Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category
This past week, lots of pundits from across the political spectrum have warned Republicans not to overreach on the AP story. They’re warning that this is a national security issue. That isn’t exactly accurate. It’s time to unravel the DOJ’s disgusting behavior.
At the heart of the scandal is this statement from Attorney General Holder:
Here’s what Attorney General Holder said that isn’t accurate:
HOLDER: This was a serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if it isn’t the most serious leak, it is among the top 2 or 3 leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk and trying to determine who was responsible for that required very agressive action.
First, this wasn’t a leak. Here’s the real story:
Although the Justice Department has not explained why it sought phone records from the AP, Pruitt pointed to a May 7, 2012, story that disclosed details of a successful CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Usama bin Laden.
The AP delayed publication of that story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security.
“We respected that, we acted responsibly, we held the story,” Pruitt said.
Pruitt said the AP published the story only after officials from two government entities said the threat had passed. He said the administration still asked that the story be held until an official announcement the next day, a request the AP rejected.
This wasn’t a leak. The AP apparently got word that the CIA asset wasn’t in danger. The CIA said they wanted another day to issue a press release on spoiling this terrorist plot. At that point, the AP decided that they didn’t need to hold their story any longer.
It’s believable that the CIA was upset that they didn’t get to issue their press release first. Based on the fact that the DOJ hasn’t disputed the AP’s statements, it’s fair to assume that the AP acted appropriately in terms of taking the national security and intelligence gathering needs of the nation into serious, sober consideration.
That’s the front end of this scandal. The next part is what makes this one of the most disturbing scandals in recent history. Based on what we know from the first part of the scandal, we know that there wasn’t a need for urgency in stopping a leak that might’ve compromised a CIA asset in the Middle East. That means the DOJ wasn’t entitled to grab the records it did without telling the AP about this massive grab of AP phone records. That means the DOJ was obligated to going to court to apply for a search warrant and for the AP to contest the scope of DOJ’s phone records grab.
The federal government’s need to protect intelligence-gathering assets in harms way isn’t disputed. In fact, the AP apparently acted responsibly in this respect.
Now that we’ve determined these basic, undisputed facts, it’s time to question DOJ’s actions. Did the DOJ need to sieze 2 months of the AP’s phone records? Did DOJ need 2 months of phone records of over 100 AP reporters and editors? If it didn’t, why did DOJ sieze these sensitive records, especially without giving the AP the chance to contest the DOJ’s actions?
Unless new facts emerge that support DOJ’s actions, Americans of all political stripes should question DOJ’s ham-handed behavior in this matter.
UPDATE: Follow this link to read more on the DOJ-AP scandal.
Last week, Benghazi erupted when Gregory Hicks testified that a) Hillary Clinton called him during the terrorist attack and b) he told her that they were in the midst of a terrorist attack. Later that week, the IRS admitted that they had targeted TEA Party organizations in an investigation. This afternoon, this headline will rock the White House to its core:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, CT, and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
Benghazi is about this administration’s decision not to protect its diplomats. The IRS scandal is about this administration’s use of the IRS’ investigative authority to target political opponents. This AP scandal is about having a chilling effect on the gathering of news.
If a government knows who the AP or any other media organization is talking to, that’s certain to have a chilling effect on people who might otherwise become whistleblowers. This is a good summarization:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.
That’s chilling. This is worse:
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qa’ida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. An integral part of a conspiracy theory is a theory. It stops being a conspiracy when facts and proof are added into the equation.
Apparently, when it comes to Obama administration scandals, when it rains, it pours.
If there’s anything that this administration is good at, it’s threatening people. This time, they threatened Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, saying that he’ll regret his statements criticizing President Obama for suggesting sequestration.
Ed Morrissey notes that Woodward isn’t the only person that this administration has threatened:
Lanny Davis, formerly a special counsel to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL’s Brian Wilson and Larry O’Connor that a White House official once threatened to have The Washington Times’ White House credentials revoked over columns Davis had written.
Davis says his editor “received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn’t like some of my columns, even though I’m a supporter of Obama. I couldn’t imagine why this call was made.”
Here’s the story on the Woodward threat:
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.
CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.
“It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘You’re going to regret doing something that you believe in,’” Woodward said. “I think they’re confused,” Woodward said of the White House’s pushback on his reporting.
The White House aide who Woodward said threatened him was Gene Sperling, the director of the White House Economic Council, BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith reported.
Any administration that’s repeatedly used the term “you’ll regret this” isn’t just pushing back. They’re attempting to intimidate those people. In this instance, that’s stupid because the public won’t buy the thought that Bob Woodward and Lanny Davis have suddenly become right wing shills.
This administration is known for its Chicago thug tactics towards the media. Anita Dunn famously attacked Fox News. Here’s part of that attack from October, 2009:
Calling Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party,” the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
“What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly it’s the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
“It’s astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming,” Clemente said. “It seems self-serving on their part.
This wasn’t a one-time thing. Anita Dunn, Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod all criticized Fox News. Axelrod, Dunn and Gibbs each said that Fox News didn’t do real reporting. Now they’re telling Bob Woodward that he’ll regret his statements on sequestrion. Now they’re threatening to pull the Washington Times’ White House press credentials because Lanny Davis, the special counsel to Bill Clinton, wrote something that upset the administration.
That’s what Chicago thug tactics look like. In fact, that’s taking a page out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Tags: Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Gene Sperling, Anita Dunn, Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod, Freedom of the Press, First Amendment, Bob Woodward, Lanny Davis, White House Press Credentials, Chicago Thug Tactics, Nixonian Tactics
It isn’t surprising that the DFL wants to limit debate in the Minnesota House of Representatives. When they’re in charge, that’s what they’ve traditionally done. This time, Erin Murphy is the DFL legislator that’s proposing to limiting debate under the guise of transparency:
Democrats in the Minnesota House are proposing to change how the House operates during floor debates.
The plan would require proposed amendments to be filed 24 hours before the debate on a bill starts. It’s a dramatic departure from current rules that allow members to draft and propose changes to legislation as members are debating it.
House Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said she’s making the change to give lawmakers and the public more time to consider proposed changes to legislation.
What’s worst is that Rep. Murphy is lying to justify her proposal:
“The floor debate is where Minnesotans have the least amount of access,” Murphy said. “When amendments are being drafted on the floor and then debated on the floor, it’s hard for representatives to be able to talk to constituents and get answers to questions as to what it means.”
In a pre-Twitter, pre-social media, pre-texting world, Rep. Murphy might’ve had a point. She isn’t right anymore. Citizens have multiple points of access to legislators during floor debates, with Twitter being the most popular. Texting likely comes in a close second.
Most likely, she’s just doing the best she can to BS herself through a terrible predicament. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that it’s never been easier for constituents to contact their representatives during a floor debate. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that livestreaming the floor debate makes it possible to watch the debate, either. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that constituents can read bills thanks to the House of Representatives’ website.
If she admitted that, Rep. Murphy and the DFL would have to admit that their real goal is to limit debate to limit their exposure to common sense amendments that would improve their legislation. The worst part about a truly open amendment process for the DFL -is that it would force DFL legislators to cast votes against amendments that their constituents would want them voting for.
That, in turn, would put already vulnerable DFL legislators in greater jeopardy of losing in 2014. Unfortunately for the DFL, the DFL can’t protect their representatives from their agenda of higher taxes, more wasteful spending and greater intrusions into people’s lives.
I just published this post about progressive fascism in Minnesota, which is a good start on what’s wrong with public debate in Minnesota but that doesn’t go far enough in talking about what’s the heart of the problem.
What’s wrong is illustrated with this disgusting depiction of progressive fascism:
It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This video highlights what’s at the heart of the problem:
What caught my attention is Prof. Rauch’s statement that “Minorities aren’t delicate flowers” that need protection. Later, his statement that an attitude of “Bring it on” is what changes people’s minds. Pluralism, not purism, he said, is the way to change people’s minds. He’s exactly right.
What’s interesting is that Prof. Rauch isn’t a hardline conservative. He’s a gay rights activist and proud liberal. He isn’t interested in shutting down debate. He’s advocating for passionate, respectful debate.
The gay rights activists that spat on Rep. Hamilton weren’t interested in passionate, respectful debate. Their shouting down people they disagree with is the opposite of debate. That might win elections but it doesn’t win mandates. It simply says that one side did a better job of turning out voters than the other side.
This review of Greg Lukianoff’s book hits at the heart of what’s wrong with progressive fascism:
Lukianoff tells me of a recent survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities: ‘Out of 24,000 students who were asked the question, “Is it safe to hold unpopular positions on campus?”, only 35 per cent of students strongly agreed. But, when broken down, the stat indicates something even worse. Forty per cent of freshmen strongly agreed, but only 30 per cent of seniors.’ In other words, students unlearn freedom of speech during their studies.
It’s troubling to think that dissent is discouraged on college campuses. What’s worse is that students aren’t the only people who are told that they shouldn’t express dissent:
‘Even worse, only 16 per cent of university faculty strongly agreed with this statement. It’s not even a particularly strong statement, and if we’ve reached a point where only 16 per cent of faculty strongly agree with it, then we’re doing something wrong.’
When the vast majority of faculty say that holding unpopular positions” is dangerous for them, then something’s seriously wrong with university administrators.
It’s time for debate-loving people of all political persuasions to join together in fighting the latest version of fascism.
This LTE contains a disturbing scene:
I attended both Voter ID public hearings in the city of Rochester during this election year. I went there hoping to learn more about the proposed amendment, along with hearing more from the opposing point of view.
I didn’t realize I was in for such a rude awakening. Most of the hearing consisted of people shouting and talking over the representatives from both sides on the issue.
I completely respect the idea of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, people seem to believe it applies only when the speaker’s point of view agrees with their own.
When speaking with Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer after the hearing in Rochester, she stated this was the worst reception she had ever received. One lady verbally attacked her right in front of me, along with a young man grabbing her arm on the way out of the forum.
I decided, with a group of like-minded individuals, to escort her out of the building.
This is the face of DFL activism. Though this incident involved the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, this isn’t the only time DFL activism has gone way past the line. I wrote about another incident where the DFL activists’ behavior was disgusting. This is a firsthand report from a legislator:
What became unnerving was that last night as we moved closer to the vote they got louder and faster. There was one woman who screeched every time the main doors opened. Made me long for a pair of socks. It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This past session, the DFL spoke in public about the need for compromise. They spoke of it as the political Holy Grail. The DFL’s hypocrisy was exposed because they took a my-way-or-the-highway approach when they were the majority party in the legislature. From 2007-2010, there weren’t calls for civility and compromise. Those words were quickly forgotten.
Thanks to ABM’s lies and the Twin Cities’ media’s unwillingness to call them on their disgusting pattern of lying, progressive fascism has displaced Minnesota Nice. Here’s hoping that Republicans take principled stands against the DFL’s bad policies.
More importantly, here’s hoping the GOP articulately explains why they’re opposing the DFL’s counterproductive policies. Only through clear articulation of our principles will we win debates. We won’t win elections if we don’t win the debates.
The good news is that positive solutions will quickly discredit progressive fascism’s chalking points.
If there’s a more intolerant bunch than elitists on college campuses, it’s difficult to think who it might be. The anti-First Amendment, pro-censorship crowd is getting exposed thanks to Greg Lukianoff’s book and George Will’s column about Mr. Lukianoff’s book. Here’s something from Lukianoff’s book that Will highlighted in his column:
In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone. Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.” Texas Southern University ‘s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.” Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.” Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.” Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.” Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.” Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.
There’s no more passionate defender of the First Amendment than George Will, though it’s apparent that Mr. Lukianoff isn’t a slouch in that respect either.
The censorship police’s intrusion into campuses must stop ASAP. They simply don’t have the right to limit speech. That’s what makes this next part especially appalling:
Many campuses congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness when they establish small “free-speech zones” where political advocacy can be scheduled. At one point Texas Tech’s 28,000 students had a “free-speech gazebo” that was 20 feet wide. And you thought the First Amendment made America a free-speech zone.
It’s apparent that progressives don’t like the First Amendment. Their tactics are geared to shut down discussions. In the past 4 years, we’ve heard progressives talk about how the First Amendment should be restricted. That’s what McCain-Feingold, aka BCRA, sought to do. Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right with its Citizens United ruling. Thankfully, BCRA is now gutted. Thankfully, a portion of the First Amendment was restored.
Now it’s time to start picking fights on college campuses about the progressives’ censorship campaign. It’s time to start stripping the censorship police’s authority. It’d be great if the censorship police can be stripped of their authority in a quick ruling.
Most likely, though, it’ll be a lengthy, hard-fought fight. The thought/censorship police accumulated their power over time. They won’t willingly let go of that authority.
However long it takes, the fight must start today. It isn’t overstatement to say that the left has been waging war against the First Amendment for a generation. It’s time for First Amendment advocates, whether they’re constitutional conservatives like Mr. Will or free speech liberals like Mr. Lukianoff, to mount a full frontal assault against the censorship police. More accurately, it’s probably best that We The People join Mssrs. Will and Lukianoff in their fight for the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Greta van Susteren is pissed at the Obama administration. That isn’t the daintiest way of putting it but it’s what’s called for. I could say that she’s upset with this administration. I might’ve said she thinks they’re playing games. I won’t say that because that’s pussyfooting around what Greta thinks. In Greta’s opinion, it’s time to take the gloves off and blister this amateurish, corrupt administration. She did that in this post:
The Obama Administration is playing dirty. Trying to put a price tag on access — either a news organization plays ball and accepts what they dish out without challenge, or the news organization is excluded, punished. Check this out:
Fox News has been aggressively reporting on Benghazi because it is newsworthy when 4 Americans are MURDERED and because it was obvious the Obama Administration was telling “silly stories” that didnt’ make sense and were not supported by the facts. The Administration’s Benghazi story got more curious when the Administration sent out Ambassador Susan Rice to sell the silly stories on 5 news shows. Two months later, the American people still don’t have the straight story. It is our job to get the facts. We are trying.
The Obama Administration has done everything but give us the straight story and they are fighting us on getting the facts.
And why do I say the Obama Administration should grow up? Because the Obama Administration is trying to punish Fox for trying to get the facts from the Administration (do I need to remind anyone that 4 Americans were murdered?) The Administration in what looks like a coordinated effort is denying Fox to information that they are handing out to other news organizations. Why exclude Fox? That is simple: to punish, to try to teach us a lesson not to pry, not to look further for facts.
This isn’t just Greta’s opinion, though it’s fair to say this is what she believes. Top flight attorneys know that opinions don’t stand up at trial if they aren’t supported by evidence. Greta is a top flight attorney who knows when to stick the dagger in. That’s what she did with this information:
Here is my proof. The Administration is now 3 out of 3:
1. The State Department called a media conference call the night before its employees testified on Capitol Hill and OMITTED FOX FROM THE CALL; (they claimed it was an accidental oversight);
2. About 2 weeks after the above State Department conference call to all in the media, the CIA had a media wide briefing and released their timeline. The CIA invited major news organizations to the briefing but THE CIA EXCLUDED FOX FROM THOSE INVITED TO THE BRIEFING.
3. and now the latest: DNI Director James Clapper told Capitol Hill last week that the DNI did not know who took the term Al Qaeda out of the talking points that was given to Ambassador Susan Rice. It turns out that is not true and the DNI released a memo to the media last night indicating that DNI Director James Clapper was wrong last week when he said that (incidentally two plus months after the murders.) The [DNI/CIA] removed Al Qaeda from the talking points memo given to Ambassador Susan Rice. But that’s not all; it isn’t just the “who is on first” at the DNI, it is also what the DNI did to Fox last night. The DNI LEFT FOX NEWS CHANNEL OFF ITS DISTRIBUTION LIST last night when it released this new memo to the media.
Only idiots from Media Matters or Huffington Post will be stupid enough to argue with Greta about this. Not even Paul Begala is stupid enough to question Greta about this information or Greta’s opinions.
This is a vindictive administration. They’ve repeatedly said on national TV that they intend on making an example of FNC. First, here’s a golden oldie from David Axelrod:
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”
“I’m not concerned,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” when George Stephanopoulos asked about the back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News.
“Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even; it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.
“It’s really not news; it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”
It’s the height of stupidity to say that Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Ed Henry and Jim Angle aren’t great reporters. They’ve broken stories that’ve put this administration in a difficult position.
Contrary to this administration’s belief, it isn’t the media’s job to hide their mistakes and divert the public’s attention from their mistakes. And Benghazi was far greater than a mistake. It’s a continuing national tragedy. It’s a full-fledged scandal. It’s a failure of this administration’s top national security officials.
Had this happened during the Bush administration, the compliant liberal media would’ve called for the firings of the Bush administration’s national security team. Frankly, they would’ve been justified had Bush’s national security team been this incompetent.
Hillary said no to Christopher Stevens’ pleas for additional security. Leon Panetta fiddled while Christopher Stevens was assassinated. Susan Rice said an obscure video sparked protests outside the Benghazi consulate when she knew there wasn’t a protest outside the consulate. Finally, the DNI scrubbed the mention of Ansar al-Shariah from the briefing document Ambassador Rice supposedly relied on.
Simply put, this bunch of incompetents and yes men/women did what they were told, including punishing a news organization for attempting to report the truth:
We at Fox are not simply accepting what they say, what they dish out. We are looking for facts and corroboration when there are inconsistencies and discrepancies. To the extent we get anything wrong is because the Administration is doing whatever it can to thwart us from getting the facts.
They are trying to punish us into going away, hoping we get their message that we will never have access to them as long as we dare to challenge what they put out. And guess what? What they have put out and what we have challenged shows they are cagey and not giving the straight story.
This won’t end well for the Obama administration. This will be Obama’s Watergate, Obama’s Iran-Contra. On steroids. The difference is that people didn’t die during the Watergate burglary or the Iran-Contra negotiations. Four American patriots died as a result of President Obama’s and Hillary’s mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Tags: President Obama, Hillary, Leon Panetta, Susan Rice, James Clapper, National Security, Benghazi, Nixon’s Black List, Terrorist Attack, Democrats, Greta van Susteren, Investigation, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Reporting, Scoops, Fox News Channel
Ed has a great post up about MSNBC’s racist behavior. Here’s part of Ed’s commentary:
Why did they just happen to block all of these speakers? Obviously, it’s not a coincidence. They’re afraid of two outcomes by showing these speakers, the first of which is the exposure of the intellectual vapidity of their repeated accusations of raaaaaaaaaaaacism. The second is the possibility of acknowledging that conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate, which might encourage more people of color to consider its policies, especially with the powerful personal stories told by Mia Love and Ted Cruz. Instead of dealing with that reality, MSNBC chose to deliberately misinform their
15 1412 viewers. Fortunately, the MSNBC lineup (with the apparent acquiescence of Comcast) is so busy marginalizing themselves that it really doesn’t matter any more.
Ed’s point that MSNBC might be frightened of the thought that “conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate” is worth closer examination.
This past June, I attended the RightOnline conference, where I had a fantastic time. At the Saturday night banquet, I joined Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft at a table that included at least 5-6 women, including several women of color.
The point is that the TEA Party movement has appealed to Americans from a wide array of backgrounds. This isn’t Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party, though there’s no doubt that he’d approve of it.
This is this generation’s conservative movement, a movement represented by TEA Party favorites like Michelle Malkin, Mia Love, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
The racist myth that MSNBC is peddling was discredited before most people read their morning papers. Their dishonesty was that blatant.
What you’re about to read is BS only a fascist could appreciate. This article isn’t just bizarre. It’s disgusting. Here’s the article’s intro:
If you thought college was a place for young people to speak out, challenges one another’s deeply-held beliefs and grow intellectually, chances are you’ve never been to Indiana University Southeast.
The school, located just 10 miles north of Louisville, Ky., is the latest college to see its speech code come under fire from a group that advocates freedom of speech on campuses. One stipulation in the code requires that students may only “express opinions” within a free speech zone, which is antithetical to what a college should stand for, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy organization which defends the free speech and due process rights of college students.
In the Sixties and early Seventies, college campuses were hubs where debates happened, theories were challenged and the First Amendment was cherished. What’s happening on today’s campuses is a disgrace. Students get lower grades because they refuse to say what their professor wants them to say. FIRE has dealt with that before.
The fascists/progressives can’t even provide a coherent excuse for their censorship policies:
“[The guidelines] were intended to provide some guidance on the issue so that those wishing to gather and express an opinion could do so without endangering people or property,” the school told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The guidelines also were intended to protect the rights of all students to have unfettered access to educational activities on campus (in other words, the exercise of free speech rights should not result in blocking access to buildings or disrupting classes or campus events).”
That’s BS. If the little dainties can’t handle hearing an opinion that challenges their worldview, they’re destined for failure. The fascists/progressives don’t care about that, though. They’re obsessed with indoctrinating as many students as possible. Exposing them to opinions that contradict the fascists’ worldview might destroy the fascist movement and they certainly can’t have that.
This paragraph is proof that a little paranoia goes a long way:
“We have to regulate other groups who come from off campus. Some come and preach a lot of hate. We just can’t have them wandering around campus with bullhorns over here,” Joseph Wert, associate professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Indiana University Southwest, told FoxNews.com.
Wert didn’t specify which groups “from off campus” enter IUS’s campus for the purpose preaching hate. Based on how progressive media villifies conservatives and the TEA Party, I’m betting that Prof. Wert is talking about conservatives and TEA Party activists.
The thing is that I’ve never watched a report of conservatives or TEA Party activists stomping across college campus. I’ve never watched a report of them preaching hate or using bullhorns, either.
I’m betting Prof. Wert is lying through his teeth to justify (rationalize?) the university’s unjustifiable policy of censorship. Unfortunately, IUS isn’t the only campus to practice censorship:
It’s not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits “any act of ridicule…or embarrassment,” and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to “transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive.”
“This gives the university carte blanche to censor any electronic communication of which it disapproves,” Shibley noted. “You’re teaching [college students] that they’re not equipped to live in a free society.”
It isn’t free speech if colleges are the sole arbiters of what students can and can’t say. That’s censorship, which is the first step towards full-blown fascism.