Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption How funny is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Polls

Biden’s Approval Drops Eleven Points Among Democrats in Gallup Poll.

Views: 22

Biden’s Approval Drops Eleven Points Among Democrats in Gallup Poll. Poll after poll we see that Joe’s in trouble. Now even the Democrats are seeing it.

Gallup Poll released Thursday shows Democrats’ approval of Joe Biden dropped eleven points in the past few weeks to the lowest point in Biden’s presidency. Biden went from 86 percent approval among Democrats down to 75 percent approval. Gallup analysis points to a growing slip in the Democratic Party between supporters of Israel and Palestinians affecting their response to Biden’s support for Israel after the October 7 terror attack by Hamas that killed 1,400 Israelis (including 33 Americans) and saw over 200 Israelis (and some Americans) taken hostage.

Biden’s overall approval slid from 41 percent in September to 37 percent in October. Independent approval went down from 39 percent to 35 percent, while Republican approval was steady at just 5 percent.

Loading

134
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Elections Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Swing states. Two Words Could Mean Joe Biden Is Finished.

Views: 40

Swing states. Two Words Could Mean Joe Biden Is Finished.

Story by Peter Suciu.

Swing States could doom Joe Biden’s 2024 Run: According to a new poll from Bloomberg News/Morning Consult, President Joe Biden currently trails former President Donald Trump in Wisconsin and four additional key swing states. In the Badger State, 79 percent of registered voters said that the U.S. economy is on the wrong track – higher than the 74 percent average who said the same across seven other swing states.

Seventy-one percent of Pennsylvania voters, 73 percent of those in Michigan, 74 percent in Georgia, and 75 percent respectively in Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina shared a similar sentiment about the state of the U.S. economy.

“The dim outlook was held by Wisconsin voters in key demographic groups, including women, blue-collar workers, rural residents, and those ages 18 to 34,” Bloomberg News reported.

Wisconsin Voters Trust Trump More on the Economy

 

The poll further found that 48 percent of Wisconsin residents said they trust the former president more than the current one to handle the economy. Just 36 percent said they trust Biden more. There is a growing feeling in Wisconsin that the current “Bidenomics” policies are bad for the economy.

Wisconsin, once a solid part of the “Blue Wall,” crumbled in 2016 when Trump carried the state by 22,748 votes. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who didn’t visit the Badger State, was surprised by her loss. Biden then flipped the state back, and carried it by just 20,682 votes.

The recent poll found that even voters who are members of a union household believed Bidenomics was bad for the economy. That could be a worrisome portent for the president, as that block helped him win Wisconsin in 2020.

President Biden has clearly seen that Wisconsin is very much “in play” heading into the 2024 election, and earlier this week, the White House chose the state to be one of the 31 regional tech hubs, making it eligible for millions of dollars in federal funding to help advanced personalized medicine and biohealth technology. Wisconsin will progress to the next round of the competition, in which at least five tech hubs will win up to $75 million each under the CHIPS and Science Act passed last year.

The Swing States Matter More Than Ever

As noted by the Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll, it isn’t just Wisconsin that could determine who will win the presidency in just over a year. Currently, Trump leads Biden 47 percent to 43 percent in a head-to-head rematch in the other six swing states.

Of those states, all except for Nevada went for Trump in 2016, while all but North Carolina went for Biden in 2020. Once solidly red states such as Georgia, Arizona, and even North Carolina increasingly look purple – suggesting that Trump shouldn’t count on them any more than Clinton should have counted on Wisconsin.

As previously reported, North Carolina last went Democratic in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated John McCain by just 0.32 percent. Prior to that the state was last won by a Democrat in 1976 when Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford.

Trump won the state by 1.34 percent in 2020 and by 3.66 percent over Hillary Clinton.

By contrast, George W. Bush won the Tar Heel State by more than 12 points in both 2000 and 2004, and even as Bill Clinton infamously was able to win many traditionally Republican states in the south, he lost North Carolina in both 1992 and 1996.

Clearly, several swing states can be described as being in play.

Author Experience and Expertise

A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. 

Loading

184
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

Views: 7

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

The Consortium News lawsuit against a private news rating system lays out how the government can suppress speech by proxy.

By MATT TAIBBI

Monday, the independent website Consortium News filed suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Technologies. The complaint targeting both the government and a private media ratings service is an important one, putting the censorship-by-proxy system on trial.

On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense gave an award of $749,387 to Newsguard Technologies, a private service that scores media outlets on “reliability” and “trust.” According to the suit, roughly 40,000 subscribers buy Newsguard subscriptions, getting in return a system of “Nutrition Labels” supposedly emphasizing “safe” content. Importantly, Newsguard’s customers include universities and libraries, whose users are presented with labels warning you that CBS is great and Tucker Carlson is dangerous:

Consortium News was labeled a purveyor of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “false content,” and, worst of all, “anti-U.S.” This is despite the fact that, according to the suit, Newsguard only flagged six articles out of the tens of thousands Consortium News has published since the late award-winning reporter Robert Parry founded it in 1995. As Consortium News points out, Newsguard downgrades its entire 20,000+ library of available online articles with these flags based on the handful of edge cases, all of which involve criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

A particular irony is that Parry, a decorated AP and Newsweek reporter, founded Consortium News specifically to address topics suppressed by mainstream editors. Now Parry’s old site is being downgraded for dissenting reports on subjects like the 2014 Ukrainian coup and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, coincidentally topics that are “the subject of NewsGuard’s ‘Misinformation Fingerprints’ project that is under contract with the Cyber Command,” as the suit reads.

Newsguard denies it’s influenced by the government. In fact, its denials are part of the reason for the suit. When Michael Shellenberger and I testified before Congress in March, we mentioned Newsguard as a “government-funded” ratings service. I was quickly contacted by email by co-CEO Gordon Crovitz, who hastened to correct me: Newsguard isn’t government-funded, but merely an organization that receives government funds. He wrote:

As is public, our work for the Pentagon’s Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the US and its allies conducted by hostile governments, including Russia and China.

Our analysts alert officials in the US and in other democracies, including Ukraine, about new false narratives targeting America and its allies, and we provide an understanding of how this disinformation spreads online. We are proud of our work countering Russian and Chinese disinformation on behalf of Western democracies.

Crovitz added that “contrary to claims made in the hearings, we oppose any government involvement in rating news sources,” saying Newsguard “is entirely independent and free of any outside influence, including from the U.S. or any other government.”

The letter, CC’ed to co-CEO and editor Stephen Brill, was subject lined “Inaccuracies relating to NewsGuard.” I immediately wrote back:

Crovitz didn’t answer at the time, but Newsguard did simultaneously release the letter to the UK-based Press-Gazette. When I reached out for comment again after the filing of this litigation this week, asking once again how “government-funded” could be inaccurate, Crovitz finally answered, writing:

“We are ‘government funded’ in the same way that Verizon is ‘government funded: We have licensed data to the government for a fee, just as Verizon has provided telco services for a fee.”

He added:

The government pays us both for our commercial offerings. Our Pentagon contract is a single-digit percent of our revenues.

So, they are government-funded, just not wholly government-funded. These are the people rating others on accuracy, remember.

The conceit about funding isn’t complicated, but it works. Because Newsguard has other customers, it can claim to be an “independent” news service that just happens to downgrade news reports that contradict and/or criticize the policy of its major client, the Department of Defense. It’s censorship, but through a silencer. As the Consortium News suit reads:

NewsGuard and the United States in violation of the First Amendment are carrying out a governmental program under the “Misinformation Fingerprints” contract to publicly label, target and stigmatize news organizations as disfavored, unreliable, as journalistically not responsible… where said organizations differ or dissent from U.S. policy.

The suit also details what I think is the more insidious part of the system. In the guise of an independent news service, Newsguard contacts outlets and interrogates them about disputed content, not-so-subtly pressing for retractions. Again, from the suit:

In the course of the government contract, NewsGuard and the United States have acted to retaliate against those news entities and media organizations that refuse to retract or correct their articles; such retaliation consists of the “false content” warnings, the red flag and associated content described in this Amended Complaint…

Racket received one of these irritating queries this year. Call it what you want, but it comes down to Pentagon Cyber Command giving a big check to “analysts” who happen to slap red revenue-sapping warning tags on outlets that report on controversial topics like war or government censorship.

As I wrote to Newsguard when they contacted me, “media outlets should gain and lose trust based on how they are evaluated by audiences, not paid services.” This system allows institutions like the Department of Defense that have no legal remit to meddle in the domestic news landscape to pressure private media outlets.

That’s over and above the DoD’s already hugest-on-earth-by-far public relations budget. Think of the scale of petty determination one must have to spend over $500 million a year on messaging and be so dissatisfied with the results that you feel the need to spend more on private services that downgrade independent news critics. It’s particularly grating that your tax dollars are spent hiring private services that label news outlets using terms like “anti-US.” State-sponsored impugning of patriotism is a bold stroke, even by the low moral standards of the anti-disinformation era.

“When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’,” said Bruce Afran, attorney for Consortium News, “the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment.”

I was remiss in not getting this story up before but will have more as the case goes on.

Consortium News is seeking “a permanent injunction… barring the government and NewsGuard from continuing such practices” and “more than $13 million in damages for defamation and civil rights violations.”  You can read their coverage here.

Loading

122
Categories
America's Heartland Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

State of Michigan Holds ‘Harm Reduction’ Conference Denouncing ‘Whiteness’.

Views: 17

State of Michigan Holds ‘Harm Reduction’ Conference Denouncing ‘Whiteness’.

By ALANA MASTRANGELO

Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) held a conference in May regarding “harm reduction” that featured a panel on denouncing “whiteness.”

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services’ Viral Hepatitis unit, which holds an annual “harm reduction” conference, featured a workshop at this year’s event in May, titled, “Decentering Whiteness: An Equity-Based Approach.”

A description of the workshop said it explores “biases that black and non-black people of color participants encounter while accessing medical and social services,” as well as “how these biases enter the employment space and create barriers for black, brown, indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) individuals to achieve their highest potentials.”

“The workshop will also explore bias, medical mistrust, generational trauma, white colonialist systems, and radical inclusion,” the description added.

A slide at the beginning of the presentation for the workshop warned audience members to “Be responsible for the energy YOU bring to this SPACE,” adding, “Hard truths will be discussed.”

The presentation went on to claim it is a “myth” that the “birth of a nation” began with Christopher Columbus discovering America, pilgrims setting, and then winning independence from England through the revolution.

 

 

Instead, the presentation, which referred to North America as “Turtle Island,” claimed the nation was born from “violent land seizure, genocide of the indigenous populations,” and “economic development through forced labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans.”

The presentation also called on people to “decolonize harm reduction,” and urged organizations to fire any “overt racist / transphobic / homophobic staff,” and “hold dissenters accountable.”

The conference also had a panel on “sex workers” that featured porn star Lotus Lain, and emphasized “the need for sex workers on the front lines of harm reduction and social justice.”

 

Loading

118
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Border Uncategorized

Well Hello, what did you think was going to happen? US Government sounds the alarm on Terrorist’s coming over to the USA.

Views: 19

Well Hello, what did you think was going to happen? US Government sounds the alarm on Terrorist’s coming over to the USA.  What did the Biden Administration think was going to happen?

So we have FBI Director Wray warning us and the  San Diego Field Office Intelligence Division of Customs and Border Protection warning us. Hamas and Hezbollah are not our friends, so please close the Border.

The San Diego Field Office Intelligence Division of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sent the memo warning that due to the war between Israel and Hamas, there could be encounters of terror-tied individuals who are seeking to travel to or from the Middle East via transit across the southern border. HamasPIJ and Hezbollah, all of which are U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, have been committing attacks on Israel in a war that began with a surprise attack on hundreds of civilians on Oct. 7.

 

 

Loading

146
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Politics

Judge Aileen Cannon denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to create a secure facility in DC.

Views: 17

Judge Aileen Cannon denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to create a secure facility in DC. This is the third time she has caught Smith trying to pull a fast one.

Smith’s latest fiasco was trying to say what lawyers can and cannot represent a defendant.

“After a full coloquy, the Court found that Defendant Nauta made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of any potential or actual conflict of interest arising from Stanley E. Woodward’s former and current representation of the two remaining potential witnesses identified in the Special Counsel’s Motion[s],” said the order.

Loading

111
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

This is going nowhere. Democrats want term limits for the Supreme Court, but not for the Senate.

Views: 16

This is going nowhere.  Democrats want term limits for the Supreme Court, but not for the Senate. I say if they want to do term limits for Justices, why not for Senators?

Why not make the court based on ethnic population? And how about not using Affirmative Action? This goes nowhere. Introducing the bill were Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Alex Padilla of California. The bottom of the barrel.

Under the proposed legislation, a new justice would be appointed every two years, The Hill reported. That justice would hear every case for 18 years. The justice would then step back from the bench and hear just a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

Appellate cases, which make up the bulk of the courts’ cases, would be heard only by the nine most recently appointed justices. The remainder would take part in a smaller number of cases under the court’s “original justification,” according to the news outlet.

Loading

122
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Economy Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

I thought we had the inflation reduction act? U.S. Budget Deficit Explodes 23% Higher to $1.7 Trillion.

Views: 13

I thought we had the inflation reduction act? U.S. Budget Deficit Explodes 23% Higher to $1.7 Trillion. Who can forget when Biden said he cut the deficit by 1.7 trillion? But all the fact checkers called that a falsehood because that was spending that expired from COVID.

Well the deficit went up another 320 billion. Grand total of 1.7 trillion. I thought we had a Deficit Reduction Act? “The U.S. economy remains resilient despite global headwinds,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said. How funny is that?

While the consensus among economists no longer calls for a recession in the near term, a recent Wall Street Journal poll showed that the economy is expected to grow slightly less than one percent next year. The Conference Board said this week that it still expects the economy to fall into a “shallow recession” next year.

Loading

146
Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Free Speech Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

The Westminster Declaration.

Views: 27

The Westminster Declaration. One hundred and thirty-eight artists, public intellectuals, and journalists demand governments dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex

We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.

Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.

This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.

Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.

Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’

This complex often operates through direct government policies. Authorities in India[1] and Turkey[2] have seized the power to remove political content from social media. The legislature in Germany[3] and the Supreme Court in Brazil[4] are criminalising political speech. In other countries, measures such as Ireland’s ‘Hate Speech’ Bill[5], Scotland’s Hate Crime Act[6], the UK’s Online Safety Bill[7], and Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill[8] threaten to severely restrict expression and create a chilling effect.

But the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labelling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance. They have done so with the full support of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the journalistic values of debate and intellectual inquiry.

As the Twitter Files revealed, tech companies often perform censorial ‘content moderation’ in coordination with government agencies and civil society. Soon, the European Union’s Digital Services Act will formalise this relationship by giving platform data to ‘vetted researchers’ from NGOs and academia, relegating our speech rights to the discretion of these unelected and unaccountable entities.

Some politicians and NGOs[9] are even aiming to target end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.[10] If end-to-end encryption is broken, we will have no remaining avenues for authentic private conversations in the digital sphere.

Although foreign disinformation between states is a real issue, agencies designed to combat these threats, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States, are increasingly being turned inward against the public. Under the guise of preventing harm and protecting truth, speech is being treated as a permitted activity rather than an inalienable right.

We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.

What’s more, time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labelling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defence against disinformation.

The attack on speech is not just about distorted rules and regulations – it is a crisis of humanity itself. Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent. In countless examples, including the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, social progress has depended on freedom of expression.

We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.

The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law. One need not agree with the U.S. on every issue to acknowledge that this is a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow. It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms.

There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[11] was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.

In the course of human history, attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties. Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

We believe that free speech is essential for ensuring our safety from state abuses of power – abuses that have historically posed a far greater threat than the words of lone individuals or even organised groups. For the sake of human welfare and flourishing, we make the following 3 calls to action.

  • We call on governments and international organisations to fulfill their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.

  • We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.

  • And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Censorship robs us of the richness of life itself. Free speech is the foundation for creating a life of meaning and a thriving humanity – through art, poetry, drama, story, philosophy, song, and more.

This declaration was the result of an initial meeting of free speech champions from around the world who met in Westminster, London, at the end of June 2023. As signatories of this statement, we have fundamental political and ideological disagreements. However, it is only by coming together that we will defeat the encroaching forces of censorship so that we can maintain our ability to openly debate and challenge one another. It is in the spirit of difference and debate that we sign the Westminster Declaration.

Signatories

  • Matt Taibbi, Journalist, US

  • Michael Shellenberger, Public, US

  • Jonathan Haidt, Social Psychologist, NYU, US

  • John McWhorter, Linguist, Columbia, Author, US

  • Steven Pinker, Psychologist, Harvard, US

  • Julian Assange, Editor, Founder of Wikileaks, Australia

  • Tim Robbins, Actor, Filmmaker, US

  • Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, NYLS, US

  • Glenn Loury, Economist, USA

  • Richard Dawkins, Biologist, UK

  • John Cleese, Comedian, Acrobat, UK

  • Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher, Author, Slovenia

  • Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, US

  • Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, US

  • Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, US

  • Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, USA

  • Stella Assange, Campaigner, UK

  • Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, US

  • Claire Fox, Founder of the Academy of Ideas, UK

  • Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Psychologist, Author, Canada

  • Bari Weiss, Journalist, USA

  • Peter Hitchens, Author, Journalist, UK

  • Niall Ferguson, Historian, Stanford, UK

  • Matt Ridley, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Melissa Chen, Journalist, Spectator, Singapore/US

  • Yanis Varoufakis, Economist, Greece

  • Peter Boghossian, Philosopher, Founding Faculty Fellow, University of Austin, US

  • Michael Shermer, Science Writer, US

  • Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics, UCL, UK

  • Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, Oxford, UK

  • Jay Bhattacharya, Professor, Stanford, US

  • Martin Kulldorf, Professor of Medicine (on leave), Harvard, US

  • Aaron Kheiriaty, Psychiatrist, Author, USA

  • Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Lee Fang, Independent Journalist, US

  • Alex Gutentag, Journalist, US

  • Iain McGilchrist, Psychiatrist, Philosopher, UK

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist, Author, Netherlands

  • Konstantin Kisin, Author, UK

  • Leighton Woodhouse, Public, US

  • Andrew Lowenthal, liber-net, Australia

  • Aaron Mate, Journalist, USA

  • Izabella Kaminska, Journalist, The Blind Spot, UK

  • Nina Power, Writer, UK

  • Kmele Foster, Journalist, Media Entrepreneur, USA

  • Toby Young, Journalist, Free Speech Union, UK

  • Winston Marshall, Journalist, The Spectator, UK

  • Jacob Siegel, Tablet, US/Israel

  • Ulrike Guerot, Founder of European Democracy Lab, Germany

  • Heather E. Heying, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Bret Weinstein, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Martina Pastorelli, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Leandro Narloch, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Ana Henkel, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Mia Ashton, Journalist, Canada

  • Micha Narberhaus, The Protopia Lab, Spain/Germany

  • Alex Sheridan, Free Speech Ireland

  • Ben Scallan, Gript Media, Ireland

  • Thomas Fazi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Jean F. Queralt, Technologist, Founder @ The IO Foundation, Malaysia/Spain

  • Phil Shaw, Campaigner, Operation People, New Zealand

  • Jeremy Hildreth, Independent, UK

  • Craig Snider, Independent, US

  • Eve Kay, TV Producer, UK

  • Helen Joyce, Journalist, UK

  • Dietrich Brüggemann, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Adam B. Coleman, Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing, US

  • Helen Pluckrose, Author, US

  • Michael Nayna, Filmmaker, Australia

  • Paul Rossi, Educator, Vertex Partnership Academics, US

  • Juan Carlos Girauta, Politician, Spain

  • Andrew Neish, KC, UK

  • Steven Berkoff, Actor, Playright, UK

  • Patrick Hughes, Artist, UK

  • Adam Creighton, Journalist, Australia

  • Julia Hartley-Brewer, Journalist, UK

  • Robert Cibis, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Piers Robinson, Organization for Propaganda Studies, UK

  • Dirk Pohlmann, Journalist, Germany

  • Mathias Bröckers, Author, Journalist, Germany

  • Kira Phillips, Documentary Filmmaker, UK

  • Diane Atkinson, Historian, Biographer, UK

  • Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck, University of Buckingham, Canada

  • Laura Dodsworth, Journalist and Author, UK

  • Nellie Bowles, Journalist, USA

  • Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University,  UK

  • Julius Grower, Fellow, St. Hugh’s College, UK

  • Nick Dixon, Comedian, UK

  • Dominic Frisby, Comedian, UK

  • James Orr, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge, UK

  • Brendan O’Neill, Journalist, UK

  • Jan Jekielek, Journalist, Canada

  • Andrew Roberts, Historian, UK

  • Robert Tombs, Historian, UK

  • Ben Schwarz, Journalist, USA

  • Xavier Azalbert, Investigative Scientific Journalist, France

  • Doug Stokes, International Relations Professor, University of Exeter, UK

  • James Allan, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, UK

  • David McGrogan, Professor of Law, Northumbria University, UK

  • Jacob Mchangama, Author, Denmark

  • Nigel Biggar, Chairman, Free Speech Union, UK

  • David Goodhart, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, Netherlands

  • Matt Goodwin, Politics Professor, University of Kent, UK

  • Alan Miller, Together Association, UK

  • Catherine Liu, Cultural Theorist, Author, USA

  • Stefan Millius, Journalist, Switzerland

  • Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia, USA

  • Rueben Kirkham, Co-Director, Free Speech Union of Australia, Australia

  • Jeffrey Tucker, Author, USA

  • Sarah Gon, Director, Free Speech Union, South Africa

  • Dara Macdonald, Co-Director, Free Speech Union, Australia

  • Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive, Free Speech Union, New Zealand

  • David Zweig, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Juan Soto Ivars, Author, Spain

  • Colin Wright, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Gad Saad, Professor, Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist, Author, Canada

  • Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, USA

  • Jill Glasspool-Malone, PhD., USA

  • Jordi Pigem, Philosopher, Author, Spain

  • Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia

  • Michele Santoro, Journalist, TV Host, Presenter, Italy

  • Dr. James Smith, Podcaster, Literature Scholar, RHUL, UK

  • Francis Foster, Comedian, UK

  • Coleman Hughes, Writer, Podcaster, USA

  • Marco Bassani, Political Theorist, Historian, Milan University, Italy

  • Isabella Loiodice, Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Bari, Italy

  • Luca Ricolfi, Professor, Sociologist, Turin University, Italy

  • Marcello Foa, Journalist, Former President of Rai, Italy

  • Andrea Zhok, Philosopher, University of Milan, Italy

  • Paolo Cesaretti, Professor of Byzantine Civilization, University of Bergamo, Italy

  • Alberto Contri, Mass Media Expert, Italy

  • Carlo Lottieri, Philosopher, University of Verona, Italy

  • Alessandro Di Battista, Political Activist, Writer, Italy

  • Paola Mastrocola, Writer, Italy

  • Carlo Freccero, Television Author, Media Expert, Italy

  • Giorgio Bianchi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Nello Preterossi, Professor, University of Salerno, Scientific Director of the Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies, Italy

  • Efrat Fenigson, Journalist, Podcaster, Israel

  • Eli Vieira, Journalist, Genetic Biologist, Brazil

  • Stephen Moore, Author and Analyst, Canada

https://westminsterdeclaration.org/

 

Loading

131
Categories
Biden Cartel Black Supremacy Commentary Corruption Education Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. WOKE

UC Davis Professor Under Fire Over Posts Threatening ‘Zionist’ Journalists And Their Families.

Views: 22

UC Davis Professor Under Fire Over Posts Threatening ‘Zionist’ Journalists And Their Families. Seems like I’m always reading something about this school. We now have a Professor who teaches of all things American Studies getting into the hate the Jewish Journalists.

Jemma Decristo, an assistant professor of American studies at University of California, Davis, wrote in a post last week on X that “zionist journalists” spread “propaganda & misinformation.”

She followed that up with an apparent threat to those journalists and their families, as well as three different emojis: a knife, an ax, and blood droplets.

Making threats against people and referencing their homes and children in no way comes even close to First Amendment protections.

Sound familiar?

Loading

156
Verified by MonsterInsights