When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor. Recently the Governor claimed she was suspending the Constitution because Liberals were the cause of many gun crimes and drug trafficking’s.
But even other left wing fanatics attacked her craziness.
Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California. If it’s not California, it’s New York, If it’s not Illinois it’s Massachusetts, and it goes on and on.
But all have the same thing in common. Violating people’s first Amendment rights. If it’s not parents it’s other politicians, lawyers, or people from the business world like Musk.
In Musk’s case, they’re not going after him in court, California is passing laws that take away free speech. What’s next with these loons?
Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign. Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.
The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.
That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.
So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”
Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.
Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.
“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.
“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”
The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.
The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”
The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.
Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.
Article first found at the The Daily News of Newburyport.
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
Under the new ruling, the administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review.
As you know, Disqus recently started a new version of Channels.
Every comment Pud made there has been deleted on the Chit Chat Channel. EVEN ON THE THREAD HE STARTED! In three different threads, all his comments are now listed as deleted.
Curious, I looked up the profile for “DISQUS” (@disqusPM). No comments but several hundred followers. Who would be following an account that doesn’t post? I recognized one Troll account, and several “business” accounts are in its followers list. And some are instantly recognizable as — uhm — ‘questionable.’
The Channels Moderator is a damn bot.
So the question becomes who programmed it — Or (more likely) who is logging into that account and deleting comments from posters they presumably don’t like?
Worth posting again. Judge rules Trump election claims while in office covered by presidential immunity.
A Pennsylvania state judge ruled that an election worker cannot sue former President Trump over statements he made sowing doubt in the 2020 election results while in office, finding the statements are protected by presidential immunity.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos said Trump’s immunity covered a tweet he issued and comments he made remotely from the White House during a Pennsylvania state Senate committee hearing in November 2020. The statements, made without evidence, claimed fraud in Pennsylvania’s election tabulations.
“Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was the President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy,” Erdos ruled. “But this case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to Presidential immunity.”
James Savage, a Pennsylvania voting machine supervisor in the 2020 election, filed two lawsuits — which have since been consolidated — alleging that Trump, Rudy Giuliani, two poll watchers and others conspired to defame him. Savage says their statements led him to receive death threats and suffer two heart attacks.
Erdos ruled Trump has immunity for the tweet and the remarks at the state Senate hearing because both statements were made while he was serving as president. But the lawsuit also contains claims over a letter Trump wrote to the House Jan. 6 committee last October, which Trump is not immune from as it was written after leaving office.
Erdos ruled the two earlier statements were part of Trump’s official duties, as he was speaking to the public on matters of public concern.
“Here, then-President Trump’s Gettysburg remarks and his tweet were public,” Erdos wrote. “Moreover, the topic of these statements—claims from third parties and the President himself about irregularities in the Presidential election which on their face called into question the integrity of the election and whether now-President Joseph Biden had been duly elected—was undoubtedly a matter of great public concern.”
Trump potentially faces a looming indictment in the Justice Department’s probe of the transfer of power following the 2020 election and the lead up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump’s unfounded claims of mass electoral fraud are also the subject of several other civil lawsuits, which remain tied up in other courts and for which he has similarly asserted immunity.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to honor the long-standing principle of Presidential Immunity,” Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement.
“Today, the Court made it clear that it is well within the President’s discretion to address the integrity of our election without fear of liability,” Habba continued. “We expect that the rest of Mr. Savage’s claims will similarly be disposed of as they are without merit.”
No, the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ is not ‘from slavery’ And neither is the Gadsden Flag.
By now, you have likely heard of the 12-year-old boy who was told that he may not display a Gadsden Flag in school because it has “origins with slavery.” Of course it absolutely does not have origins in slavery; it is a symbol and flag from the Revolutionary War era.
This level of ignorance—especially from an ‘educator’—ought to be embarrassing…but it should not be particularly surprising. There is a lot to know in this life, and no matter how much one learns, it’s just a few more drops in the ocean of things there are to learn. Add to that the fact that public-school teachers—in spite of the endless hagiolatry our society heaps upon them—are not generally an especially impressive lot. They are, in the aggregate, a little more educated and intelligent than the average, of course, but that is not saying all that much.
This woman had no knowledge of the Gadsden Flag. I’d bet money she’s never heard the name Christopher Gadsden. Chances are she is not particularly well-versed in American history, unless that is her speciality (and even then…). All she knows is that people she does not like—people whom she’s been told not to like—tend to fly and display this flag. Thus, it must have its origins in slavery. After all, everyone she does not like is a fascist, a racist, a white supremacist, or literally Hitler.
Back in the late 90s, I had a somewhat similar experience…
One day, I was idly humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic when I was stopped and informed (just like that 12-year-old boy) that this song had its origins in “slavery.” This was a work environment and the person was a colleague, so I kept it cool and just pointed out—a little frustrated, of course—that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written by an abolitionist and was popular in the Union.
Obviously the colleague knew enough to associate the song with the Civil War, but that was it. Her left-wing programming and intersectional status kicked in from there and filled in the blanks: Civil War…being hummed by a white guy…………slavery.
This wasn’t even particularly conscious. This was more a kind of programatic confabulation. Same thing with the teacher. She did not know where the flag comes from, but she’s a good Baizuo, so she filled in the blanks of her ignorance with a Baizuo’s kind of “knowledge.” My colleague did the same, but from the standpoint of an aggrieved victim.
This colleague was a very sweet person. I really liked her, and she liked me too. I have not seen her for more than 20 years, but I still think of her fondly. But what she did that day was uncool. If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know that truth has begun to mean less in such matters than the identity groups of the people involved. Truth is what The Party says it is. Truth is found in the personal narrative of the ‘victim.’ Grievance trumps reality, and people have lost their jobs for exactly this sort of thing. Under a different set of circumstances, getting caught in that web might’ve cost me my livelihood. All over a grievance that had been fabricated out of thin air.
An experiment conducted at Dartmouth (and repeated in similar studies elsewhere) demonstrated that for some people, feeling aggrieved comes all too easily. You can read for yourself and watch the video below, but the gist is simple:
Study participants had a disfiguring scar drawn on their faces and were told to go out into the world, interact with people, and then report on how those people treated them. Unbeknownst to the participants, however, the scar was removed prior to them going out into public. In spite of the fact that there was no disfigurement, the participants claimed that they experienced discrimination because of their appearance.
This was just one experiment. Imagine being told, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, that you are a victim solely because of your identity, that that will never change, and that even when people are not discriminating against you, they secretly are.
What the left has done to people is vicious. These are precious human beings who did not need or deserve to be psychologically programmed in this way.
Inside the Blue Bubble Noam Dworman clashes with Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, and the results aren’t pretty.
Seat stays Conservative. Celeste Maloy wins special House primary to replace retiring Utah Rep. Chris Stewart.
I have to say, I was worried because the other Republican who was leading in the polls voted for Joe Biden, Supported a second Trump impeachment and would have voted against a impeachment of Biden.
Well, the base came out and voted against the Democrat endorsed Rep. Becky Edwards and former Utah GOP Chairman Bruce Hough.
She defied poll numbers that showed Edwards beating her two opponents in the week leading up to the election, winning 38% of the vote. Edwards came in a close second with 35% after the polls closed on Tuesday, and former Utah GOP Chairman Bruce Hough was a distant third.
Arizona judge rules common practice of validating ballot signatures illegal.
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.
And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.
And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.
Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.
Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.
“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.
But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.
And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”
Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”
Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”
But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.
Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”
In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.
It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.
“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”
And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”
So other documents can be helpful.
“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.
“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.
Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.
Napper was having none of that.
“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”
And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.
“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.
“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”
Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.
“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”
The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.
Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.
Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”
Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.
