Tag: freedom of Speech

Categories
Quick Analysis

Censorship and the Left

Recently, a letter to the editor from a left-wing reader who disagreed with the generally conservative-oriented research and opinions expressed in a guest column published in a local newspaper called for the exclusion of future similar articles.

The writer represents a growing and worrisome trend on the part of the American Left, where, despite the existence of a heavy pro-left bias on the part of most media outlets, the very existence of contrary discussion by non-Leftist thinkers is seen as a threat. Rather than engage in a thoughtful debate, they call for censorship, to keep those ideas out of the public square altogether.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those, almost exclusively on the Left, favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introducing legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor non-Leftist perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.
Genuine drug store destinations likewise give a private, functional and at times shabbier approach to acquire physician recommended meds. on line viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/history/democratic-slovakia/ from an unlawful drug store might cause genuine health dangers. With the increase in the morbidity rate, residents’ income levels and medical levels, the market size viagra on line cheap see for source now of China’s diabetes drugs rises year by year, which always presents a rapidly growing trend in recent years, reaching CNY 15.86 billion in 2011, with an increase of 18.2% YOY. The pill when taken in, reaches the stomach viagra tablets in india and spreads in other body part via blood stream. Hence, men that are found with diabetes were around 3.5 times more likely than men viagra cialis achat without issues of diabetes for having ED.

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.”

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY) who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

From a practical perspective, the Left’s call for censorship is understandable.  Left wing concepts have failed. On the national, state, and local levels, Leftists ideas and politicians have endangered American security, weakened the economy, harmed the middle class, and failed to move the poor our of poverty. The results speak for themselves, and in a free and fair debate, those advocating for them would do and have done poorly.

Realizing this, the Left has chosen a different strategy. Censorship is one part of that. Some adopt physical violence, such as that perpetrated on people wearing those red Trump hats, or rioting in the streets following election results they dislike. Some have engaged in character assassination on false charges, such as those levelled against Bret Kavanaugh. Rather than concentrate on actual issues, “identity politics” pitting racial, gender, ethnic, and age groups against each other is foisted on the public.

The situation continues to worsen. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) recently stated that individuals who “make fun of Congress…should be prosecuted.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently noted, The U.S. is nearing a dangerous turning point, in which not only is free speech endangered, but also the very means to generate free speech is endangered. From academia’s relentless drive to indoctrinate students against the nation’s founding principles, to the establishment media’s actions in warping its reporting, to the actions by entrenched left-wing bureaucrats and elected officials alike to regulate and intimidate against the exercise of First Amendment rights, America’s most cherished freedom has become an endangered species.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Protests? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the anti-Trump protests.

The leftists protesters have not limited their targeting to the White House or to the overturning of the 2016 election.  Those who vocally disagree with their policies are also in their line of fire.

The Daily Caller reports that During an anti-Trump protest in Seattle this weekend, an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement took to the megaphone to voice her support for, among other things, “killing people,” and “killing the White House.” While she said that, another protester can be heard saying, “Burn it!”

Trump supporters have been assaulted and beaten, one example being at an airport in Portland, as reported by the Daily Mail.

The CBS affiliate in San Franciscoreports that “Protesters armed with bricks and fireworks mounted an assault on the building hosting a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos Wednesday night, forcing the event’s cancellation. Several injuries have been reported and at least four banks have been vandalized after demonstrators marched away from the scene of a violent protest at the canceled speaking event by controversial far-right writer and speaker Yiannopoulos on the University of California at Berkeley campus.”

The New York Post reports that protestors sought to stop an appearance by conservative Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, who was to address a seminar for college Republicans.
It can have a bad viagra sale without prescription psychological effect on your liver. ED is something no young male should have to worry about having another pill. sildenafil in canada As a result, penile pdxcommercial.com levitra prescription damage develops, forming a scar tissue. Men with blood-clotting disorders, too, are not recommended to use more than 1 viagra on line pharmacy pill in a day one tablet has been prescribed to take measured as sufficient to uphold for 36 hours.
Fox News reports that “many conservatives say they are increasingly under threat and being shut out of the political dialogue…Allison Coukos, director of public relations for the George Washington College Republicans and a junior majoring in political science…said [there is a] new level of enmity for conservative students and professors. Coukos said she has basically had to stop discussing politics altogether… ‘Students have told me of instances of harassment. We had a member spat on when they were wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat,’ Coukos said.

Last week, video surfaced of a left-leaning college student physically and verbally assaulting a conservative leader at West Virginia University during a meeting to organize a joint debate. Jordan Martinez, a 24-year-old U.S Army combat veteran who is now a graduate student at the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts, said he has been shocked with the extreme shutdown of political discourse. Two days prior to the inauguration, according to Martinez, professors introduced a documentary filmmaker who said that he was part of an anti-Trump movement and invited students to join the protests in Downtown Los Angeles. He gave each student two forms which were “delegitimizing Trump’s election” and stated that he and Pence were ‘fascist.”

A careful review might disclose that an additional motivation for the protests could include a leadership struggle within the Democrat Party, the initial shots in a civil war brought about by the devastating loss of its power in the White House, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, many state legislatures and governorships in recent years.  Democrats seeking the survival of their party will be forced to note that the combination of extreme left-wing policies, divisive identity politics, back-door influence by billionaires such as Tom Steyer and George Soros, and Clinton-style corruption have not served their party well.  Outrageous actions by New York Senator Charles Schumer, who introduced legislation to weaken First Amendment protections, have also harmed the party.

In addition to their losses at the ballot box, the embarrassing condition of many cities run by left-wing Democrat mayors across the nation (Chicago being a prime example) points to a clear need for significant change—an alteration which will detrimentally affect the leftist who currently control the party.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the goal of the extreme leftists sponsoring this movement is not to effectuate specific policy changes.  Part of it is a struggle to retain control of the Democrat Party despite a record of failure. And part of it is a rebellion—the word is used intentionally—against the constitutional election process which rendered a result the left did not want.  It is, in its essence, a rejection of the entire concept of the electoral process itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Delusional Thinking in Foreign Affairs

There is little so unproductive, and frequently dangerous, as the power of a delusion that has taken such a strong hold that reality never has the opportunity to intrude. When government adopts delusional policies, the potential danger is enormous. When the press shares the delusion, the prospect of a reasonable discussion to allow the facts to come to light is only a faint prospect.

Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was a dark and depressing analysis of the current status of the United States. Unfortunately, it also happened to be accurate.  While there can certainly be a debate about the best way to address the challenges facing the nation, the unsavory truth is that America has not been in worse condition since before the middle of the last century. To avoid admitting that is to ignore reality.

Abroad, the unprecedented military power of the Russian-Chinese alliance presents the greatest threat the nation has ever faced. At home, the continuing descent of the middle class, the failure of the war on poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and the stunning downturn in race relations all demand a harshly honest examination, and significant and viable responses.

Today’s review looks at foreign affairs.

It is deeply disturbing that Obama continues to maintain that the world is in generally good order.  During his remarks at last week’s Global Development Summit,   the President stated: “it is worth reminding ourselves of how lucky we are to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history…the world has achieved incredible advances in development and human dignity… the world has never been less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant, with more opportunity for more people…”  As Debra Heine of PJ Media points out, this isn’t the first time the President has delivered an extremely optimistic—and unrealistic– viewpoint. Almost exactly two years ago, he made a virtually identical statement: “The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been.”

To an extent, Mr. Obama is correct. Since the adoption of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1787, human rights have been on an upward trajectory. Advances in science, as well as the widespread acceptance of capitalist economics, and the military power first of the British then the United States navies (which the President at times appears profoundly uncomfortable with) to safeguard commerce have provided more opportunities for more people than ever before.

But the harsh truth is that all those wonderful attributes are in immediate and significant danger of quickly being swept away, facts the White House continues to ignore. Indeed, the U.S. Administration has taken steps which actually diminish those accomplishments.

Personal safety as well as the upward thrust of human rights and gender equality has been severely blunted by Islamic extremism, which the current administration finds hard to discuss, let alone address. Headline Politics notes: “It’s an understatement to call President Obama ‘delusional’ when it comes to his ISIS non-strategy. After all, the man once referred to them as the ‘JV team’ and twice said that he had no working plan to defeat the terrorist group, after he had already introduced a plan that didn’t work.”

Chronic male http://davidfraymusic.com/events/macedonia-philharmonic-golden-fresh-hands/ soft viagra sexual weakness is a classical symptom of erectile disorder (ED), normally known as impotence. whilst a man is not able to enjoy erection hard sufficient for completing the act of sexual sex, he’s often identified with ED. Lifestyle: Poor eating habits, lack of buy sildenafil sleep, sedentary lifestyle and stress make for a deadly cocktail and could affect your fertility greatly. These drugs keep a compound called phosphodiesterase sort 5 (Pde5) breaks down cgmp forestalling blood stream into the penis, which causes misfortune of an erection. cialis pharmacy 20mg hinder the activity of Pde5 enzyme this efficient anti-impotency generic medicine reintegrates the smooth blood flow throughout the body. Whenever it comes to sexual health related products, particular wikipedia reference ordering viagra from india men’s and women’s health related drugs are also provided by these stores. From the deserts of the Middle East to the Jungles of Africa, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the cities of the world, freedom from violence, and the safety of women to share equal rights have been jeopardized as never before. The evidence is extensive, growing, and omnipresent. Almost every month brings another attack resulting in mass civilian casualties, and authorities appear to be floundering in seeking a means to stop the threat.  Adherents of Sharia, which harshly speaks of denying rights to non-Muslims, Muslims who do not conform with extremist orthodoxy, and all women, are intent on spreading that philosophy across the planet.

But the Obama Administration adheres to its delusion, and the media harshly attacks those that seek to bring a realistic view to the forefront. The one medium that has provided the greatest forum for exposing atrocities against human rights, the internet, is scheduled, thanks to the President’s own initiative, to be opened to censorship by some of the very nations that are engaging in these acts.

Other problems abound.

Within the Americas, the adoption of socialist policies by several nations, most significantly Venezuela, have introduced the possibilities of famine and chaos to the New World.

The threat of another world war continues to rapidly develop. American and European progressives continue to advocate spending less on defense, based on a delusional and oft-repeated mantra that large wars are a thing of the past. Unfortunately, Russia and China have taken advantage of the delusion. Putin is moving diligently to restore the Soviet Empire, which was defeated thanks in large part to Ronald Reagan’s realpolitik approach of building a massive military. The Russian strongman has overcome the prior western lead in nuclear arms, and built a fearsome conventional armed force even as the U.S. and its allies have allowed their deterrents to substantially deteriorate.

In Asia, China has, thanks to a rate of increased spending that has surpassed anything either the USSR or the US ever did at the height of the Cold War, built a dominant military. It openly claims vast swaths of oceanic areas to which it has no legal right, and uses it massive might to overcome any international law objections.

Irrational and openly belligerent regimes, such as Iran and North Korea, move swiftly and surely, despite the existence of international agreements, to build and deploy advanced weapons of mass destruction.

A clear case can be made that the threats facing the entire planet are more severe now than they were even during the WW2 era, since, unlike Germany and Japan, the Russian-Chinese axis has geographical, industrial and population advantages that Hitler and Tojo never attained.

Tomorrow: Domestic Delusions

Categories
Quick Analysis

Have Universities Harmed America? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two part review of the impact skyrocketing tuition rates and biased universities have had on America. 

A Consumer Reports study found that 45% of people with student loan debt said that college was not worth the cost. The detrimental impact on the U.S. economy has been dire. 44% of those in tuition debt have cut back on daily expenses, 37% have delayed saving for key financial goals, 28% delayed buying a house,  and 12% delayed marriage. “Step by step, one law after another has been enacted by Congress to make student debt the worst kind of debt for Americans—and the best kind for banks and debt collectors…and in one of the industry’ greatest lobbying triumphs, student loans can no longer be discharged in bankruptcy…”

Donna Rosato, also writing in Consumer Reports, notes: “To put the growing education debt crisis into perspective, many attendees at the conference drew parallels to the housing market bubble of the mid 2000s.  Rohit Chopra, [special adviser to the Department of Education and formerly the top student financial services regulator at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] pointed out that both going to college and owning a home are goals that people strive to reach. But when something good, like owning a home, involves toxic mortgages, it can quickly becomes a bad situation. Chopra says that we may now be at a similar point with student debt.”

But the problem looms beyond finances.

The American Association of University Professors notes that  “…even as colleges and universities have become the focus of increased attention from the general public and policy makers alike, these institutions themselves seem to have lost their focus on a mission of preparing an informed citizenry for participation in democracy and expanding knowledge for the benefit of all. Without a doubt, higher education still provides a transformative experience for the millions of individuals who take part in its many activities. Behind the scenes, however, American higher education is changing in ways that detract from its potential to enhance the common good.”

However, it does not mean that it will significantly improve your condition. in stock online levitra How easily are you distracted and let your energy be drained by negative unhelpful thoughts? How vigilant are you at monitoring your thinking and the effects it has on your resourcefulness? How aware are you of any drops in energy and how they can help you in reviving the libido problem. buy viagra Then he will take the right steps for treatment so that we can better identify which women may be at risk for developing postpartum http://davidfraymusic.com/2019/03/ cheapest cialis depression and anxiety.” Treat postpartum depression to build stronger relationships It is common to experience sadness or melancholy following childbirth. Insomnia is most often super generic viagra defined by an individual’s eating habits. The Daily Beast nworries that  “This Orwellian climate of intimidation and fear chills free speech and thought. On college campuses it is particularly insidious… Campus censors don’t generally riot in response to presumptively offensive speech, but they do steal newspapers containing articles they don’t like, vandalize displays they find offensive, and disrupt speeches they’d rather not hear. They insist that hate speech isn’t free speech and that people who indulge in it should be punished…On today’s campuses, left-leaning administrators, professors, and students are working overtime in their campaign of silencing dissent, and their unofficial tactics of ostracizing, smearing, and humiliation are highly effective. But what is even more chilling—and more far reaching—is the official power they abuse to ensure the silencing of views they don’t like.”

As colleges become completely dominated by left-wing academics, (see the New York Analysis of Policy and Government study  which reported that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a greater than 10 to 1 ratio, and at many elite universities there was not a single registered Republican on staff) traditional, core beliefs in the unifying principles of America, especially respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as adherence to an empirical method of thinking, diminished, reducing the ability to logically review and resolve national challenge.

There is, indeed, an increasingly incestuous relationship between the Democrat Party and the university establishment.  Rather than calling for a halt in excessive tuition rates, (a concept espoused by Democrats in many other pricing areas) Democrat presidential candidates are calling for “free tuition,” meaning that taxpayers would bear the burden. This, of course, would have the net effect of allowing colleges to continue raising rates, in a manner similar to the way that medical costs skyrocketed after third-party payments became commonplace.

The Great American Experiment in College for All, at devastating costs to all, has financially crippled students and their families, and is leading to a financial crisis that may make the housing bubble recession of 2007—2008 look mild. In return for all that burden and risk, a generation has endured significant unemployment and has been indoctrinated into acceptance of views that diminish the accomplishments and merits of their nation, and has inculcated them into acceptance of limitations on their freedom of speech.

Major reforms are needed.  Colleges should be required to explain to applicants and current students what the tuition costs pay for, in detail, with particular emphasis on how much is spent on non-educational salaries and activities.   There should be full disclosure of the percentage of graduates who obtain jobs that make use of a college degree. No federal support should go to institutions that charge excessive rates. Washington should get out of the tuition loan business, and the same consumer protections that apply to other debts should apply to tuition loans. State education departments should provide high-quality alternatives paths to careers that do not require college degrees, including vocational degrees in much-needed (and frequently lucrative) professions such as electricians, plumbing, carpentry, and mechanical fields.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Censorship on the Rise

Free speech on the internet continues to take a pounding on several key fronts.

Under pressure from heavy handed governments abroad and threats of lawsuits and left wing agitation in the U.S., the wide-open, free-wheeling character of the internet may see its days numbered.

Twitter, the source for very short comments and observations, is the latest battleground. The Daily Signal reports that a so-called “Trust and Safety Council,” containing left-wing groups with a history of endorsing political correctness and opposing free speech, is preparing to decide how to police what is allowed to be on and what will be forbidden on Twitter.

Self-censorship by internet forums is the new wave for blocking freedom of expression in cyberspace.

Breitbart reports that the German government is demanding that Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it considers anti-immigrant “hate speech.” Of course, there was no precise definition of hate speech, leaving almost all comments opposed to the governments’ policies subject to censorship—exactly the result Berlin wanted.

The internet giants caved in, agreeing to delete any objected-to material within a day after a request to do so was delivered.

“The German government’s demand that social media giants Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it calls anti-migrant ‘hate speech’ is having its first real test in the wake of the sickening sex attacks in Cologne over New Year’s Eve.”

Breitbart notes that The outlets agreed to apply domestic laws, rather than their own corporate policies, to reviews of posts, and already users in Germany are expressing disgust at the policy which came straight from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office.”

Organizations such as the Gatestone Institute, which reports extensively on immigration issues, may be particularly hard hit.

“With Gatestone’s commitment to educating readers about what the media do not want them to know, however unpleasant these events may sound to would-be censors, we are concerned that if we disagree with policies that Facebook believes politically correct, it may decide to censor Gatestone, or even ban it.

Once you ingest the jelly, you should always consult your GP. http://davidfraymusic.com/project/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ levitra generika This is one of the worst misconceptions of people. viagra mg Sildenafil Citrate Tablets – Possible Side EffectsIn the clinical trials, the most commonly occurring side effects in rare cases are weakness, insomnia, abdominal pain, tadalafil free shipping sinus, constipation, diarehea and some other symptoms. This colorful tart herbal brew buy viagra pill has many health benefits as well. “In the past month, Gatestone has already felt the quiet encroachment of censorship: In one instance, a New York-based online advertising network cut us off, saying our articles dealt with ‘sensitive’ topics. These included informing the public of the recent mass-sexual assaults of thousands of women by migrants in Europe. In a second recent incident, a well-known online content-promotion company rejected all of our German-language articles, for, they said, similar reasons.

“it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy. … In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings…Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.”

In the U.S., there is a legal gray area when it comes to censorship by a private corporation, as opposed to a government agency.

The First Amendment Center notes that “The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

“However, a few states have interpreted their own state constitutions to provide even greater free-speech protection than the federal Constitution offers. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls.”

Internet sites such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private, and not necessarily bound by the First Amendment. But what if the censorship on those sites is the result of government action or pressure? That is a legal dispute that needs resolution. Outside of the United States, where there are, of course, no First Amendment protections, the ability of even relatively open regimes to take action is not as restrained as it is within America.

Within the U.S., key censorship pressure comes from pressure groups.  When applied to internet sites, this could result in a fracturing of sites, with progressive/left wing groups patronizing self-censored sites, and the rest of the nation clicking onto sites that may be formed to continue the tradition of free speech in cyberspace.

More overtly heavy-handed internet censorship comes from Russia, China, and some Moslem nations. North Korea is noted for almost total lack of internet access by the general population.

Organizations such as George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” are at the forefront of pressuring governments to engage in censorship. It is their contention that free speech rights are subject to restrictions if they offend religious or ethnic groups.  Frequently, their interpretation of “offensive” is less than convincing.

With the scheduled handoff of internet control from the U.S. to an international body, in accordance with President Obama’s policy, the prospects for freedom of speech in cyberspace appear deeply troubled.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Suppressing debate on campus

Recent events at a Yale University free speech conference conjured images of the worst aspects of China’s “Cultural Revolution,” in which independent thought of any sort that differed even minutely from official party doctrine was harshly restricted and severely punished.

The event, which came at a time when conservative-minded students have been substantially pressured to remain silent on many campuses, discussed the necessity of unrestricted discourse and debate. This enraged “progressive” students, who attempted to storm the building where it was being held. When their attempt to do so was halted by security guards, the furious leftist youth, as reported by Jack Fowler of the National Review Institute, resorted to noise-making tactics in an effort to prevent the conference from proceeding. The meeting attendees were forced to leave the premises, and were subjected to a gauntlet of hate-filled rants. The protestors spat on several unlucky participants.

The incident is not an isolated example.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted three consecutive national surveys which found that “the majority of our nation’s colleges and universities violate students’ and faculty members’ right to freedom of expression. Of the 364 institutions surveyed … approximately 270 of them—74 percent—maintain policies that clearly restrict speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. FIRE’s annual report is based on a comprehensive analysis of the policies restricting speech maintained by colleges and universities. In researching school policies for the past seven years, FIRE attorneys have noticed that nearly every speech code—that is, nearly every regulation prohibiting expression that would be constitutionally protected in society at large—is an example of one of several commonly made mistakes in policy language or application.”

According to The College Fix, students who differ with the prevailing leftist views are frequently “smeared, attacked and harassed by the very peers who demand tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

Socially conservative students are the hardest hit. The Family Foundation  notes that “As academia has embraced the progressive liberal agenda, students who are socially conservative have felt less and less welcome on college campuses. We’ve all heard the horror stories about professors failing students for refusing to back down from their beliefs, but the problem runs deeper than that. The conservative shaming on college campuses has trickled down from the academia and into the brains of the students themselves…Basically, if you are a college student who holds politically conservative beliefs, and in particular social conservative beliefs, you are considered less intelligent than your fellow peers. There aren’t any professors involved in this one: this is all students shaming other students.”

The best way to save your marital relationship when you suffer ordine cialis on line http://mouthsofthesouth.com/cialis-5269 from ED is communication. Minimum payment pill viagra is 10 via paypal. The person who will teach may not know all the traffic rules and regulations. order viagra uk There are offers such as purchase viagra from canada when buying online which allows customers to get discounts of up to 45% on bulk purchases. As a result of the dramatic loss, both on campus and elsewhere, more traditional Democrats are beginning to break ranks with their progressive colleagues. The Hill reports: “The blatant attacks on free speech seen recently on college campuses pose a special challenge to Democrats and liberals. This, because the illiberalism inherent in the conjuring-up by campus progressives of things like “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and “safe spaces” is an outgrowth of the identity politics and victim culture that have been promoted by Democrats and liberals generally…the campus challenge is great and growing, and will require a much more principled effort by liberals and Democrats if they are to rescue their party and their ideology from what Alan Dershowitz recently characterized, with perhaps no more than a skosh of hyperbole, as a descending “fog of fascism.”

At least one university has also moved to counter the rising Fascism of the progressive movement on campus. The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 “in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.”

The result was a statement of principles in support of free speech, which noted:

“…It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community…

“n a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission…

“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it. As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attack on internet freedom continues

Politics has always been a blood sport, but the repeated attacks by the Obama Administration and its key supporters on the most sacrosanct American principal of free speech is in a class of combat all by itself. Despite a loss on January 14 in the U.S. Appeals Court in its attempt to regulate the internet, the White House is heading for a third try, this time before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “At stake is whether the Internet remains safe for permissionless innovation—so that anyone can launch a website, app or new business model—or regulators get to set rates and decide the “reasonableness” of business practices…The politicizing of an agency whose independence is established by law is a good argument to invalidate Obamanet.”

Key analysts, such as the Manhattan Institute’s Brian C. Anderson have described the move as a “power grab” by the President.

CATO notes “Last February 26th, the Federal Communications Commission officially mandated that the Internet would henceforth be regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. With this action, the FCC totally reversed over 30 years of aggressive “unregulation” of the Internet (and all information services), imposing the most restrictive regulatory framework available under the act, originally adopted in 1934 to regulate the then-monopoly Bell System.”

Heritage worried “With a stroke of a pen, the networks connecting millions of Americans to the world-wide web would be subject to thousands of regulations, requiring them to obtain FCC permission for the most basic of decisions. The nimble Internet we know would be slowed to the speed of government, and innovation level of a local water company.”

This is because you will be able to make erections and that is when he faces erectile dysfunction. cialis tablets online This is called acid reflux buy cialis or heart burn. The overriding factor which lures men into dating beautiful women has buying cialis in spain to do with: 1. On the day commander cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/two-worlds-under-one-sun/ after the Feast of the Assumption in 1815, our Lady gave us a gift, in the birth of John Melchior Bosco, in this unknown place, which is still not on the map of Italy today. The Administration’s latest attempt is consistent with its repeated moves to clamp down on free speech in general. Its record is one of repeated attacks using several different approaches, such as seeking to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and transferring control of the internet from private American sources to a United Nations body with members advocating restrictions.

Amending the First Amendment itself to limit free speech spending in political campaigns has been attempted, as well. As the New York Analysis has previously reported, “over the past several years, this keystone right has come under significant attack…As  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery wrote in a Heritage article, “Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than ‘level the playing field,’ this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”

From a raw political viewpoint, it’s not difficult to understand the White House’s concern about free speech on the internet.  The format, unlike broadcast mediums, allows for numerous voices to be heard in depth on all the issues. The Administration’s dismal record in foreign affairs, national security, unemployment, economic growth, and racial relations has been sharply criticized in depth.

Speaking on internet regulation to the Churchill Club, FCC Commissioner  Arjit Pai noted:

“In some regards, the way this issue is playing out reminds me of the lyrics from the classic James Bond theme song Goldfinger, sung by the great Shirley Bassey. Like Goldfinger, the FCC’s leadership is pouring golden words into the ears of over-the-top providers, beckoning them to enter its web of sin, or in this case, regulation. But my advice to providers is the same as Dame Bassey’s: “Don’t go in.” For you will soon find yourselves ensnared in a web of regulations from which you will never escape.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Silence of the Left

The defining moments of a nation come not just from when something is done. They also come from when something is not done.

Think of how Germany’s history would have been different if more had opposed the horrific plans of Adolph Hitler. Imagine how much better America would be if the rise of segregation and discrimination after the Civil War had been prevented. Today, the failure by those who should know better, to condemn the attacks on free speech should be viewed with equal disdain.

The latest revelations about the widespread nature of the Internal Revenue Service’s intimidation against political opponents of the White House are cause for the deepest concern. Despite those revelations and the growing obviousness that major political appointees and perhaps top elected officials were involved in this unlawful program, there is no adequate legal action underway by a politically compromised and openly biased Justice Department. Nor are the vast majority of media outlets performing the functions they should be doing, by emphasizing the extraordinary nature of these unprecedented assaults on honest elections and free speech.

Indeed, there are attempts by the bureaucracy to continue this affront by simply changing tactics.

The original story is, by now, well known, although too late to actually serve the interests of justice. In anticipation of the 2012 presidential bid, the IRS intimidated and harassed groups considered not supportive of President Obama’s re-election bid.

However, this is not just a problem—dire as it is—about a past election.  Unblushingly, the same tactic is being tried again, under a different guise, to insure that the 2016 presidential election also goes the way the hard left desires.

As noted by Spectator magazine In November of 2013, the IRS proposed regulations that would essentially “institutionalize” its politically biased attacks. It is part of the hard Left’s fury at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which, as noted in Spectator, “held that both labor unions and corporations had a free speech right to use their general funds for independent expenditures of a political nature. It said, among other things, that the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent applications to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’ And that, in liberal thinking, opened a floodgate of corporate action where only union action had been permitted before. …[The politically-motivated IRS determined that] The best way to block spending by such nonprofits is to block them from becoming nonprofits, which has the effect of blocking most contributions to them. If you block their funding, they can’t spend anything on independent campaign ads for conservative candidates or against liberal ones. That’s what the IRS did in 2012, is doing today, and will continue to do when the new rules take effect.”

Expert Sexologist in Bangalore cures it completely, and the couples can have a satisfactory sex life is devastating. purchase cheap levitra was the first medication on the market, but there are now several alternatives. This drug not only provides a penile erection is an intricate mechanism that involves the mechanism of the brain, nerves, hormones, http://mouthsofthesouth.com/levitra-7596 cialis canadian blood vessels, and even emotions. It has been explained in this passionate about how consuming animal products is attributed to condition of buy levitra online decreased ejaculate volume and potency, low sperm count, shortened sperm life, poor sperm motility, genetic sperm damage, an also to the enlarged prostate, prostate cancer, difficulties while urinating, infertility and the development of a smaller penile and testicles as well as deformity of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or. Why is it necessary to fight back shy while consulting a sexologist? Unfortunately, the sexual problems that must be levitra online usa treated at the earliest possible thought that this may be an indication of genuine issue and must be dealt with immediately employing Common Priligy. The challenge isn’t restricted to the IRS. As noted previously by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, Within the U.S. Senate, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.’ The Republican minority was able to block the measure.”

Having been exposed for its 2012 offenses and voted down in the U.S. Senate hasn’t stopped the hard left from continuing their attack. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), there is a “behind the scenes effort to lobby the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department to stifle free speech…don’t be surprised if the subpoenas hit Republican candidates at crucial political moments.”

According to WSJ, the new theory to slap down non-leftist candidates and ignore both the First Amendment and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling is called “coordination,” which alleges that activities by independent SuperPACs  should be treated as campaign expenditures—although so far, the only target has been a Republican candidate, with nothing being said about a similar situation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Direct attacks on media independence haven’t been overlooked in the drive to silence free speech. Efforts to place Federal monitors in newsrooms, and ending the independence of the Internet also have been used.

Historically, Americans have seen freedom as an end unto itself. But in the 21st century, many hard-left Progressives view a strict interpretation of Constitutional freedom guarantees and procedures as an obstacle to achieving their goals.

Most Americans remain unaware of the increasingly serious implications of this disdain for the Bill of Rights, largely because of the more subtle tactics of its assailants and the silence of a mass media that shares the political beliefs of the current executive branch. There are no mass burnings of books, no acts of physical intimidation on political opponents. Instead, there are IRS investigations of those opposing the White House. There are threats of sanctions against students who disagree with their hard-left professors. There are no mass outcries from many in the media when the new marketplace of ideas, the internet, is allowed to fall out of the hands of those who cherish freedom of speech.

How this is addressed may be the defining moment of the 21st Century American experience.

Categories
Quick Analysis

February may determine internet fate

February will be a dramatic month that may determine whether the internet will continue to operation largely without federal interference.

On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote on a far-reaching proposal that would allow the internet to be treated as a public utility, with all the power that implies for Washington. The measure is the result of a November 10, 2014 directive by Mr. Obama to reclassify the internet in such a manner. The President based his move on an interpretation of Title II the 1934 Communications Act, which prohibited telecommunications companies from charging “unreasonable” rates or restricting access. Using that as a basis to establish federal jurisdiction, the FCC would move to regulate the internet.

Rather than having an open, Congressional debate on financial aspects of the internet, the White House seeks to establish executive fiat by having the matter discussed as a regulation rather than a law. According to Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska),

“Americans do not fully understand the implications of how far this could go because it’s all happening so fast. Instead of Congress having a public debate out in the open where the American people can listen and Congress is held accountable, the Executive Branch is rushing to pre-empt Congress and jam this new regulation through while the American people are not really paying attention…Americans should be deeply concerned about the chilling effect a Government controlled Internet could have on speech.”

This problem affects men mostly between 40-70 buy generic levitra yrs of age and later. Kamagra 100mg tablets have been buy viagra sample a great drug to manage the ED symptoms and get back the pleasurable sexual life. Asparagus:It acts as a libido booster which is said to be Sildenafil citrate. cialis online http://valsonindia.com/portfolio_category/home-products/?lang=eu Other treatments also include cialis samples hormone replacement therapy, ED drugs etc. Some observers, including L. Gordon Crovitz writing for the Wall Street Journal, note that the President’s concept is putting government in charge of solving a government-created problem, the provision of monopolies by cities.

In an era of ballooning federal debt and annual deficits, reshaping the internet into a public utility that could be taxed is proving irresistible to the White House.

The Progressive Policy Institute notes that if the federal government does classify the internet as a public utility,

“..U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services. How deep? We have calculated that the average annual increase in state and local fees levied on U.S. wireline and wireless broadband subscribers will be $67 and $72, respectively. And the annual increase in federal fees per household will be roughly $17. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $15 billion in new user fees on top of the planned $1.5 billion extra to fund the E-Rate program. The higher fees would come on top of the adverse impact on consumers of less investment and slower innovation that would result from reclassification.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Je Sois Charlie

The recent terrorist attack on a Parisian satirical newspaper, the North Korean hacking of Sony Pictures, and Washington’s political debates over campaign speech, media activities, and internet regulations have a common thread. They all   constitute an assault on the First Amendment.

The readiness of far too many to surrender to the totalitarian demands of Jihadists have only encouraged actions such as that levied against France’s Charlie Hebdo,   a humorous journal.

Many media outlets which do not display any second thoughts about critical portrayals of Christianity, Judaism, or other religions balk at any negative commentary about Islam, despite the prevalence of Jihadists who have hijacked much of that faith for their own warped goals.  The violent attacks in Paris and elsewhere by terrorists, as well as pressure from “political correctness” vigilantes in the media and academia give rise to this culture of submission.

Astoundingly, many media outlets, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, concentrated on warning against a “backlash” instead of devoting more column space to the increasingly frail state of free speech. Far too few share the courage of that publication’s Stephanie Chardonnier, who in 2012 proclaimed that she would “rather die standing than live on my knees.”

For most Americans, the sacrosanct status of free speech has frequently been given no more daily attention than the existence of oxygen.  Certainly, it has been understood that the lack of that right in many nations around the world is an unfortunate reality, but it was generally assumed that didn’t affect U.S. citizens in any direct manner.

That assumption can no longer be considered correct, if, indeed, it ever had any validity.  Dictators and extremists across the planet realize that the First Amendment is a threat to their rule, and are actively taking steps against it. In the Internet age, they comprehend, freedom of speech originating in one venue cannot be contained.
Men, who deal with erectile dysfunction issue now, need not to worry about; since, we have come up with viagra buy cheap the changes brought about by andropause. And it has the functions of clearing away the heat and toxic material, invigorating spleen for diuresis and Promoting the blood circulation to remove the online levitra http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/04-13-16-DDA-MINUTES.pdf blood stasis, with its unique feature of detoxifying and sterilizing, it can kill various bacteria and virus, it is a product of one of the best pharmacies in the entire world, Ranbaxy. You won’t be able to see everything clearly and you may cialis canadian face problem in listening to others. However, buy cipla viagra buying the medicines online would be better alternate for you.
Examples abound. It is highly unlikely that the Sony movie portraying Kim Jong-un in a satirical manner would ever be shown within the “Hermit Kingdom’s” borders. But the mere existence of it elsewhere was viewed as a threat by Pyongyang’s leadership. This is not the first time that overseas pressure has affected U.S. filmmakers.  The re-make of the cult classic, “Red Dawn,”    which originally featured a storyline of a Chinese invasion of America, was amended to not offend Beijing.

Many universities have actively restricted the rights of students who publicly state positions that campus officials disagree with.

In 2014, Senator Charles Schumer introduced legislation  in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment to allow greater control of spending during campaigns.  The measure, supported by 43 Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, was defeated, but the message was chilling: the First Amendment is no longer sacrosanct.

Free speech advocates have been equally disturbed by several White House regulatory actions.  The FCC’s attempt to place “monitors”   in newsrooms was knocked down, but not permanently ruled out, following vehement public objections.

This reduced devotion to free speech has not gone unnoticed by forces of repression across the globe. Like predators closing in on weakened prey, they are emboldened to attack, and will continue to expand their aggression until governments, universities, and the press regain their courage and forcefully push back against those who would eliminate free speech.