Whose Truth Should We Be Allowed To Hear?

[Blues Man]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.



There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.

They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place

"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "

No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.

You do when you write this drivel every day of the week.

Yet, here you are again.

It appears that 'drivel' is your favorite dish.

That was 11 days ago , Honey

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.



There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.

They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place

"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "

No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.

You do when you write this drivel every day of the week.

Yet, here you are again.

It appears that 'drivel' is your favorite dish.

That was 11 days ago , Honey

And here you are again.


Face it.....I am the flame to you, moth.


And.....you'll be back.

 

[Blues Man]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.



There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.

They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place

"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "

No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.

You do when you write this drivel every day of the week.

Yet, here you are again.

It appears that 'drivel' is your favorite dish.

That was 11 days ago , Honey

And here you are again.


Face it.....I am the flame to you, moth.


And.....you'll be back.

I respond to people who quote me, even you.

Don't forget you're the on who backtracked for a post from almost 2 weeks ago not me

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.



There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment.

They shouldn't get special treatment in the first place

"Taking away preferential tax treatment is NOT punishment. "

No one proves the depth of your stupidity better than you.

You do when you write this drivel every day of the week.

Yet, here you are again.

It appears that 'drivel' is your favorite dish.

That was 11 days ago , Honey

And here you are again.


Face it.....I am the flame to you, moth.


And.....you'll be back.

I respond to people who quote me, even you.

Don't forget you're the on who backtracked for a post from almost 2 weeks ago not me

I told you you'd be back: I'm never wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.



1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.


Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.



4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia



5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.

In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.

And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.

"Twitter Blocks NY Post’s Hunter Biden Story, Locks Newspaper’s Account

Twitter blocked users from tweeting a New York Post report about Hunter Biden on Wednesday afternoon and soon after locked the Post‘s account, in a growing trend by predominantly left-wing technology companies to ban content with which they disagree.

"@Twitter has locked @nypost," Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) tweeted. "Has Twitter ever locked the account of a major news outlet? Why is Twitter attacking the free press?"

Hours before, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) tweeted that Twitter had disabled the link to the story and denounced the social media platform for choosing to "act as Biden's PR team."


Twitter currently employs the former press secretary of Joe Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, as its senior communications manager for "political, policy, tech and media reporters."

The news comes after Facebook also moved to suppress the story before it was fact-checked."

Twitter Blocks NY Post's Hunter Biden Story, Locks Newspaper's Account

Twitter blocked users from tweeting a New York Post report about Hunter Biden on Wednesday afternoon and soon after locked the Post's account.

freebeacon.com

Perhaps you recall the assault SWAT teams performed on Roger Stone's home....

"Armed FBI agents storm Roger Stone's home in CNN video of his arrest

A group of heavily armed FBI agents stormed Roger Stone's Florida home on Friday morning, as seen in a dramatic CNN video.

Stone, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump, is accused by a federal grand jury of lying about the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Law enforcement vehicles with flashing lights, but without sirens, are seen parked nearby Stone's Fort Lauderdale home shortly after 6 a.m. ET Friday, CNN reports. The network has aired the footage multiple times Friday. "

Armed FBI agents storm Roger Stone's home in CNN video of his arrest

A group of heavily armed FBI agents stormed Roger Stone's Florida home on Friday morning, as seen in a dramatic CNN video.

www.heraldmailmedia.com

Sure would love to have seen the same on Dorsey and Zuckerberg's palaces for the censorship of anti-Biden news.