VIDEO Be Very Worried About The Future Of Free Expression – Protest @ CNN – What BLM doesn’t want you to know!”

Be Very Worried About The Future Of Free Expression

Be Very Worried About The Future Of Free Expression

If you don’t believe political correctness is a threat to free speech, you haven’t been paying attention.

July 20, 2017 By 

“Ads that perpetuate gender stereotypes will be banned in UK, but not in the good ol’ USA!” reads a recent headline at the Web site Jezebel. Yay to the good ol’ USA for continuing to value the fundamental right of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.

Why would a feminist — or anyone, for that matter — celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about “gender stereotypes”? Because these days, foundational values mean increasingly little to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points out, because nefarious conglomerates like “Big Yogurt” have been “targeting women for decades.” She, and the British, apparently, don’t believe that women have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads peddling probiotic yogurts.

This is why the “Committee of Advertising Practice” (and boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the cliché “Orwellian” to describe a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart idea. They will ban, among others, commercials in which family members “create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up,” ones that suggest “an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa,” and ones in which a man “tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.”

If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the state, it’s unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. I’m not trying to pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials (one poll, for example, shows 40 percent of them okay with limiting speech offensive to minorities) and Democrats (more than 50 percent have warmed of the idea of banning hate speech). For them, opaque notions of “fairness” and “tolerance” have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.

You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Deanmayors of big cities, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claiming that “hate speech is not protected by the Constituion.” It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein arguing for heckler’s vetoes in public university systems. It’s major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies.

If it’s not Big Yogurt, it’s Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of “fairness.” This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than Donald Trump’s tweets mocking CNN.

It’s about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be banned because it has “been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.” Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until they shut down the rights of their political opponents.

Anyone who’s watched partisan groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who accuse civil rights lawyers of being in a “hate group,” understands where this goes.

Actually, you can see where it’s going by checking out Europe. Dismiss slippery slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where “hate speech” has been banned, police have raided the homes of at least 36 people accused of posting “illegal content.” There is a proposed bill right now in Germany that would fine social media companies millions of dollars for failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.

In England, a man was recently sentenced to more than a year in prison after being found guilty for stirring up religious hatred with a stupid posting on Facebook. There are “hate crimes” cops who not only hunt down citizens who say things deemed inappropriate but implore snitches to report on the vulgar words of their fellow citizens.

When I was young, liberals would often offer some iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This was typically in defense of artwork that was offensive to Christians or bourgeoisie types; a soiled painting of Mary or a bad heavy metal album, or whatnot.

You don’t hear much of that today. You’re more likely to hear “I disapprove of what you say, so shut up.” Idealism isn’t found in the notions of Enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you don’t believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the Left portends danger for freedom of expression, you haven’t been paying attention.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The FederalistFollow him on Twitter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

VIDEO President Trump Speech at Commissioning of USS Gerald R. Ford

President Trump Speech at Commissioning of USS Gerald R. Ford 

 July 22, 2017

President Trump delivers remarks in Norfolk, Virginia at the commissioning ceremony of the USS Gerald R. Ford.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Anthony Scaramucci First Interview Vows to Deliver ‘list of campaign promises on Steve Bannon’s wall’

Anthony Scaramucci: Breitbart ‘Captured the Spirit’ of America

Newly appointed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci spoke exclusively with Breitbart News Political Editor Matthew Boyle to discuss his new job.

“I think that one of the things that Breitbart has done has captured the spirit of what is actually going on in this country,” Scaramucci said in an interview on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125.

As a former Wall Street financier, Scaramucci explained that he spent time during the campaign connecting directly with President Donald Trump’s supporters, realizing that they were just like his friends and neighbors in Long Island, NY, where he grew up.

“It was the president that showed me, who grew up in a middle-class area like that, what was going on in my own hometown,” he said.

Scaramucci discussed the challenges in his new job, including the ongoing fight against fake news in the mainstream media. He reminded Trump supporters that it was possible to go beyond the mainstream media as they did during the campaign.

“We’re having a rough time with the mainstream media, but last time I checked during the campaign we were having a rough time with the mainstream media and the people see through it,” he said.

Scaramucci publicly thanked Breitbart News for helping expose fake news stories like the CNN story about him that was ultimately retracted.

Part of his strategy, he explained, was to tighten up an “unfiltered message” that would “penetrate through that shell” of the media. He also said he would work with the media to “deescalate” the relationship and treat the administration fairly.

“You can look at it objectively, frankly, and see that it isn’t fair right now,” Scaramucci said.

He said the administration would continue to fight to fulfill the president’s campaign promises, including major initiatives on tax reform, health care, and border security.

“We have a list of campaign promises that are up on Steve Bannon’s wall and we’re going right through those campaign promises and so that we can tell the American people that we are citizen politicians … we’re not career politicians or establishment players that just want to sit in Washington and milk the system,” he said.

Axios: Scaramucci Goes Full Breitbart

22 July 2017

From Jonathan Swan writing at Axios on new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci appearing on Breitbart News Saturday to give his first interview since joining the Trump Administration:

Anthony Scaramucci gave his first interview as White House communications director to Breitbart’s Matt Boyle. The two sounded like old friends, with Scaramucci kicking off the Saturday morning Breitbart radio interview by jokingly asking Boyle, “Did you send your job application form in yet, Matt?…Do you need my email so I can get your resume over here?”

Boyle laughed and replied: “Anthony, I’m honored, maybe we can talk about that later.” Scaramucci praised Breitbart for capturing “the spirit of what is actually going on in the country, where there’s a large group of people…who’ve been disaffected from the economic franchise.”

Between the lines: Sean Spicer had a terrible relationship with Breitbart, the right-wing outlet whose alumni, including Steve Bannon, now work in the White House. Scaramucci now appears to want to elevate the outlet in general, and Boyle in particular. By giving Boyle (Breitbart’s most unrestrained attack dog) such prominence from the outset, Scaramucci is signaling that the President wants to make better use of conservative/friendly media outlets to transmit his messages without a critical filter.

Read the rest of the story at Axios.

White House reporter: Trump is the messenger-in-chief



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO What’s Going On Right Now Inside The Senate’s Health Care Debate

What’s Going On Right Now Inside The Senate’s Health Care Debate

The past week’s debate on health care has seen more twists and turns than a dime-store movie novel. “Repeal-and-replace” is dead—then alive again. President Trump calls for outright repeal, then letting the law fail, then “repeal-and-replace” again.

As Vince Lombardi might ask, “What the h— is going on out here???”

Never fear. Three simple facts will put the debate in context.

Leadership Is Buying Moderates for ‘Repeal-and-Replace’

Whether in the form of “candy,” “making it rain,” or old-fashioned carve-outs that help states with reluctant senators, Senate leaders are trying to figure out the amount and type of money and incentives that will win enough moderate votes to pass a “repeal-and-replace” bill. Details remain sketchy, but the broader outline is clear: senators don’t want to vote for provisions they approved 18 months ago—when they knew President Obama would veto a repeal measure. And Senate leadership hopes to “solve” this problem essentially by throwing money at it—through new funding for Medicaid expansion states, opioid funding, bailout funds for insurers, programmatic carve-outs for some states, or all of the above (likely all of the above).

Leadership Isn’t Serious about Repeal-Only

Some observers (not to mention some senators) are confused about whether the Senate will vote on a repeal-only measure, or a “repeal-and-replace” bill. But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) explained leadership’s strategy to Bloomberg Wednesday: “There’s more optimism that we could vote on a repeal-and-replace bill, rather than just a repeal bill….But if there’s no agreement then we’ll still vote on the motion to proceed” to a repeal-only measure” (emphasis mine).

Translation: Senate leadership will only move to a vote on the 2015 repeal bill—which some conservative groups have argued for—if it knows it will fail. In fact, some observers have gone so far as to suggest Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Monday announcement that the Senate would vote on a repeal-only bill amounted to an attempt to bait-and-switch conservatives—convincing them to support starting debate on the bill by dangling repeal-only in front of them, only to pivot back to “repeal-and-replace” once the debate began.

Regardless of McConnell’s intentions earlier in the week, Cornyn’s comments make clear the extent to which Senate leaders take a repeal-only bill seriously: They don’t.

McCain May Make It Moot

It may sound impolitic or callous to translate a war hero’s struggle against cancer into crass political terms, but if the recent cancer diagnosis of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) means the senator will be unable to travel to Washington, Republican leaders’ desperate attempts to cobble together a legislative compromise may ultimately prove moot. At least two conservative senators oppose the current bill from the Right; adding more money to appease moderates won’t reduce those numbers, and may increase them. And at least two moderate senators oppose the current bill from the Left, hence the effort to increase funding.

If McCain is unable to vote on the legislation, Republican leaders will be able to withstand only one defection before putting the bill’s passage in jeopardy—yet at least two senators on either side of the Republican Conference oppose the current bill. That math just doesn’t add up, which means that barring some unforeseen development, the hue and cry of the past several days may ultimately amount to very little.

Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, a policy consulting firm based in Washington. He’s on Twitter @chrisjacobshc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A New Poll Shows Chuck Schumer Approval Rating Drops

July 21, 2017


Senate Minority chairman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is loud anti-Trump Democrat that is constantly trying to obtain every bit of information that the Democrats can use to impeach Trump. But all that now has backfired.

A new survey shows that 37% of New Yorkers had an unfavorable vote of Schumer, and this the highest rate of disapproval he has ever got. Siena College released the poll this Thursday.

The Dems finally got sick of hearing him attack the president all the time. The results of the poll came just one day after Schumer’s last attack against the president, when he criticized Trump for saying that Republicans should let Obamacare die, claiming that nothing can change his position on this matter.

 “It’s hard to believe that he could say something like that,” said the NYC Democrat. “President Trump’s promise to let our health care system collapse is so, so wrong on three counts. It’s a failure morally, it’s a failure politically, and it’s a remarkable failure of presidential leadership.”

Sadly, for him, he immediately got the message from his supporters for the way he behaves.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Look What Trump Just Parked In California After Governor Tough-Talked Him To Keep Illegals


President Trump understands all too well that to keep his campaign promise to “make America safe again,” he has to build a wall at our Southern Border to keep the illegal vermin and terrorist riff-raff out. But ever since Trump got into office, liberal politicians have been doing everything in their power to destroy his plans, since illegals and Muslims make up a massive majority of the Democratic voter base. However after months of trying to sabotage our president’s plan to build a wall, unfortunately for them, the first portion of the wall has just been constructed. And the location of where the first brick was laid has liberals absolutely furious, and the rest of us laughing our asses off.

Ever since Trump took office, many liberal mayors and governors across America have been refusing to comply with immigration officials, as they continue to harbor criminals in their sanctuary cities. California governor Jerry Brown has been very vocal in his defiance to fight Trump’s wall every step of the way, where back in February he spent a whopping 16 minutes delivering a fiery tirade in front of California lawmakers and state-elected officials, literally screaming into the microphone that he’d continue to harbor illegals in his state as a way to defy President Trump.

California governor Jerry Brown

“California is not turning back,” Brown shouted. “Not now, not ever. Let me be clear,” the governor said, his voice rising. “We will defend everybody — every man, woman and child who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state!”

Despite months of tantrum-throwing and liberal tears, Governor Brown’s mission to retain his steady stream illegal Democratic voters has just gone to complete crap. In one of California’s largest cities, the first section of Trump’s massive wall is now underway, much to the horror of Governor Brown and rabid liberals across the state. The LA Times reported:

President Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico will kick off in the San Diego border community of Otay Mesa, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Monday.

The community is home to one of two border crossings in San Diego and will be the site where 20 chosen bidders will erect prototypes of the envisioned wall.

Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio did not say exactly where the construction will take place, saying only that it would occur in the Otay Mesa area. He added that plans were subject to change.

Of the possible border locations in the region, building the prototypes near the Otay Mesa crossing makes the most sense because it allows companies to test out designs in a heavily trafficked area that still has room and flexibility, according to Eric Frost, director of San Diego State University’s graduate program in homeland security.

Frost, interviewed before the location was confirmed by the federal agency, said Otay Mesa would be a better place to start than the desert to the east or near a river — often empty locales.

“A lot of trucks already use it,” he said of the Otay Mesa crossing. “You want to look at how they actually interact with the fence.”

Construction of the models, which will likely take place in June, may attract protesters, but law enforcement officials said they were committed to supporting 1st Amendment rights.

“As part of our community policing philosophy, we work closely with any party or group that wishes to express their views in a law-abiding manner,” San Diego police spokesman Lt. Scott Wahl said in a statement.

What’s horrifying is that construction companies who will be building the wall are concerned their workers will be physically attacked on the job site, and are asking if the governor would provide legal assistance should the workers have to shoot someone in self defense. “Security was already an issue for companies bidding on the wall,” LA Times reported. “In a Q&A on FedBizOpps, the federal contracts website, some bidders asked what would happen if employees came under attack during construction, if they could use firearms in states with stricter gun laws and if the government would provide legal assistance if they had to use deadly force.”

It’s hilarious that no matter what liberals to do sabotage President Trump, their vile antics keep blowing up in their freaking faces! Despite their incessant efforts to infiltrate our country with illegals and with terrorists, the will of the American people who overwhelmingly voted President Trump into office WILL PREVAIL!


Prissy Holly
TRIGGER WARNING: Prissy Holly is a conservative journalist, professional shi*t starter and disgruntled military vet who is very outspoken and doesn’t give a flying crap about your feelings when exposing the truth. If you want your daily dose of news delivered in the most politically incorrect way as possible, make sure you follow Prissy!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Globalization ‘Shaken’ by Trump Victory, Nationalist ‘Political Earthquakes’

21 July 2017 by Tony Lee

President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory and other nationalist “political earthquakes” have put globalization advocates on the defensive while even convincing some economists who once believed in globalization like a religion to change their minds, Nikil Saval writes after having attended this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos.

At Davos, according to Saval, “by all reports the mood was one of anxiety, defensiveness and self-reproach”: “The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as caretakers, had been shaken by a series of political earthquakes.”

He writes that “in a panel titled ‘Governing Globalisation,’” the economist Dambisa Moyo, “otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the audience to accept that ‘there have been significant losses’” from globalization.

Saval notes that the Brexit result and Trump’s election meant that “the barbarians weren’t at the gates to the ski-lifts yet – but they weren’t very far” since “the backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past 18 months.”

“Americanism, not globalism, shall be our creed,” Trump said on the campaign trail, as Saval points out. In the UK, he notes that “the vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of manufacturing.” British prime minister Theresa May, he notes, said at Davos that “talk of greater globalisation … means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut.”

This week on Charlie Rose’s show, Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidencysaid that Steve Bannon, who is Trump’s chief strategist, opposes the “global financial class that is more interested in making money, erasing national borders, tearing down cultural identities than it is in serving the ordinary working-class blue-collar people that Bannon thinks is the backbone of our country and ought to be at the center of our politics.”

Bannon’s prescription, according to Green, “is to tear down the global free-trade system, to close America’s borders, to deport people who are here illegally, and to curb legal immigration … as a way of privileging American citizens and reasserting … a cultural identity.” (emphasis added)

At Davos this year, Saval observed that the participants had to realize that “after years of hedging or discounting the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos proposals – such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality – weren’t going to work. Unless something changed, the political consequences were likely to get worse.”

Saval points out that for years, “mainstream economists and politicians upheld the consensus about the merits of globalisation … with little concern that there might be political consequences.”

But now, “millions have rejected, with uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching among economists, one that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee the repercussions?”

One economist in the 1990s, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik, was skeptical about globalization. Rodrik’s book, Has Globalization Gone Too Far?, “sounded an unusual note of alarm” in 1997, according to Saval.

Rodrik, he notes, wrote that the social costs that came with globalization were “high – and consistently underestimated by economists. He noted that since the 1970s, lower-skilled European and American workers had endured a major fall in the real value of their wages, which dropped by more than 20%. Workers were suffering more spells of unemployment, more volatility in the hours they were expected to work.”

Though “Rodrik foresaw that the cost of greater ‘economic integration’ would be greater ‘social disintegration,’” many dismissed his thesis that “the inevitable result would be a huge political backlash.” Paul Krugman reportedly “privately warned Rodrik that his work would give ‘ammunition to the barbarians.’”

Now, as Saval notes, even the most ardent supporters of globalization have had to “concede, at least in part, that it has produced inequality, unemployment and downward pressure on wages. Nuances and criticisms that economists only used to raise in private seminars are finally coming out in the open.”

“If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily discounted today,” Saval writes.

He pointed out that even Larry Summers–“former chief economist of the World Bank, former Treasury secretary, president emeritus of Harvard, former economic adviser to President Barack Obama”–now writes about “responsible nationalism” while Martin Wolf, the former Wold Bank economist, has acknowledged that “the elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are increasingly disliked.”

“You need to make policy which brings people to think again that their societies are run in a decent and civilised way,” Wolf has reportedly acknowledged.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments