Stanford U. to allow 'harmful language' because they evidently don't care if we're harmed now

Stanford University, an elite school of lower learning, took only two days to walk back what they pointed out is "harmful language." If they truly believed that, why did they walk it back? Don't they care that words like "American" and "patriot" can cause harm upon the fragile psyches of their snowflakes students? Words like “freshman” and “mankind” were attacked for being “gender-based.” Terms such as “blind study” and “tone-deaf” were criticized as “ableist.” 

Seriously, these people are [can I say it?] morons.

But we all know that most people in academia are leftist cowards who are more comfortable grooming children and young adults than they are with free speech and when you come right down to it, the entire U.S. Constitution.

So Stanford is apparently walking back the rigid campus language code "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" and removing it from its website they put there just two days prior because it was blasted by people on both sides of the aisle, according to The Washington Free Beacon. 

The webpage for the woke tripe went live over the weekend, the Free Beacon reported. The proposed language policies were the subject of a critical Op-Ed published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

The university resource outlined a laundry list of “harmful” words and phrases that would be removed from Stanford websites and suggested politically correct alternatives to the objectionable language.

Imagine, they went after the word "American" and said it was harmful because it supposedly ascribes supremacy to the United States over other countries in the Americas. Well, lah-dee-dah. If that wasn't true in a certain sense, then why are people from other countries in the Americas hauling their butts to come here? 

No Virginia, not all countries and cultures are equal.

However, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford's medical school rejected the proposed elimination of the word "American." He tweeted:

I remember how proud I was when I became a naturalized American citizen. I’m still proud to be an American, and I don’t care that @Stanford disapproves of my using the term. https://t.co/NKwzjOlV3v

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya)

Steve Gallagher, Stanford’s chief information officer, released a statement on Tuesday distancing the school from its attack on the First Amendment.

“Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code,” Gallagher said.

“First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements,” he clarified.

Gallagher said the word “American” would not be banned by the university, but it isn't clear whether there will remain in place unconstitutional measures to ban the most basic freedom we have in the Bill of Rights.

“We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term ‘American,'” Gallagher said. “We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term ‘American’ not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.”

Yeah, well let me repeat myself: lah-dee-dah.

Gallagher indicated that the speech code was undergoing “continual review,” suggesting that it could return in an altered capacity.

Speech code at Big Brother University. Nice going comrades.

Tweet

Adam Kinzinger gets schooled on 5th Amendment

He's got tears in his ears

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ms. Adam Kinzinger (R Temp. - IL) is clueless about the principles of the U.S. Constitution. The 'Betsy Wetsy' on the Hill made a fool of himself in yet another tweet on Thursday night when he commented on the Fifth Amendment and the implications it suggests when anyone invokes it. We should all be concerned that people like Kinzinger represent us in Congress.

The soon-to-be-unemployed [until CNN or MSNBC hires him] congress-queen tweeted:

Quick reminder: pleading the 5th is because you don’t want to incriminate yourself. We respect the 5th amendment, but pleading the 5th says a lot

— Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) December 23, 2022

Kinzinger making that comment actually says a lot.

He obviously doesn't understand that the Fifth Amendment is our constitutional right that prevents us from being forced to testify and that invoking it cannot be used legally to incriminate us. This is a right that Kinzinger promised to uphold when he held up his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Hard to believe that this crybaby is a lawmaker, [at least for now as he's been voted out of office, which I believe I mentioned]. 

Kinzinger doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of the Fifth Amendment, which shows us why he became a 'transocrat' in the kangaroo Jan. 6 Committee clusterfrack.

Folks on Twitter reacted to Kinzinger's remark:

The 5th Amm protects against coerced confessions — which should never be forgotten. Think China, North Korea.
But it also protects the innocent against the overwhelming power of the state, especially in ambiguous circumstances or facts.
Does Kinzinger know this? He should.

— Political Sock (@politicalsock) December 23, 2022

Let’s put Kinzinger under oath and ask some very specific questions around J6. And while we’re at it, we will do a deep dive into the past seven years of his taxes. Let’s see if he too pleads the 5th… This will say a lot. https://t.co/fRq5uRgurt

— Dan Lawrence (@coramdeoDan) December 23, 2022

False: The 5th Amendment protects the innocent as well as the guilty from helping the government prosecute them. It is NOT an admission of a crime. The congressman and the J6 committee know this, but repeatedly used their power to spread and exploit this falsehood. https://t.co/MYdZTmekub

— Mike Columbo (@MikeColumboEsq) December 23, 2022

The Fifth Amendment is one of the items in the Bill of Rights that separates us from dictatorships and Kinzinger implies that using it implies that you're guilty. What an a-hole! He's no different from those on the Left who want to silence free speech as described in the First Amendment and take away our right to self-defense, as laid out in the Second Amendment.

But the good news is his impending departure from Congress--did I mention that?

Hey folks--have a very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and  a wonderful Hanukkah.

Tweet

SCOTUS rules on Washington high school coach who was fired for prayers

Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach in Washington state who was fired by the school district over post-game prayers was reinstated to his old job by March 2023, as ruled by the court documents filed on Tuesday.

Kennedy coached at Bremerton High School and was put on leave in 2015 for reciting prayers to the Lord at the 50-yard-line following the conclusion of games.

Initially, the coach prayed by himself, but eventually he was joined in prayer by students from his and the opposing teams.

Court documents state that this evolved into motivational speeches that also included religious themes.

After an opposing coach, who likely lost to Kennedy, brought it to the principal's attention and Kennedy was told by the school district to desist, which he did for a while, and then notified the school that he would resume praying as before. 

The story grew in the media, who hates religion in general, and when Kennedy announced that he was going back to praying on the field, it raised concerns for is safety. But when he did pray after a game, many people would rush onto the gridiron in support.

The district offered to allow Kennedy to pray in other locations before and after games, or for him to pray on the 50-yard line after everyone else had left the premises, but he refused, insisting that he would continue his regular practice. After continuing the prayers at two more games, the school district placed Kennedy on leave. As far as he was concerned, they could go to hell.

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court this past June and ruled in favor of Kennedy getting his old job back. Something about freedom of speech and an old government document that had stuff about inalienable rights or something along those lines. 

Yes, Kennedy's prayers on the field were protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Per the court documents filed Tuesday, Kennedy must be reinstated to his previous position as assistant coach of the Bremerton High School football team on or before the "ides of March" [aka March 15] 2023. The Bremerton School District cannot retaliate against Kennedy for "conduct that complies with the terms of the Court’s Order," the court documents say.

The district also cannot interfere with or prohibit Kennedy from offering a prayer consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, so yes indeed, they can go to hell.

* * *

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 Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

Kennedy is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, but the district has said those fees will ultimately be decided by the U.S. District Court after an "exacting process.

Kennedy and the district will file a joint submission on Nov. 8 detailing either side’s proposed wording on the disputed issues and relief issued to Kennedy.

Tweet

Nova Scotia outlaws freedom of expression with "freedom" truckers demonstration after huge protest

America, take note, this could be us if we allow it. 

The Canadian province of Nova Scotia is outlawing freedom of speech and expression days after an incredibly massive protest that saw people gathered along a highway to cheer on and support the "Freedom Convoy" of truckers who drove across Canada from Vancouver to Ottawa, to protest the vaccine mandates.

The province issued "a directive under the Emergency Management Act prohibiting people from blockading Highway 104 near the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border." Except they weren't blocking anything--they were standing alongside the road waving Canadian flags and cheering, eh.

The directive specifically states supporters of the Freedom Convoy and another protest, the Atlantic Hold the Line event, can’t gather along Highway 104, on the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border. The directive states that "allowing people to gather in those areas would put themselves and others at risk." 

Bullcrap. It puts freedom of speech at risk.

"My message to anyone planning a blockade of a highway is — don’t do it," Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston said last week, according to the Toronto Star. "Nova Scotians have no patience for highway blockades and, personally ... I have even less, so just don’t do it."

Houston, we have a problem.

Those who disobey and refuse to fall into lockstep face fines between $3,000 to $10,000, while corporations face fines between $20,000 and $100,000. Thankfully, the Canadian dollar is even worse than ours so there's that.

The order remains active under the province’s state of emergency, which has been extended every two weeks and currently runs until Feb. 6, CBC News reported. State of emergency? Now that's an overused term they got from the Biden administration. It has become a tool for dictators and we are allowing this garbage to continue.

The Freedom Convoy set out last Sunday to protest the vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers that was imposed on the ides of January. Somehow truckers, who work alone, confined in their closed vehicles, and not involved with unloading their truck, are magically able to spread the dreaded omicron scourge. It is estimated that about 15% of Canadian truckers [around 16,000] are not fully vaccinated for whatever reasons. Some have already had Covid and have better protection than the vaccine offers and therefore don't need the jab; others have medical issues making the jab risky; and still others want to decide for themselves whether they want to put a foreign substance into their Canadian body.

Canadian Prime Minister and pretty boy Justin Trudeau doesn't have the gonads to support the free speech of protesters, so he has said nothing about the Nova Scotia dictate. 

The organizers of the trucker protest have called for getting rid of all COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates and others called for getting rid of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as PM. He really is kind of an idiot but that seems to be the level of our leaders nowadays.

The spokesman of the convoy called the protest "impressive" last week, claiming it was more than 40 miles long. Guinness World Records show that the longest convoy recorded took place in Egypt in 2020, coming in at nearly 5 miles long. [They were protesting cruelty to camels.]

Trudeau denounced the protest last week as composed of a "small fringe minority who are on the way to Ottawa who are holding unacceptable views." 

Unacceptable views? In other words, if you don't do as we say, you will pay. 

"What we are hearing from some people associated with this convoy is completely unacceptable," the wannabe dictator [the 'tator' is silent] added.

The convoy made it to Ottawa, the Canadian capital on Saturday, when thousands of people were seen joining the protest there.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and 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 the tech giants.

* * *

"I’m locked into my own country right now," Tom Pappin, who is unvaccinated and joined the protest from just outside Ottawa, said. "I can’t go on a holiday. I can’t go to a restaurant, I can’t go bowling. I can’t go to a movie. You know, these are things that it’s just gotten out of control."

Trudeau’s itinerary for the day usually says he is in Ottawa if he's at home, but on Saturday it said "National Capital Region" amid a report he's been moved to an undisclosed location, the Associated Press reported. He was last seen wearing his pink "Pussy Hat" and no mask.

Tweet

Woman arrested for insulting the police on a hate crime charge

Panguitch, Utah -- An arrest in Utah on June 11th sparked national attention when a police officer made a routing traffic stop at a local gas station.

As he spoke to the motorist, the cop noticed a young woman holding a "back the blue" sign in the parking lot. She then threw the sign on the ground and stomped on it. Next, she picked it up, wadded it into a ball and threw it in the trash as she was "smirking in an intimidating fashion," at the officer.

The officer questioned the 19-year-old woman and arrested her, charging her with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, along with disorderly conduct.

 The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the officer’s account of the incident.

“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.

The affidavit also explains that the allegations are being treated as a “hate crime enhanced allegation” due to “the demeanor displayed by [the woman] in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign.”

While I fully support the police and the Thin Blue Line, I also support the First Amendment and free speech and I don't like that this is being called a "hate crime." All crimes are in some respect, hate crimes, but freedom of expression isn't a crime.

The cop said that the woman was “evasive” about where she obtained the sign, but eventually told him that she simply found it laying on the ground. So it doesn't sound as if it's "destruction of property," if that claim is true.

Sure, there's no question that this young woman was despicable and rude, but that isn't a crime. The First Amendment wasn't designed for just allowing speech we like; it's for speech we don't like. The remedy for speech we don't like or that we disagree with, is more speech. 

If a cop or anyone else for that matter, can make a claim of hate speech because they don't like it, this severely impinges on our freedom of speech. And when it comes right down to it, hate crimes are really thought crimes and nobody has the right to tell you what to think.

So in the end, I believe the cop was wrong to arrest that woman, in spite of her rudeness. I may not agree with what she said, but I will defend to a severe head cold her right to say it.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Tweet

Freedom to 'wolf whistle' may be taken away in London

They're in cages for a reason

Wolf whistling is crude and things that are crude are unattractive, and things that are unattractive do not win over women and get you a date with them.

With that in mind, you might say that men who wolf whistle do so to appear confident and masculine while knowing they will not engage in an exchange of ideas with the woman whom they target with their bird call. In other words, they know the woman will just keep walking and the whistler gets 'guy creds' with his buddies for being masculine and 'cool'.

But is it a hate crime?

It may soon be if you live in foggy London town.

Wolf whistling or making sexist remarks (as determined by whoever says it's a sexist remark) on London's streets is being considered as a hate crime.

If a woman walks past a construction crew, let's say, and one of the men whistles at her, it isn't because he hates her or wants to intimidate her (unless he does, of course). It's usually a sign that he appreciates her beauty but doesn't have the courage to express it in human words. He must make bird sounds because, well, he's an idiot and he's trying to impress his buddies.

However, to say that his gesture is hateful is ridiculous.

Verbal hate crimes, when you get right down to it, are thought crimes. 

I'm specifically referring to hate speech for which the remedy is more speech. In the case of whistling at a woman, I am clearly not suggesting that if the whistler imposes himself on her, makes her feel threatened, that it's okay. 

So street harassment, where a woman's path is cut off, let's say, is in a different category. Or when sexually suggestive remarks are made. Or when a woman is made to feel scared. Those are totally unacceptable situations and I agree, should be considered criminal.

In London, the Metropolitan Police said they are speaking with other UK forces to determine whether it's worth cracking down on gender-based hate crimes after a pilot scheme was begun in East Midlands last year. 

The Nottinghamshire Police (having nothing to do with a sheriff, Robin Hood and his merry men) saw sexist incidents such as street harassment, verbal abuse and the taking photos without consent recorded as hate crimes, carrying tougher penalties.

So if you, like me, enjoy taking candid street photography, don't go to the UK. It's the new "Big Brother" of the West.

But once again, let me be clear: threatening behavior is not the same as merely wolf whistling at a woman. While it's rather pathetic, and I do not condone it, I do not believe that it should be considered a crime. That's an insult to hardened criminals.



Tweet

Washington Post urges ditching First Amendment

All colleges should censor 'racist and offensive' speech, an editorial in the Washington Post editorial read. This came in response to what they're calling a racist banana episode at the American University, which is currently under investigation by the FBI as a hate [aka 'thought'] crime. The rag is using this incident to justify getting rid of the First Amendment and stop people--racist pigs included--from saying whatever they want to say.

The editorial wants to "Make crystal clear that racist . . . speech is off limits." They want to punish and censor students if anyone thinks their speech or behavior is racist.

The term 'racist' therefore, will be determined by whoever says that what another student is saying is racist.

But worse than the ability to censor anyone you wish to shut up, the Constitution gives all of us, racists, humanitarians, good folk, bad folk and even vegetarians the right to say whatever they want. If you don't like what you hear, you can either leave or rebut the person. You do not have the right to censor that person unless they are calling for violence or creating an actual danger with their words.

And if anyone thinks that having their fragile feelings hurt is violence or danger, then they ought to shelter in place . . . forever.

It's always comical as much as it's irritating and hypocritical to hear arguments from "reputable" parakeet cage-liner newspapers to shut down free speech. In fact, my feelings are hurt by the Washington Post for them to think that I might be so racist as to even imply that people of my melanin level would promote racist dialogue or demonstrations. 

I say we censor them. 

I am not suggesting that hanging nooses on campus is not a crime--it's as offensive as hell--but I don't care for the idea that anyone should be given the power to shut down free speech.

The excuse the left gives is that hate speech isn't free speech.

Yes, hate speech is free speech, as much as it may suck to have to put up with it. But the best remedy for hate speech on campus is more speech--a better argument from the other side, not burning down a business because you're angry or getting paid by a Soros funded front to do it. 

And certainly not being stopped from speaking and stifling our core principles.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA also wrote a Post editorial explaining why "making racist speech off limits" is a horrible idea.

"At public universities, it would violate the First Amendment; at private universities, it would violate many of the universities' stated commitments to open debate, as well as basic principles of academic freedom," Volokh wrote.

Speaking about being "crystal clear," the Supreme Court said that the government shall not discriminate based on viewpoint, even in limited public fora such as university open spaces.

Volokh also points out that even criticizing immigration could be deemed racist, or criticizing any religion. 

Who in the schools will or should decide what is or isn't racist?

The one thing that should scare all of us who appreciate the freedoms we have in this country is the notion of how one branch of government, the judiciary, is making decisions for us and unwriting much of the Constitution.

Please consider following Brain Flushings by clicking the Follow tab.


Tweet

Michigan lawmakers want to suspend or expel students who infringe on First Amendment

Perhaps the U.S. Constitution still counts for some people, particularly those of us who believe in freedom of speech. It's one thing to have a different opinion than another person, and it's okay to express that opinion, but it isn't okay to suppress the speech of that person either by rioting or in some way preventing that person from speaking, as happened to Ann Coulter at Berkeley recently.

In Michigan, students who repeatedly infringe on free speech on campus may face a year suspension and possibly expulsion if a new law introduced in the statehouse passes.

The law is known as Campus Free Speech Act and comes on the heels of recent events, particularly the aforementioned Coulter speech at the University of California at Berkeley. It was scheduled for late April, but was canceled due to 'safety concerns.'

The lead sponsor of the legislation is Sen. Patrick Colbeck (R-MI). He said that he hopes the legislation would prevent "shout-down vetoes" of controversial campus speakers in Michigan.

"You have a right to express your concern with [a speaker], but you don't have the right to shut them down during the actual speech . . . It's time we look at people who are prohibiting free speech rights, not trying to use that right," the Senator told Heat Street. 

The Campus Free Speech Act would permit those who are silenced to take civil action against those who kept them from speaking.

If, as in Ann Coulter's case, a  speaker was already invited to speak on campus or group facility and then disinvited, "they'd have some mechanism to regain that financial loss," Colbeck explained.

The legislation would apply to 15 universities and 28 community colleges in Michigan, including the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor where not only Ann Coulter attended, but so did Madonna, Gerald Ford and Jack Kevorkian.

Go Wolverines!

Please follow Brain Flushings by clicking the Follow tab.

Tweet

Jakarta: Christian gov. jailed for blasphemy

Jakarta, Indonesia -- the Christian governor of Jakarta was jailed for blasphemy, saying that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. 

Oh, wait. It was actually for blasphemy against Islam.

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama was found guilty Tuesday and received two years in jail for blasphemy against Islam, a so-called religion to which he does not adhere. The sentence was worse than feared and others are concerned that it will embolden hardline Muslim forces to challenge secularism in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim majority nation, and a nation where Barack Obama attended madrassa.

Islamist groups organized huge rallies against the Christian Purnama's campaign and ended his bid for another term as governor.

President Joko Widodo, an ally of Purnama, is an ethnic-Chinese Christian. He believes the verdict will be a setback for his government that has tried to quell radical groups (aka Muslims) and soothe investors' worries that the country's secular values were at risk. 

They are and investors aren't quelled.

We are now living in a world where freedom of speech and belief are no longer unimpeachable. Like radical Islam, the left even in the United States, is rioting in order to stop free speech.

While thousands of people, both supporters and opponents to free speech and belief, waited outside, the Jakarta court judge, Dwiarso Budi Santiarto said Purnama was "found to have legitimately and convincingly conducted a criminal activity of blasphemy, and because of that we have imposed two years of imprisonment."

How tolerant.

Purnama said that he plans to appeal.

Charles Santiago, chairman of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), composed of regional lawmakers overseeing rights issues, said that "Indonesia was thought to be a regional leader in terms of democracy and openness. This decision places that position in jeopardy and raises concerns about Indonesia's future as an open, tolerant, diverse society."

Let us not kid ourselves: any society that is headed by a theocratic governance is never going to be tolerant, diverse and open because it goes against its very core.

While we pretend to be better people for our tolerance, Islamists are laughing at us.

The United Nations' Bangkok Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (kind of an oxymoron) tweeted: "We are concerned by jail sentence for Jakarta governor for alleged blasphemy against Islam. We call on Indonesia to review blasphemy law."

So who is Indonesia going to ask about blasphemy? 

An imam who will not go against his fellow Muslims.

Purnama was taken to an East Jakarta prison after the verdict was delivered and will remain there unless a higher court suspends it while waiting for his appeal.

This is a disgrace for Indonesia, but standard operating procedure for Islam.




Tweet

Pro-life group scares snowflakes

Strathclyde Life Action, a pro-life, anti-abortion group based at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, was prohibited from becoming a university society by the students' union because it would violate the university's safe space policy for students scared of opinions that differ from their own.

The Students' Ass. said they banned the group pre-emptively because they believe the group will "harass students" causing them great distress, indigestion, the willies and incontinence.

Poor little kitty cats.

A statement said that "This in turn violates their safe space."

Members of the banned group told Heat Street that proscribing them proves the university has no respect for free speech.

Well, yeah! No big surprise here.

Student officials in this so-called school weren't even able to term the abortion debate a 'women's issue' -- they called it "those with uteruses on campus".  

Seriously.

I wonder when the USA will elect a uterus for president. 

Tweet

Regulation Nation is an Obamanation

If Obama has his way, internet freedom will be eradicated and all communication will be overseen by his administration and eventually the government.
I received an email from Ben Sasse about the current situation regarding the Internet and Obama's desire to regulate it to his advantage. Below is my take on the letter and a link where you can sign a petition to have the FCC hear your opinion.

In Turkey, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan had similar goals: "We now have a court order. We will eradicate Twitter; I don't care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic."

Obama and Erdogan have company. In 2009, Iran began a crackdown on the Internet and China has been doing it for years. Last year, Russia forced Facebook to remove content that was critical of Vladimir Putin, so you might be seeing a pattern here.

Last November, President Obama called upon the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to classify the Internet as a public utility, which by doing so, would put the government in the position of having the jurisdiction to police it. 

Now that's Orwellian. 

We certainly don't need the government to have regulatory power over the Internet and with Obama as president, it could only work to the advantage of the far left and perhaps a certain religious group.

The worst part is that it's all happening too fast, and Obama is trying to bypass Congress and push this regulation through before the public gets to hear the debate. 

Now that's Pelosian.

Free speech and expression are far too important to allow a leftist like Obama to regulate them. The FCC will be voting on this issue February 26th. If this matters to you, go here to sign the petition to stop Obama. 

If you don't, you probably will not be able to read my blog or others that take an opposing point of view from the powers that be. And Twitter? Forget about it.

Tweet

Costco's Hard Choices

Hillary's book signing at Costco

Now that Hillary Clinton's obligatory pre-presidential campaign book, "Hard Choices" has nose-dived off Amazon.com's Top 100 list to position #102, Costco cannot financially justify keeping he claptrap on their "space limited" shelves. Even worse, people who already purchased this so-called book tended to read only 2.04% of it before giving up on it, according to the Washington Post.

Jim Sinegal, Costco's co-founder and "one-percenter" is a big Democratic donor, having given $500,000 to Democrats and $500 to Republicans. Frankly, it's surprising he gave any money to the GOP, but perhaps he owed it to a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Sinegal had to make the hard choice of leaving "Hard Choices" on Costco's limited book shelf space while removing Dinesh D'Souza's "America: Imagine a World Without Her." Clinton's book is doing poorly while D'Souza's is kicking butt.

In fact, once the leftist Sinegal ordered the removal of "America," it soared to #1 at Amazon.com. What Sinegal was too stupid to realize is that Americans do not want to be told what to read or be censored from it by only having one point of view available, unless they're hardcore progressives like him.

Sinegal on his throne

Now Costco is trying to walk it back, much like liberals are wont to do once they get caught trying to stifle free speech, and have to pay for their stupidity. The giant merchandise warehouse chain isn't admitted their wanton censorship but is claiming their decision was financial and not political, even though "America" is by far outselling "Hard Choices." They even said "America" was showing poor sales.

Yeah, sure.

A Costco spokescretin stated: "Costco is not a book store. Our book shelf space is very limited."

"Ah, Rules for Radicals"

This is a store whose space is so limited that you can't buy a small pack of toilet paper--you must buy a pack large enough to service the entire Democratic congress and you know how much that would require. In fact, if you really believe their "book shelf space is very limited," you might be a liberal.

Since Costco/Sinegal has shown their true colors, many intelligent people have dropped their membership for a refund and have gone to Sam's Club or elsewhere. 

Freedom of speech goes both ways, just like freedom of choice. Boycott Costco if you agree.

By the way, Amazon is also way left of center. I'm getting my copy of "America" from a smaller book store to keep my money local. Just saying.

Tweet

Libyan Brain Flushings

Is freedom of speech being challenged by the Obama administration?   If coming down hard on the guy who made the Muhammad video and accusing that video of being the catalyst that caused the attack in Benghazi, then yes, Obama is challenging our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  The fact is, Obama and the Situation Room knew about the attack in real time, and were totally clear about it within an hour as emails have shown us, but his administration confabulated a false claim and a man is in prison because of it, and four Americans are dead because of an order to "stand down." 

But even more frightening is what Hillary Clinton said to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the slain SEALs.  She told him not to worry, the administration plans to fully prosecute the man who made the video about the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, which they claimed incited the riots that were actually responsible for killing his son.  Of course, Clinton didn't use those words, but that's basically what the message was--as if the video had anything to do with the terrorist assaults in the first place.  

The story told by Federal authoirities was that the demonstration was an unplanned spontaneous response to that "disgusting" video, a movie trailer made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55 year old Coptic Christian in southern California.  I have viewed this video, Innocence of Muslims, and concur that it's not very good, but it's an expression of Nakoula's freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say things that people want to hear, but it includes the freedom to say things that people don't like and don't want to hear.

In my next blog, I plan to discuss our First Amendment right in more detail.  I believe  this issue is one of the most important ones that we face for the immediate future, particularly if Obama is re-elected.

My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       

click here for ebook version   

Check out: My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet

Can Freedom Go To Hell?

Where are we going as a nation? What's going to happen to us if things continue going in the same direction they're currently heading? Let's just look at a few things that you might find disturbing in today's world.

 

The Constitution of the United States of America. Not that there is anything wrong with this noble document, but the fact that it is frequently being disregarded by our current king of the hill, Barack Hussein Obama, is very disturbing. Specifically, the notion that it is the president's duty to require permission from the Congress to go beyond the initial 60 days of an undeclared war we have with another nation; like Libya, for example. CNN, the "nations unbiased news agency" (and if you believe that, you'd believe chickens have lips and snakes have hips), mentioned this fact but made light of it because it just isn't important enough so long as there's a Democratic president socializing the country and raising the debt ceiling in order to raise the debt. But worse than that is the disregard of the First Amendment; you know, the one that says you have the right to say things others may not like or disagree with. I believe it's about freedom of speech. The video above is an interesting take on this issue. Idiot leftist students at a California College were asked to sign a petition to remove Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservatives from the airwaves. These morons all said they believe in free speech, but signed the petition because they are clueless as to what they really believe in, which is free speech as long as it agrees with them. 

Peaceful Easy Feelin'

But that's just one aspect of the First Amendment. What about "hate speech," an Obamian term meaning "speech against Islamic ideology." Sure, some people love the prophet of Islam, Mohammad (peas be up in him), but others simply think of him as a terrorism-promoting, pedophile, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, intolerant misogynist. Still others think of his in worse terms, but that would take much more space than is available on a Google blog allotment. If Obama could have his way, the First Amendment would be compromised because the purpose of free speech is to allow for speech you don't like, otherwise, what's the point?


The idea that one cannot speak critically about religion is the same as saying that one cannot challenge another's belief about any debatable topic, like "who is going to win this year's Stanley Cup?" The "hate speech" law really comes from Shariah law, or Islamic law, and the movement to digest this form of law into our own Constitution is called "creeping Shariah." It's creeping because it's implication and methods of creeping into our legal system is not unlike that of a poisonous snake. It will change one law at a time until we are dominated by their system.  Non-Muslims would be considered less than Muslims in all areas of life, and women in general would be treated much the same way that Muslim men in Islamic countries treat their wives today--beat them if they don't allow you to "plow their fertile fields," give them half the inheritance as their brother, don't allow them to go to school, and kill them if they dishonor you by not marrying the porker you set her up with, or if she finds a love of her own, a man  who doesn't believe that Allah is all you say he is. Of course if a person is gay, under Shariah law, he or she is to be killed. They're hanging them high in Iran and other Muslim countries. 


But Obama already knows all of this--he went to a Muslim school (a madrassa) in Indonesia where he recited the Koran as part of his religious training. I've said it before in this blog that Obama may or may not be a Muslim, but it doesn't really matter because his policies are Islam-friendly and freedom-opposed. I wonder what he's going to say to our American Jews to convince them to vote for him again in spite of his betrayal of Israel. I have to admit it--he is definitely a wordsmith and he can be quite convincing if you don't examine his actions based upon his words.  It's going to be an interesting campaign.

 

If you are interested in Islamic terrorism and suspense, my latest novel, Jihad Joe, is now available both in soft cover and as an Ebook--I have provided the links below.  A New York City reporter is taken hostage by terrorists and must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.

click here for softcover Jihad Joe      

click here for ebook version  

 http://tinyurl.com/6p69cb7   FREE Ebook:  Conservatweets