Evidently Hillary is going to try to run again.

 Otherwise my post from 2016 wouldn't be receiving the scrutiny it has gotten.

http://txfellowship.blogspot.com/2016/10/from-inbox-facts-just-facts-maam.html

After requesting a review, they took down the notice. But WHY are they targeting ANYTHING about that person from 2016?

There is NO reason to be trying to clean up anything about Hillary UNLESS she is planning on try to run again.

So make your own determination.

I just got a content strike - (Paul Joseph Watson)

not for a particular page, but for ALL pages of mine that have Paul Joseph Watson videos on them.

So someone looked at my blog, saw that I have content from Paul Joseph Watson on my blog, then did a search for all of the tags for "Paul Joseph Watson" and THEN opened a complaint on the tags for "Paul Joseph Watson"

How petty can you possibly be?

A man says something you don't agree with and someone else simply posts his video for information, so NOW you arbitrarily decide that you are going to mess with someone's income and reputation because YOU are a thinned skinned, ignorant, small minded individual, who can't take criticism and tries to bully others through FALSE accusations and bearing false witness.

SO you tell me who is the real jerk here...

A man who says something you don't agree with.

Or you the person who is trying to shut down speech.

American Enterprise Institute - Christina Hoff Sommers & Sir Roger Scruton - Free speech - philosophy - and art - VIEWPOINT

On Free Speech

"Trope Six: "This isn't free speech, it's [category]"

Example: "It’s not free speech. It’s bullying and intimidation. It’s a horror show." Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, February 17, 2015.

The First Amendment is, in a way, categorical: there are well-defined categories of speech that are not protected, as I discussed above. But media commentators often abuse categorical thinking by inventing new categories of speech outside the First Amendment. "This isn't free speech, it's hate speech." "This isn't free speech, it's discrimination."

And much much more.

Click on the above link to read the whole thing

An Interesting Treatise on the First Amendment

An Explanation of Free Speech For Morons and Arthur Chu

Some of the "Money Quotes"

"you only have two responsibilities towards free speech: use it and defend it"

 But don’t you have a responsibility to be mature, or to avoid giving offense, or to be constructive? No, you don’t"

"The argument here is, basically, “Charlie Hebdo is racist, if you don’t agree, go read this book on racism and then come back to me.”"

"If we followed this law, you’d never be able to say a bad word about any ideology. How many poor Christians inhabit the southern United States? And how does the existence of these poor Christians inhibit the criticism that Christianity receives on a daily basis? It isn’t a trick question"

You really should click over and read the whole thing

FCC Approves new Regulations

"The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday adopted sweeping new regulations sought by President Obama for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, in a party-line vote that is sure to be challenged by the broadband industry.

The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."

But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone." 

Be prepared for the FEC and the SEC and all the other ..C agencies and branches of the government taking a closer interest in any on-line content.  In the phrasing, above you see the two words in quotes "Public Interest" which means that they can regulate content that they deem to be detrimental to the "Public Interest".  It also opens up the door for the government to develop new "Income Streams" through new taxes, and possibly requiring permits or licenses to do things like my little blog here.  Or my Blog Talk Radio Show which I need to reboot.

Keep your eyes open, this is JUST the beginning.

This should have NEVER happened in Texas - updated

"A North Texas high school silenced its Valedictorian's microphone during his speech, prompting questions over his free speech rights.

Students attending the Joshua High School graduation say Remington Reimer's microphone was cut off, right when he began to talk about the Constitution.

"He just said, he was talking about getting constitutional rights getting taken away from him," Colin Radford, a Joshua H.S. graduate, said. "And then he said, just yesterday they threatened to turn my microphone off, and then his microphone went off."

I think some School Administrators need to be FIRED!

H/t Sipsey Street Irregulars

Mike McDaniel who either is a current or a former teacher for the Joshua ISD has more pertinent information.

Joshua, TX: Free Speech and Experience

Free Speech for them, but not for us

Figures. 7th Year Human Rights Major and Gay Activist Rips Down Campus Free Speech Wall …It Was Offensive

Why is it, that the First Amendment which specifically PROTECTS speech that may be offensive, causes someone who is SUPPOSEDLY learned in the RIGHTS of EVERY HUMAN, tries to impose their own belief on others. That is the problem with Institutions of HIGHER Learning, they IMPOSE a WARPED Belief Structure on students, who then forever after have to function in the REAL world.  and as the above mentioned "Human Rights Major" has shown, THEY CAN'T.

They Cannot operate in the real world, so they try to impose their beliefs through tearing down "Free Speech" walls, showing disdain, and contempt for those so "uncouth" and "unenlightened" as they are.

Brainwashed Flavor-Aid drinkers of the worst kind.  Jim Jones would have loved them.

Some peoples speech is more protected than others

"Piers Morgan likes to portraypeople who are concerned that someday America might turn into a tyranny as peoplewho are paranoid.  Never mind that thiswas a “paranoia” shared by the Founding Fathers, in his advocacy againstFreedom of Expression, Piers Morgan has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt: tyrannycould happen here.  And so by denigratingthe First Amendment, he has demonstrated why we need the Second: in case a twitwith Morgan’s beliefs ever gets into power."

It's long but be sure to read down to where Piers Morgan refused to apologize for posting fake photos that were endangering the lives of British Troops.  The money quote:

"The BBC's Nicholas Witchell said it appeared Piers Morgan remained unrepentant right to the end

"According toone report Mr Morgan refused the demand to apologise, was sacked andimmediately escorted from the building," he said."

Another from Peter about the Embassy attacks

"The attacks on US embassies in Libya (where the Ambassador and several other staff members were killed), Egypt and Yemen have several elements that have not been discussed in any mainstream media report that I've seen so far.  I'd like to highlight them. 

1.  These attacks were not random events.


These were clearly well-planned, co-ordinated attacks across national boundaries.  They happened on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11;  they happened within hours of each other;  they were encouraged and co-ordinated by a Web site run by a Saudi fundamentalist who published blatant lies about a movie being made in the USA, thereby whipping up popular emotion;  and demonstrators in Egypt chanted the names of 'Obama' and 'Osama', bragging that there were a billion Osamas-in-waiting (supported by the appearance of Al Qaeda flags, which is a clear indication of who's behind them)."

Peter goes further into detail and I believe he points out exactly where to pin the blame.Click the above link to go Read The Whole Thing

Obama wants Constitutional Amendment to limit free speech

From Weasel Zippers We get the below linked story:

"President Barack Obama used the online springboard provided by Reddit to dive into the media crush at the GOP convention, with a skillfully executed call for a constitutional amendment to curb the free-speech of wealthier people and corporations.

“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United. … Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change,” Obama said during 4:30 p.m. EST online event."

Oh really? How about we limit the funds Unions can give to political campaigns, and Political Action Committees? How about we limit the franchise ONLY to people who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES. Just how free will we be then?