Biden goes down in defeat on Title IX changes he proposed: women win bigly

Fallon Fox: man who beats on women

The Biden administration wanted to go out in a fireball of leftist wins, and was hoping to revise Title IX rules in order to allow men who, either think they're women, or know they're only mediocre men in their sport, to compete against women, steal their trophies and scholarships where applicable.

But because the administration was faced with aggressive opposition to any rule changes that would allow men to beat women [in more ways than one] they abandoned their efforts to rewrite the laws they hoped would serve gender dysphoric [and cheaters] agenda.

In a straightforward, official statement, the Education Department announced they were backing down from changing Title IX, a law meant to give equal opportunities to women. They said they would not go forward with the changes that would have let transgender people participate freely in activities and use facilities according to their gender identity.

The Education Department stated, "With over 150,000 public comments on President Joe Biden’s effort to institutionalize access by men to women’s sports, multiple lawsuits to block the rule, and the upcoming end to the Biden administration, it was dropping efforts to impose the rule," according to Just the News.

If this rule had gone through, it would have meant that men could participate in women's sports, and use women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities. The Biden administration had first suggested this change back in April 2023.

🚨🚨🚨 Women’s sports are being saved.

The Biden administration is withdrawing its Title IX proposal which forced schools to allow trans-identifying male athletes into girls’ sports.
They know they’ve lost.
Common sense is emerging.
Your courage is making the difference.… pic.twitter.com/r4PQhS1tus

Jonathan Scruggs, who is Senior Counsel and Vice President of Legal Strategy at Alliance Defending Freedom, called the decision a win for women, as stated on their website.

"Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, and the U.S. Department of Education has taken a step in the right direction by withdrawing this proposed change," he said.

"As the withdrawal admitted, many Americans voiced their opposition to the rule change, and there are many pending lawsuits related to protecting women’s sports — including a comment submitted by Alliance Defending Freedom and multiple lawsuits brought by ADF to protect women’s sports," he said.

"The decision to withdraw the proposed sports rule merely reflects the views of the vast majority of Americans who believe that women’s sports should remain reserved for female athletes," he said.

By choosing to withdraw the rule rather than letting President-elect Donald Trump modify it, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump, said the White House was "adding more red tape and making it more difficult for him to govern," according to NBC.

"President Trump will not be deterred by their dirty tricks and will use every lever of power to reverse the damage Biden has done and implement his America First agenda," Leavitt said.

Writing on Outkick, Ian Miller noted, "It’s clear that the administration knew that this rule to protect transgender athletes had no chance of surviving the lawsuits and court of public opinion. Especially after the re-election of Donald Trump showed that the country overwhelmingly disapproved of such extremism." 

"But it’s also clear that they wanted to bury this announcement as to avoid scrutiny and criticism from the political left. So they chose to dump it on the Friday before Christmas, with most of the country checked out of the news or focused on the first game of the new College Football Playoff era," he wrote, adding, "Sounds about right for how this disgraceful administration has conducted itself for the past four years."

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah, ladies and all my readers.

Tweet

Father and Daughter get "resounding victory" for First Amendment over transgender rage

"We don't use this bathroom, so we don't care who does" -- Staff

A Vermont female volleyball player and her dad, a school soccer coach, were reinstated by their school district after they had been punished for voicing their concerns about having a penis-laden person in the girls'  locker room. 

Travis Allen and his daughter, Blake, filed a federal lawsuit last fall against woke school officials after both were disciplined for calling a gender dysphoric student “literally a dude” and raising concerns about him being allowed to watch while 14-year-old Blake and other girls changed clothes, according to the White River Valley Herald.

As part of the legal settlement, the Orange Southwest School District’s insurance company will pay $125,000, with $5,000 going to Blake Allen, $35,000 to Travis Allen and the remaining $85,000 to their law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

ADF Senior Counsel Philip A. Sechler said the settlement is a “resounding victory for freedom of speech," according to the report. “We are grateful that the school recognized it was wrong to suspend Blake from school and Travis from his coaching position simply for exercising their freedom of speech,” he said.

These school officials are like the same politicians who say the U.S. Constitution is an outdated piece of paper. But they are the first to claim their First Amendment rights when they interfere with those same rights of conservative speakers who they try to interrupt. 

“No one should lose their job or get suspended from school for voicing their opinion or calling a male a male and we are glad to see this case resolved favorably, not only for Blake and Travis, but for all students and coaches to be able to speak freely and without fear of retaliation.”

It all began in September last year when a boy student on the girls' volleyball team tried to use the girls' locker room. According to some of the girls, the boy  “stood leering at girls in various states of undress and refused to leave,” the Herald reported. [Well, well, well, shades of Will Lea Thomas all over again.]

Others claimed that he hesitated because he was unsure what to do, but left after being yelled at by a number of girls who were obviously upset from seeing a boy watching them undress.

The next day, according to the ADF website, “Blake shared her concerns with three classmates explaining that the student ‘literally is a dude,’ and ‘he doesn’t belong in the girls’ locker room.'” She knew that because he has a penis and only males have them.

The school co-principals “notified Blake she was guilty of harassment and bullying of ‘a student on the basis of the targeted student’s gender identity.'”

“As punishment,” the ADF reported, “school officials told Blake she must ‘[t]ake part in a restorative circle with … our Equity Coordinator and at least two students who can help her understand the rights of students to access public accommodations … in a manner consistent with their gender identity,’ submit a ‘reflective essay,’ and serve out-of-school suspension.”

So he has rights but she doesn't. 

Blake’s dad was also disciplined after he came to her defense by commenting on a local TV station’s Facebook page that contained a report of the incident.

A Facebook user who claimed to be the mother of the trans student accused Blake of making up the story to get attention and added that “truth will prevail.” 

Thankfully, she was right and the school lost the case.

“In response, Travis posted, ‘The truth is your son watched my daughter and multiple other girls change in the locker room. While he got a free show, they got violated,’” according to the ADF report.

When the district superintendent saw that comment, Travis was deemed to have “misgendered a transgender student.”

No, Travis called out the mental disorder which is evidently shared by the boy's mother.

Dad was suspended without pay from his job as the middle school girls’ soccer coach for the rest of the season.

In addition to the cash payment, the lawsuit settlement “scrubs the records of Travis Allen and Blake Allen of any reference to the discipline,” the Herald reported.

School district representatives tap danced around the settlement and said the language “notes that it is a compromise and ‘is not in any way to be construed as admission of liability or wrongdoing,’” according to the Herald. But it is a wrongdoing and anyone, even those of us who are not biologists, knows it.

The news outlet quoted Layne Millington, superintendent of the Orange Southwest Supervisory District, as saying “the district is pleased to resolve the lawsuit at this early stage and return our focus to educating students” [about LGBTQ+1WAP ideology and practices].  

“The Vermont School Boards Insurance Trust made the decision concerning the payment in order to cap defense expenses in what would otherwise be years of litigation,” Zir/zhe Millington continued. 

“The district has made no admission of wrongdoing. Our policies are unchanged and we will continue to comply with our policies and the law.”

They don't have to admit it--the father and daughter won the case, got reinstated and the school board lost. 

In a written statement to the Herald, Travis Allen also declared a “huge victory for freedom of speech, not just for Blake and me, but for anyone who wants to voice their opinion on important topics.”

“It was worth it,” he added. “This has taken a toll on our family, both close and distant. It showed us who will and won’t support us even if they do not agree with our values. … I wouldn’t change anything. We currently live in a time where you have to defend your values from some pretty radical ideologies.”

We also live in a time where the Left's delusions have become "their truth" but not the truth. We are doomed if we give into their reality.

Tweet

Christians 1, U. of Idaho 0: free speech wins

The University of Idaho [go Potato Heads!] has been ordered to pay $90,000 as part of a settlement the Alliance Defending Freedom brought on behalf of Christian law students and a professor after the university's civil rights investigation office issued "no-contact" orders against them.

According to a report by the Columbian, the settlement ends a case brought to the school by three law students who are members of the Christian Legal Society student group, along with a law professor who is the group's faculty advisor.

Beyond paying the $90,000, the university has also rescinded the “no-contact” orders as part of the settlement.

The group filed its lawsuit in April, maintaining that the university had illegally punished them for expressing their religious beliefs, which included their support for the traditional idea that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The ADF noted that the university issued the no-contact orders after a woke student was offended by the group's requirement that its officers agree with Christian doctrine, in spite of it being a Christian group. In this case, the belief about marriage being between a man and a woman, not two men, two women or any other combination of people or woodland creatures, etc.

Moreover, after disclosing this information, the Christian Legal Society’s beliefs were also publicly denounced by the student and several others at a panel with the American Bar Association.

“Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement.

“We’re pleased to settle this case favorably on behalf of Peter, Mark, Ryan, and Professor Seamon, and we hope that it will encourage all public universities across the country to support the constitutionally protected freedom of students and professors to share their deeply held beliefs on campus,” Langhofer said.

Christian Legal Society attorney Laura Nammo also reacted to the settlement, stating, “If we are to repair the current culture of political polarization, conversations among persons with differing viewpoints are essential.”

But different viewpoints are precisely what freaks out the woke left, as evidenced in what we're now learning about Twitter's pre-Musk past.

“University officials’ censorship of such conversations needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” Nammo added.

It's about time the Constitution got some R E S P E C T.

Tweet

Kansas teacher holds the moral high-ground against school district: wins bigly

A retired teacher from Kansas won a lawsuit against the Geary County school district after they tried to force her to go against her own moral code by deceiving parents about their child's gender identity. Pamela Ricard, 58, is now $95,000 richer because she stood on her principles and morals and didn't go along with the board.

Ricard argued that Colorado school administrators demanded she use students' preferred gender pronouns in classrooms, but avoid those pronouns when speaking to the parents in question. She sued, arguing that such deception goes against her Christian beliefs.

The district, composed of woke Marxists, agreed to settle on Wednesday, and Ricard and her attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom withdrew the lawsuit.

"No school district should ever force teachers to willfully deceive parents or engage in any speech that violates their deeply held religious beliefs," ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement.

Also, lying sucks and diminishes the character of the liar.

"We’re pleased to settle this case favorably on behalf of Pam, and we hope that it will encourage school districts across the country to support the constitutionally protected freedom of teachers to teach and communicate honestly with both children and parents," the statement read.

Administrators at Fort Riley Middle School reprimanded and suspended Ms. Ricard in 2021 after she referred to a transgender student by the student's legal name and pronouns because she knows the difference between a boy and a girl and knows gender confusion when she sees it.

Although the school reprimanded her for using the correct pronoun and legal name of a student, they demanded she use the correct pronoun and legal name of the student when interacting with parents, according to the ADF.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

"The Geary County School District unsuccessfully tried to convince a federal court that a teacher should completely avoid using a child’s name during a parent-teacher conference in order to hide new names and genders being used by the school for a child in a classroom," ADF Attorney Joshua Ney said. "Absurdity and deception has its limits, especially in federal court. I’m glad the case clarifies the financial stakes for school boards if they attempt to force teachers to lie to parents about their students."

Ricard retired from her teaching job in May. The district school board rescinded its policy of deceiving parents soon after Ricard filed her lawsuit but in spite of this, they still suck.

Tweet

Grad student sues her college after receiving "no contact" orders

A Christian graduate student at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville allegedly issued three no-contact orders against her for expressing her conservative political opinions. [H/T Fox News]

She is suing the school administration and staff in the art therapy program.

“I was alarmed when I had received three no-contact orders that prevented me from having direct or indirect communication with these three students,” Art therapy student Maggie Dejong said Friday on “Fox & Friends First.”

“Essentially, they were restraining orders that applied to on and off-campus,” Dejong explained, and if true, seems to go beyond the purview of the institution.

No-contact orders and no-communication orders are the way the University restricts students by preventing them to even attempt communicating with other students either directly or indirectly. You might say it's a violation of the First Amendment, but then they would have to kill you, or something.

These restrictions are designed to be used in Title IX cases involving sexual harassment or misconduct. In Dejong's case, it's apparently being abused, as is she.

Near the end of last year of her three-year graduate degree program, the University's director for Equal Opportunity, Access and Title IX Coordination, Jamie Ball, imposed three no-contact orders after three snowflakes were upset with Dejong's political convictions. They evidently felt scared to walk outside their safe areas where people with different opinions, backed up with facts and logic, make them feel threatened and in danger of losing their opinions based on their deeply entrenched feelings.

Ball informed Dejong about the orders’ issuances in a series of emails on February 10, according to a copy of the original lawsuit shared on conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom’s website. You need to read the legal complaint--it's clear and beautifully written. It even points out that two of the students who somehow felt harmed by Dejong, are practicing witches.

The no-contact orders were rescinded on February 28 after Dejong sent an attorney letter to the school, but they were once again imposed the following month.

The Title IX coordination director, Jamie Ball, warned Dejong that she was ordered to have “no contact” or no “indirect communications” with the three students and that if she disregarded the no-contact orders, she could face repercussions, the lawsuit stated.

Ashley Strohmier, Dejong’s lawyer and ADF senior counsel Tyson Langhoffer told Fox News that the University issued the orders even though she “never violated any university policy.” This is also included in the complaint.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

“Yet the university issued no-contact orders against her, prohibiting her from fully participating in classes, including discussions about race relations and the police, simply because they deemed her or her beliefs as unwelcome,” Langhoffer said.

“Universities can’t issue no-contact orders and tell students they can’t speak with other students simply for expressing their views,” Langhoffer added,

I hope Dejong wins and wins bigly.

Tweet

Pro-Life Students now suing D.C. for being denied free speech and were arrested

Washington, D.C. -- Pro-life students, members of Students for Life of America (SLFA) who had been arrested in August for legally writing in chalk: "Black Preborn Lives Matter" are now suing the city for the infringement of their First Amendment rights.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit this week on behalf of these students.

While an entire plaza is named and permanently painted with “Black Lives Matter” (BLM), the pro-life students were barred from writing “Black Preborn Lives Matter” in chalk outside of a Planned Parenthood building, despite the fact that they’d received a permit to do so from the city. 

Yes, they had a freaking permit!

The students’ chalk message,“Black Preborn Lives Matter,” served to address the fact that unborn children of minority mothers have a statistically higher likelihood of being aborted, according to this Supreme Court amicus curiae brief.

According to SFLA, the group had obtained a permit from the city to peacefully protest with the use of temporary paint on sidewalks, but the D.C. Metro police said otherwise. They warned them they’d be arrested for the use of temporary paint, despite the fact that pro-BLM protesters had been allowed to use paint for their “Defund The Police” message.

So, in an attempt to comply with the self-loathing cops, the pro-life activists instead used chalk, as it was far easier to remove. A light rainfall would do the job, but the police still wouldn’t allow it because they didn't want to offend the Marxist BLMers.

“Two students were arrested trying to express in chalk what they were not allowed to say in paint,” said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins. “That kind of viewpoint discrimination cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged.”

In a letter sent to the execrable Mayor Muriel Bowser before the incident, Hawkins noted:

Your original decision to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on the street is government speech. However, your decision to allow protestors to paint ‘Defund the Police’ opened the streets up as a public forum. You are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in making determinations relating to public assemblies in public fora.

Viewpoint discrimination is the unconstitutional practice of a government prohibiting certain speech and expression on the basis of the message it promulgates. 

And let's hope they take the city to the cleaners.

The U.S. Supreme Court has on multiple occasions ruled on such discrimination cases that violate the First Amendment.

In the opinion of the Court Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972), Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Twenty-three years later, the unconstitutionality of viewpoint discrimination was solidified in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995).

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court, stating, “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.”

Justice Kennedy further noted viewpoint discrimination as an “egregious form of content discrimination.” 

This is what the left has been calling for regarding conservative viewpoints as they would like to eliminate all differing political thought.

“Because of the city’s actions, Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America weren’t able to participate in the public square as other groups have,” said Legal Counsel Elissa Graves of ADF, the group heading up the lawsuit. “The government can’t discriminate against certain viewpoints by allowing some voices to be heard while silencing others.”

But they will continue to try discriminating against these viewpoints because their arguments against them are weak.



C'mon, man, gimme a break. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear. C'mon.

Tweet

GOP gov bans boys who identify as girls from competing with girls who really are

Idaho Republican Governor Brad Little doesn't believe that boys, whether they call themselves girls and use girly girl names, should compete athletically with actual girls whose biology designates them as such. In other words, if you were born with a uterus, you're a female. If you were born with junk, you're a male. It's something known as biology.

So on Monday, Gov. Little signed the Fairness for Women in Sports Act. It protects girls as single-sex, barring male transgender "girls" from competing against biological girls, and thus preventing boys from possibly stealing sports scholarships from girls who are actual girls.

“The sports ban applies to all sports teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities,” NBC News reported. “A girls’ or women’s team will not be open to transgender students who identify as female.” 

That is, a girls' or women's team will not be open to boys who have gender dysphoria and thus possess an unfair biological advantage. Science.

What an unwoke concept. 

Just imagine, it's easy if your try. No more Y chromosomes, and everyone knows why. Imagine all the track meets . . . it isn't hard to do. 

Boys beating girls and stealing their scholarships

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner spoke with The Daily Wire. "Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. Allowing males to compete in girls' sports destroys fair competition and women's athletic opportunities," she said. 

The ADF is currently representing high school female athletes in a federal lawsuit that seeks to preserve single-sex girls sports.

“We commend Gov. Little for signing the Fairness for Women in Sports Act into law so that those opportunities will be protected in Idaho,” Waggoner continued. “When the law ignores biological differences, women and girls bear the brunt of the harm.”

“In Connecticut, for example, two males dominated girls’ track after they began competing as females, capturing dozens of championships and shattering long-standing female track records,” the attorney explained. “Comparably fit and trained males will always have physical advantages over females—that’s the reason we have girls’ sports.”

“When we ignore biological reality, female athletes lose medals, podium spots, public recognition, and opportunities to compete,” Waggoner added, thanking the bill’s Republican co-sponsors Rep. Barbara Ehardt and Sen. Mary Souza.

The irony is that the woke jokers on the left, who support the LGBTQ community to a fault, do so at the expense of the women they pretend to support.

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

Two Christian artists could be jailed for not creating art for same sex weddings

Arizona -- Joanna Duka nad Breanna Koski are both religious Christian women that own Brush & Nib Studio in Phoenix where they create custom artwork using calligraphy, painting and hand-lettering.

They filed suit against the city of Phoenix, where a Phoenix city ordinance threatens them with up to six months and/or a fine of $2,500 each day they refuse to make the artwork for a same-sex wedding, an event that goes against their religious beliefs.

Initially the women filed in state court to overturn the ordinance, but lost in a court of appeals. This prompted them to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court, which said on November 20 it would hear the case.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the women, asked in their petition:

Does Phoenix violate the Arizona Constitution’s Free Speech Clause when it forces commissioned artists to create custom artwork—consisting of words and paintings—conveying messages they object to and when it bans commissioned artists from publishing a statement explaining the artwork they can and cannot create?

Does Phoenix violate Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act when it uses criminal penalties—including jail time—to force commissioned artists to create custom artwork expressing messages that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and when it bans religiously motivated speech?

The petition also stated, “Their Christian beliefs forbid them from creating ‘custom artwork that conveys messages condoning, supporting, or participating in activities or ideas that violate their religious beliefs. For example, they cannot create artwork expressing messages that ‘contradict biblical truth, demean others, endorse racism, [or] incite violence.’”

ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs stated at the time the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, “The government must allow artists to make their own decisions about which messages they will promote. Joanna and Breanna are happy to design custom art for anyone; they simply object to being forced to pour their heart, soul, imagination, and talent into creating messages that violate their conscience.”

On Friday, ADF reported that a group of legislators weighed in in favor of the women.

The Arizona attorney general joined by other states, numerous state lawmakers, various scholars, and a diverse array of business, artistic, and faith-based groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Arizona Supreme Court in support of preserving artistic and religious freedom. 

Specifically, the briefs support two Phoenix artists who face jail time and fines if they violate a sweeping Phoenix criminal law that forces them to design and create custom artwork expressing messages that violate their core beliefs.

Simply stated, how can any person(s) force another person(s) to provide their labor for something which goes against their conscience or religious beliefs? It seems like something a fascist or fascist nation would demand.

The brief filed by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and other state attorneys general states, “A government simply cannot force a citizen to engage in or endorse expression…. [Phoenix] must not be allowed to force artists to create customized expressions contrary to their moral, religious, or political beliefs, even if such work is paid for by the one requesting it.”

Scruggs added, “As the briefs filed this week affirm, the government shouldn’t threaten artists with jail time and fines to force them to create art that violates their beliefs. Joanna and Breanna work with all people; they just don’t promote all messages. Creative professionals should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Instead, the government must protect the freedom of artists to choose which messages to express through their own creations.”

What cases like this illustrate is how the LGBTQ community attempts to impose their lifestyle or beliefs on the religious community--except when it comes to Islam--for that religion, it's hands off. There has not been one case in which Islamic belief regarding same sex marriage has been challenged.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

UC Berkeley Sued after denying conservative student group official status

UC Berkeley used to be a icon in the world of academia and free speech. Now it's a cesspool filled with snowflakes and other stuff one finds in cesspools . . . like far left professors who think Karl Marx's body odor was unfairly judged. 

A conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the University of California, Berkeley, after the so-called school denied a pro-liberty student group official status.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sued UC Berkeley after the school kept Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) which has over 900 college chapter throughout the country, from obtaining a registered student organization status, according to a press release first obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The lawsuit alleges that UC Berkeley denied verifying YAL because they said the group was "too similar" to Cal Libertarians.

YAL President Cliff Malone had something to say on the matter:

"It is absurd to think that other Berkeley groups are lighting the campus on fire and throwing rocks through windows, but YAL's efforts to peaceable promote the message of liberty are being shunned by university administrators. This incident is exactly why Young Americans for Liberty launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign. All students, regardless of ideology, should be guaranteed their First Amendment right to Free Speech."

Sadly, what is truly absurd is to believe the Berkeley administration would think rationally on this matter. They are devout leftists and leftists don't want free speech unless it's in lockstep with leftist ideology. The reason being is that leftist ideology is easily defeated by the conservative track records of history.

The fact is, without conservative governance, socialism and communism could not exist. The building has to be borne first before it can be torn down.

If YAL cannot be registered as a student organization, they cannot invite speakers (Ben Shapiro springs to mind), reserve rooms, or use funds for their tuition to cover organizational costs.

Let's hope that ADF wins the court battle because a lot depends on it. The left needs to be stopped from their shameless disrespect for the Constitution.

We cannot allow them to tear down the building.

Tweet