polite, digital, bureaucratic — prevails. Her fine, as Murray noted, was no trifle, but a dam-breaking precedent.

In 2025, amid Kirk’s loss and global shifts, we face a choice: Defend truth or capitulate. Liberty belongs to fighters; may we never give up, never give in.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hate Speech Laws is Shooting Yourself in the Face

Virginia Universities Score a ‘D’ in College Free Speech Rankings

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

The echoes of Sunday’s memorial service for slain conservative leader Charlie Kirk are still reverberating across the United States. While Kirk’s most effective method for convincing young people about the rightness of conservatism was through his “Prove Me Wrong” college campus tours—including stops originally scheduled at Virginia Tech and Liberty University this month—it seems increasing numbers of campuses no longer believe in the type of open dialogue he was promoting.

In that environment comes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2026 annual College Free Speech Rankings.

The good news, like football rankings, is that Virginia has one school in the Top 25—the University of Virginia at No. 21—and two more in the Top 50—George Mason at No. 26 and William & Mary at No. 33.

The bad news is the University of Virginia only scored a C-minus when it was once the top-ranked school in the foundation’s 2024 rankings. To be fair, the top college where students felt the most able to express themselves freely, Claremont McKenna College, only scraped together a B-minus with a score of 79.

How does the foundation come up with the numbers? It begins with a survey of students at the school, asking questions like, “If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker’s right to express their views?”

In its abstract on the University of Virginia, the report notes, “Student perceptions are poor with UVA failing to rank in the top 100 for any area. UVA ranks in the bottom 50 for both ‘Comfort Expressing Ideas’ and ‘Administrative Support,’ signaling relative unease and skepticism toward leadership, despite strong written policies.”

And this is the commonwealth’s top school in the rankings.

As I noted earlier, Kirk was scheduled to hold a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Virginia Tech. The Hokies are second from the bottom among Virginia colleges and universities at No. 92 in the nationwide rankings, ahead of only James Madison University at No. 102.

Virginia Tech’s score is out of 257 total schools nationwide, so it’s still in the top 50% and up 24 spots from its 2025 score. It scores 59.5/100 for an F, and the foundation’s researchers note: “Adoption of the ‘Chicago Statement’ remains a bright spot, yet Virginia Tech still earns a ‘yellow light’ Spotlight rating. Students report a mixed environment. The school ranks in the bottom 50 for ‘Administrative Support’ of free speech, indicating that students perceive limited administrative backing despite the formal commitment.”

According to the report, the Chicago Statement is a set of guiding principles intended to demonstrate a commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of expression on college campuses initially adopted by the University of Chicago.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s report on the Virginia universities gives the commonwealth an overall score of 64.1/100 for a D and suggests, “Clarifying written policies and strengthening institutional commitments would help improve free speech climates across Virginia campuses.”

The students may not wait for that to come to pass as they seem to be emboldened to speak up, whether the administration says that it has their back or not. Turning Point USA reports that in the two weeks since Kirk’s assassination, it has received over 54,400 new college chapter inquiries.

AUTHOR

Joe Thomas

Joe Thomas is The Daily Signal’s Virginia correspondent. He is a 37-year broadcasting veteran with 17 years covering Virginia from the marches to the memorials and everything in between. Joe on X: . Sign up for our Virginia email newsletter.

Related posts:

Virginia Schools Face Ultimatum Over Transgender Policies

What School Choice Options Are Available for Virginia Families?

Charlie Kirk Understood Conservatives Need to Take Back Academia

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

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Google Is Upping Their Mind Control Efforts

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

Ahead of a crucial midterm election, tech giant Google is ramping up its mind control efforts and censorship agenda against conservatives and right-leaning news outlets.

Google has a history of manipulating search results to the detriment of conservative and right-leaning news sites. In 2018, the Daily Caller News Foundation exposed the company’s biased fact-checking program that exclusively targeted conservative websites. One egregious ‘fact-check’ on the Daily Caller, which Google claimed to have originated from The Washington Post, turned out to be flagrantly incorrect and quoted language that never appeared in the Caller’s story. At the time, Google was defensive over the algorithms that underpinned the shoddy fact-check program and refused to give a clear answer on whether the algorithms or their own liberal bias were to blame.

It later suspended the program, crediting the DCNF’s investigation for their decision.

But once again, the tech giant is quietly influencing search results and shadow-banning conservative voices nearly a year out from the 2026 midterm elections.

AI’s Liberal Bias

Google recently added summaries generated by Google Gemini to the top results on its search platform. Gemini, an artificial intelligence platform, heavily relies on liberal news sites, YouTube (owned by Google), Reddit, and, perhaps worst of all, Wikipedia, an organization dominated by left-wing editors hostile to conservative politics and voices.

The new AI summaries also lead to drops in engagement. Rather than getting a balanced variety of sources in a single search, users are flooded with biased results from Gemini and then tend to stick with those instead of searching more.

Encountering an AI summary on Google tends to decrease user engagement with external links compared to those who see traditional search results, according to a Pew Research Center study published in July. Users often choose to conclude their browsing sessions on pages where AI summaries are present, rather than continuing to explore.

Additionally, engagement with links embedded within the AI summaries themselves is notably low, occurring in a mere 1% of all page visits that feature such summaries, Pew found.

Numerous liberal news sites have struck deals with OpenAI, Amazon, and Google to train their AI models using their reporting. According to conservative media watchdog Media Research Center, OpenAI only has two contracts with right-leaning outlets: Fox News and The New York Post.

Google has solely partnered with The Associated Press, raising even more concern over left-wing bias in its AI and possible antitrust violations.

‘Preferred Sources’ Canard

Google introduced a new feature in August that allows users to select their preferred news sources, claiming these sources will appear more frequently in its “Top Stories” page and in a separate section, “From your sources.”

However, MRC conducted two tests, both of which showed that the feature is laced with liberal bias and shadowbans right-leaning outlets.

MRC researchers set their preference to Fox News, The Daily Mail, and The New York Post, yet Google’s feature produced nearly all of their stories from liberal and left-leaning sources.

“Although all three of the outlets had recently covered Trump’s impending meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, only one appeared anywhere on the page. In fact, Google failed to show the part of the ‘Top Stories’ section labelled ‘From your sources’ section at all, merely placing a lone Fox News article to compete with nine left-leaning media results and two from the United Kingdom’s state-backed BBC,” they wrote.

In the second test, MRC researchers keyword searched “DC Crime,” “DNI Tulsi Gabbard,” and “Trump Russia Ukraine.” Google’s feature produced 18 articles that came from liberal outlets, compared to only 11 from right-leaning ones and 10 from centrist outlets.

“In each case, the preferred sources MRC researchers selected appeared at the top of results, but were nonetheless mixed with leftist sources. Google also featured these preferred sources in a separate section titled ‘From your sources,’ which was buried under two other sections, ‘Top news’ and ‘Also in the news,’” MRC wrote.

Age Verification Expands

Although Google has long required age verification for YouTube users, the company is now reportedly expanding the reach of its AI-powered age estimation tool to its search engine, according to Reclaim The Net.

The move has sparked fresh concerns about user privacy and Google’s dependence on complex, non-transparent algorithms.

Not only is Google spying on and tracking peoples’ behaviors, now access to everyday information might require age verification, transforming one of the internet’s most universally accessible tools into a more restrictive — and left-wing — gateway.

AUTHOR

John Loftus

Editor at Large. Sign up for John Loftus’s weekly newsletter here! Follow John Loftus on X: @JohnCFLoftus1.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WaPo: We Didn’t Attack The Daily Caller, And Don’t Know Why Google Did

Wikipedia Donations Go Toward Embedding Feminism And Racial Justice In World’s Largest Encyclopedia

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Here’s How Trump Admin Could Help Crush Censorship Industry

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

The Trump administration has a major opportunity to deal a blow to the sprawling censorship industry, both inside the government and in the private sector.

Trump promised in a campaign video from Dec. 2022 to “shatter the left-wing censorship regime” by, among other proposals, signing an executive order banning agencies from collaborating with private platforms to suppress speech and ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate parties involved in censorship.

“If Trump takes the steps that he has indicated he will, one focus of anti-censorship efforts I anticipate is nonprofits like the Atlantic Council and Stanford Internet Observatory [SIO] that operate as middlemen between the government and the tech companies,” New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Jenin Younes told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As President, Trump should ensure that the White House and his executive agencies do not work with these groups to censor ‘mis’ or ‘disinformation.’ In fact, all government efforts in the MDM [misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation] sphere should end, since this clearly results in suppressing First Amendment protected speech.”

Under the Biden administration, White House staff made explicit requests for platforms to restrict COVID-19 related speech. Other agencies participated in speech suppression, with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) flagging posts for removal and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) forwarding misinformation reports from local election officials to platforms, a practice they called “switchboarding.”

CISA likewise helped create of the Election Integrity Partnership in 2020, which the SIO played a key role in running, to monitor “misinformation” and report it to platforms during the 2020 election. A federal judge declined last week to dismiss a lawsuit against the SIO, along with several other groups, over their alleged targeting of conservative speech.

“Private entities cannot be permitted to partner with the government to censor Americans’ speech,” Nicholas R. Barry, America First Legal Senior Counsel, said in a statement.

Younes told the DCNF she would like to see “punishment for government actors who have violated Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

“At this time, such individuals manage to escape accountability for their actions because of doctrines like qualified immunity,” she said. “However, there can be exceptions to qualified immunity when government officials knowingly flout people’s civil rights, and those exceptions should be applied in the First Amendment context.”

Trump’s other suggestions included firing bureaucrats who have engaged in censorship, ensuring federal dollars do not go towards nonprofits and universities labeling domestic speech as misinformation and asking Congress to revise Section 230 to “get big online platforms out of censorship.”

The Biden administration has issued $267 million in grant funding for projects including the term “misinformation,” including $127 million specifically relating to COVID-19, according to a November Open The Books report. The DCNF reported in 2023 on several projects funded by the NSF to develop censorship tools, including a dashboard to forecast misinformation “trends” and another studying how misinformation influences online networks.

‘Smash This Censorship Cartel’

Many Trump nominees have been vocal about their commitment to promoting free speech.

Andrew Ferguson, who Trump selected as the new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair, said on War Room in late November that Trump can cut off some censorship outright, ordering officials to stop communicating with platforms and ending government funding for entities participating in speech suppression. But private censorship would likely move to “new fronts,” he noted, making it important for the FTC to take “investigative steps.”

Ferguson said “advertiser cartels” could violate antitrust laws by agreeing to boycott certain shows, podcasts and platforms.

“If the government is going to get out of the business here in the states of cooperating and colluding with the platforms to suppress the speech that they don’t like, then it’s up to the FTC to make sure that that sort of cooperation and collusion doesn’t move into the private sector,” Ferguson said.

Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Brennan Carr likewise said in a NewsNation interview that one of his top priorities would be to “smash this censorship cartel.”

Other appointees took strong stances on censorship. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s choice for National Institute for Health (NIH) head, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration pushing back on COVID-19 lockdowns and responses. United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought his own lawsuit against the Biden administration for alleged First Amendment violations.

Harmeet Dhillon, who is set to run the DOJ’s civil rights division, worked with her firm on a case challenging the California Secretary of State’s Office coordination with Twitter to suppress speech.

Continued Litigation

While the Supreme Court found in June that plaintiffs who challenged the Biden administration’s censorship efforts failed to link their accounts’ restrictions to the government’s communications with platforms, the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit is ongoing. In November, the district court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue more discovery to establish the government’s involvement.

“Depending on the approach the Administration takes, it is conceivable that cases like ours could resolve in a consent decree, in which the government acknowledges its wrongdoing and takes various specific steps to safeguard against future violations of Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights,” Younes told the DCNF regarding the case.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recently launched a new Center for Free Speech aimed at targeting censorship entities, pointing to the “new opportunity” free speech defenders will have as Trump takes office.

ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler told the DCNF the center is intended to create “substantial pushback on global censorship,” which he said has increased over the past decade by both private and government actors.

Potential targets include state level election laws, like the California laws targeting political satire that ADF already filed a lawsuit against on behalf of the Babylon Bee, along with debanking practices and other censorship by private actors.

“There is a lot of work to be done to dismantle this censorship industrial complex that’s been built up over many years,” Sechler told the DCNF.

AUTHOR

Katelynn Richardson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mark Zuckerberg Admits Biden-Harris Admin Pressured Facebook To Censor Content, Expresses Regret

Trump Taps Brendan Carr For FCC Chair, Calls Him ‘Warrior For Free Speech’

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Atheist Group Asks IRS to Revoke Tax-Exempt Status of Christian Ministry

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

An atheist nonprofit has tattled on a Christian one, maliciously demanding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) strip away its tax-exempt status for comparing the policy stances of the major party presidential candidates. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) had its staff attorney draft and send a letter to the IRS last Friday “to report illegal political campaigning by Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA).” The letter served no purpose other than a desire to financially cripple the Christian ministry.

As the grounds for its complaint, FFRF cited “a special election issue” of BGEA’s Decision Magazine, contrasting the relative positions of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as “Socialism vs. Freedom.” They complain the comparison was “cherry-picked” with the intention “to encourage readers to vote for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris.”

As further proof, the anti-Christian group cited a Franklin Graham quote included in the issue, which “denigrates the Democratic party’s platform,” without actually naming it: “Progressive, liberal thought and activism have so contaminated the mainstream of American life and culture that once-unthinkable abominations such as same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and transgender advocacy have become dogma in one major party’s platform.”

The FFRF never alleges that the magazine issue contained false information, simply that it set Trump’s and Harris’s policy positions side-by-side. This exercise led the FFRF letter to conclude, “The overall takeaway from this election guide is that Christians should vote for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris in the presidential election and Republicans in state and local elections.”

Reaching that conclusion requires a leap of logic, a missing premise that the FFRF letter does not provide. If the magazine issue were read by someone who leaned pro-socialism, pro-abortion, and pro-LGBT policies, the statements quoted by the FFRF would make the reader more likely to vote for Harris than for Trump. The FFRF implicitly assumes that someone with such far-Left political leanings is not the target audience for Decision Magazine.

(As an aside, the FFRF never explains how they obtained a copy of a magazine issue that has not yet appeared online. It seems that they subscribe to Decision Magazine simply to scour it for opposition research, like the jealous satraps who conspired to catch Daniel in prayer [Daniel 6:4-13].)

So, what is the missing premise in the FFRF’s argument? Here’s one possibility: a side-by-side comparison of Trump’s and Harris’s policies makes Harris look bad. Is that what FFRF is admitting? Here’s another possibility: Harris’s policy positions are directly opposed to the moral positions Christians hold. In this case, is the FFRF merely blaming Christians for noticing? With such possibilities as these, it seems obvious why the FFRF chose to leave their connecting premise unstated — the “missing link” dismissed with a wave of the hand.

The FFRF would likely respond by arguing that the magazine’s presentation was misleading — that all the information it presented may have been correct, but that the comparisons it chose were “cherry-picked.” Of course, every policy summary must choose which issues to include or exclude, from a nearly infinite set. BGEA has as much right to select the issues it finds important as the FFRF has to emphasize a different slate. If anything is misleading about BGEA’s issue selection, it’s the suggestion that the FFRF has the authority to condemn it as “cherry-picked.”

Unlike those nasty Christians, the FFRF is a responsible nonprofit who would never engage in “illegal political campaigning,” the letter argues. “FFRF is a registered 501(c)(3) and it takes this designation, along with the accompanying privileges and responsibilities, very seriously,” claimed the FFRF. “The Internal Revenue Code states that to retain their 501(c)(3) status an organization cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’”

It comes as no surprise that this claim is, at best, unreflective and, at worst, insincere. The FFRF knows that public-facing nonprofits engage in political and policy commentary all the time. Indeed, it took less than five minutes on the FFRF’s own website to find the same sort of politically slanted commentary that they claimed was grounds for revoking the BGEA’s tax-exempt status — a financial death sentence.

Atop the FFRF website is a banner that includes a “Campaigns” tab, which reveals a drop-down menu. The first item on that menu states, “Make Your Voice Heard in This Election.” The first paragraph on this page declares (archived link), “Your right to vote is your voice in democracy. It’s how you influence issues that matter to you, from privacy rights to personal freedoms to educational reforms. This year, it’s also about stopping Project 2025 — a critical issue that affects us all.”

Two link-clicks from “Project 2025” navigates to an FFRF press release (archived link) dated July 30, 2024, which explains that Project 2025 — which must be stopped, remember — includes a “900-plus page proposal for the first 180 days in office of the next Republican president,” as well as “policy and personnel prescriptions for a Republican administration.” It claims that Project 2025 descends from a “precursor … launched in 2016 by Christian nationalists to remake the United States in their own theocratic image.”

How did their letter put it? “The overall takeaway from this [description] is that [non-theists] should vote for [Kamala Harris] over [Donald Trump] in the presidential election and [Democrats] in state and local elections.”

The FFRF may be hoping that likeminded IRS agents will respond sympathetically to their flimsy accusation against BGEA. The Biden administration has not been shy about lawlessly persecuting its political opponents. And the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS employees among other federal agencies, endorsed Harris for president last week.

On the other hand, the fact remains that the FFRF doesn’t have much of a case. Even sympathetic bureaucrats would likely worry that their expansive new standard for nuking nonprofits would inflict significant collateral damage on left-wing organizations, too — not to mention the obvious free speech concerns, which could result in unnecessary legal defeats. The IRS may respond to the FFRF’s childish complaint by dismissing it like an annoyed parent.

The anti-Christian organization filed a similar complaint against BGEA with the Obama administration in 2012, but that went nowhere. “This isn’t the first time we’ve been attacked by this activist group, and it won’t be the last. I don’t tell people who to vote for, but I do encourage Christians to pray and vote,” said Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and CEO of BGEA. “Every other group of people in this country has the right to do this — Christians shouldn’t be the one group denied that same right.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

What I’m voting for on November 5th, 2024. It’s not what you think!

/in , , , , , , , /by

H/T to our reader BR for sending this article to us.

It is spot on.

That moment when someone says, “I can’t believe you would vote for Trump.”

That moment when someone says, “I can’t believe you would vote for Trump.” I simply reply, “I’m not voting for Trump.”

I’m voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

I’m voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family.

I’m voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement and reducing inflation.

I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts.

I’m voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live.

I’m voting for the Police to be respected once again and to ensure Law & Order. I am tired of all the criminals having a revolving door and being put back in the street.

I’m voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I’m voting for keeping our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over the world – to China, Mexico and other foreign countries. I want USA made.
I’m voting for secure borders and have legal immigration. I can’t believe we have actually have flown 380,000 illegal immigrants into our country. I am voting for doing away with all of the freebies given to all of the illegals and not looking after the needs of the American citizens.

I’m voting for the Military & the Veterans who fought for this Country to give the American people their freedoms.

I’m voting for the unborn babies that have a right to live.

I’m voting for peace progress in the Middle East.

I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking.

I’m voting for Freedom of Religion.

I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I am voting for the return of teaching math, history, and science instead of indoctrination of our children and pronouns.

I’m not just voting for one person, I’m voting for the future of my Country.

I’m voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms and their future.

What are you voting for?

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harris Reportedly Brings In European Socialist To Advise Campaign On Home-Stretch Strategy

CNN’s David Chalian Warns Of ‘Trouble Sign For Harris’ As She Lags Behind Trump’s ‘Huge Numbers’ With Key Demographic

New Lawsuit Targets Every Arizona County For Allegedly Failing To Purge Voter Rolls Of Noncitizens

‘Woefully Unprepared’: Whistleblower Alerts Josh Hawley That Security Agents At Trump Rally Lacked Proper Training

Sen. John Kennedy Calls Biden-Harris Administration ‘Inflation Machines’, Blasts Harris For Her Handling Of Key Issues

Skip Hall the Marxist Mayor of Surprise, Arizona Violated A Citizens 1st Amendment Rights

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

Greetings Mayor Skip Hall, supreme ruler of Surprise Arizona.

I understand you had an American citizen arrested and trespassed for upholding her 1st Amendment right to question you regarding the city attorneys pay at a recent city hall meeting.

You do understand the 1st Amendment of the US constitution allows for such questions. The 20 years I spent in the Navy was to protect this young lady from bottom feeding Marxist Cockroaches like you.

I do believe your term as Mayor ends in December which is enough time for me to continue the discussion where the lady left off before you illegally and unconstitutionally had her removed by the deputy.

I will also reeducate the Police Captain in Surprise Arizona to prevent the next brave court deputy from following your unconstitutional orders in the future.

He actually should have arrested your sorry ass for violating the rights of the honorable citizen.

It’s good to see the young lady has filed a lawsuit against you for being a snot nosed Communist rectal sphincter. She will bury you in litigation comrade – my advice is to beg for a plea deal. I’ll send her a nice donation.

Also make a dentist appointment, your horrible toothy smile could be used on Halloween as a poster child to scare the neighbors kids. I bet you were bullied in high school.

My advice is renounce your US citizenship and relocate to a nice retirement home in Communist Cuba where your ideology is welcomed.

See you soon.

Best wishes
Senior Chief Geoff Ross
USN (Ret)
Surface Warfare / Air Warfare
SEAL Team support
Veteran Operation Desert Storm
Life Time Member VFW

©2024. Geoff Ross. All rights reserved.

WATCH: Kamala Will Shut Down Twitter If Elected

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

“The principle of free speech is not concerned with the content of a man speech and does not protect only the expression of good ideas, but all ideas. If it were otherwise who would determine which ideas are good and which are forbidden? The government?” — Ayn Rand

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.” ― Henry Louis Gates Jr.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

The concept of political rights is vanishing.

Kamala is a silly, incompetent placeholder for a totalitarian party systematically taking down the only republic in human history based on individual rights and freedoms.

When you lose the distinction between action and speech, you lose, eventually, the freedom of both.

Freedom of speech is worth fighting for, worth dying for. Our once-great nation was founded on it, and it’s the hill we must die on.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

The left cannot permit the free exchange of ideas because their failed ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny and challenge.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.

If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.

Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.

A free society is by its nature one in which people put up with others being uncivil and offensive. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps.

WATCH: Kamala will shut down X if she wins

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Rips ‘Stupid People’ Allowing Illegal Migrant Gangs To Take Over Colorado Apartments, Promises “We’re Going to Get Them [The Gangs] the Hell Out of Here!”

Kamala’s Armed Illegal Migrant Gangs Have Taken Over Whole Apartment Buildings in Colorado, Evicted Tenants, Democrat Governor Ridicules Concerns

WATCH: Deranged Democrat Tries to Charge at Trump During Pennsylvania Rally

RELATED VIDEO: Gold Star family members blamed Harris for the deaths of their loved ones in Afghanistan

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