Free Speech

Arizona restaurant closes following backlash from its pro-Trump Facebook post

An Arizona restaurant was forced to close its doors indefinitely this week after a politically charged Facebook post the eatery’s owners wrote prompted mass criticism from social media users. Christopher Smith and Jay Warren, the owners of Cup it Up American Grill in Tucson, posted a statement on the restaurant’s social media page last week with a list of things the two support and resent, including the president, kneeling for the anthem and late night hosts, Vice News reported. The post stated: “We believe in and support 100% in the following: OUR President, Always Standing for the National Anthem, repealing Obama Care…” The post also listed, God, the Bill of Rights, drug screening for welfare recipients and the U.S. Armed Forces among others they praised. Their list of things they don’t believe in or support included: “Those that DON’T respect our President, Armed Forces and First Responders, kneeling for the national anthem, Antifa, fake news, global warming and late night hosts getting political…” The post concluded with: “If you like this post, please share it with 5 friends and we look forward to your next visit! If you disagree with this post, please share it with 100 friends and we won’t be expecting you anytime soon!” The restaurant’s post also mentioned the eatery would not broadcast NFL games until “the organization got it together.” The post, which went viral, was met with widespread backlash and criticism, forcing the restaurant to delete it and all its social media accounts. The restaurant received “so many angry phone calls” that several employees chose to quit, reports say. “People threatened to burn down the restaurant with the owners in it. It’s a crazy world we’re in,” Ron Sanchez, whose daughter worked at the eatery, told ABC15. Ericka Ayup, a regular customer of the restaurant, told ABC 15 the post was not “smart” but respected their opinion. “I respected their decision to speak up and be patriotic whether people agree or not,” Ayup told ABC 15. “It wasn’t smart for them to do what they did from a business aspect especially being down here in the University — which is more liberal and young.” The restaurant apologized for the post but social media users flooded the eatery’s Yelp page with negative reviews. Last Monday, the restaurant posted a statement on its door, announcing it would be closing indefinitely. “We have made a decision to close our doors indefinitely as of today, Monday, October 9, 2017. The safety of our employees, and our families is of great concern and is our #1 priority at this time,” the statement said. “We would also like to extend a special thanks to our Military and First responders. Thank you all and God Bless.”

This is the country we live in now….where the pc police and speech nazis will go after you, and shut your business down if you dare to exercise your First Amendment rights to say something they don’t agree with.  Oh well..  We hope Cup it Up reopens soon!

French: New College Student Survey: Yes, Speech Can Be Violence

If you follow free-speech controversies for any length of time, you’ll understand two things about public opinion. First, an overwhelming percentage of Americans will declare their support for free speech. Second, a shocking percentage of Americans also support censoring speech they don’t like. How is this possible? It’s simple. “Free speech” is good speech, you see. That’s the speech that corrects injustices and speaks truth to power. That other speech? The speech that hurts my feelings or hurts my friends’ feelings? That’s “hate speech.” It might even be violence. A new survey of college students demonstrates this reality perfectly. Conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for Yale’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program, the survey queried 800 college students attending four-year private or public colleges, and the results were depressingly predictable. First, the “good” news. Students claim to love free speech and intellectual diversity. For example, 83 percent agree that the First Amendment needs to be “followed and respected.” A whopping 84 percent agree that their school should “always do its best to promote intellectual diversity,” including by protecting free speech and inviting controversial speakers to campus. Similarly, 93 percent agree that there’s value in listening to and understanding “views and opinions that I may disagree with.” But that’s not good news at all. It’s simply evidence that in the abstract students will claim to be open-minded. They’ll claim to value different views — right until the moment they really get offended. For example, 81 percent agree with the statement that “words can be a form of violence.” A full 58 percent of students believe that colleges should “forbid” speakers who have a “history of engaging in hate speech.” And what is hate speech? The definition the students liked was staggeringly broad. Two-thirds agreed that hate speech is “anything that one particular person believes is harmful, racist, or bigoted.” They further agreed that hate speech “means something different to everyone.” Given these realities, it should come as no surprise that large numbers of students believe that interruptions or even violence are appropriate to stop offensive speech. Almost 40 percent believe that it’s “sometimes appropriate” to “shout down or disrupt” a speaker. A sobering 30 percent believe that physical violence can be used to stop someone from “using hate speech or engaging in racially charged comments.” It’s a small consolation that a slight majority of students say that they have not felt intimidated out of expressing their views — but this means that, in institutions allegedly dedicated to critical thinking and open inquiry, almost half the student respondents indicated they were indeed intimidated. Survey findings like this should serve as an alarm bell every bit as important as the shout-downs and attacks that dominate the headlines. Naysayers and defenders of the status quo on campus will argue that the censors represent a mere fringe, that our campuses are still more free than critics suggest. That may be true on some campuses, but these poll numbers indicate that the so-called radicals are perhaps more mainstream than we’d like to admit.

Indeed..  That sobering op/ed was written by attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French.   David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

Seth Rogen slammed for trying to get Costco to stop selling conservative writer’s book

Actor Seth Rogen was slammed on Monday for a tweet he sent two months ago trying to get Costco to stop selling a book written by a conservative writer. “The Big Lie” by Dinesh D’Souza claims to expose the “Nazi roots of the American left,” but Rogen took to Twitter on Aug. 13 to ask Costco, “Why do you sell books that compare left wing people like me to Nazis?” Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald even defended D’Souza, calling him a “liar” who has free speech rights to “spin his drivel.” Rogen responded, “I’m not saying they ban him or imprison him or fire him from whatever his job is. Just surprised they sell his sh– next to tubs of yogurt.” D’Souza quickly responded himself, “Don’t call a book sh– without reading it. If you do, I’d honestly like you to tell me what I got wrong.” The two-month old tweet gained attention on Monday when media analyst Mark Dice chimed in, “Look at this Hollywood Libtard acting like a Nazi trying to get a book banned. What’s next Seth? Burning them?” Dice’s comment resulted in his loyal followers poking fun at the “Knocked Up” actor, and has been retweeted and liked over 3,000 times. “He’s upset at being compared to a Nazi but has no problem comparing right wing people Nazis,” one user wrote, while another said, “Because Seth Rogan [sic] left wingers are socialists. The Nazis were socialists. You see the connection?” Dice’s presumably conservative followers piled on, with one writing, “He hasn’t read the book! They all run their mouths without a clue. Hollyweirds think normal people think like them. No we think for ourselves,” and another saying, Rogen “should probably stick to smoking pot and making unfunny movies. Leave the political commentary to the professionals.” Rogen is an outspoken liberal who offers his opinions via Twitter on a regular basis. On Monday he retweeted a photo mocking Stephen Bannon and defended women accusing movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment over the weekend. “I believe all the women coming forward about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment. It takes bravery to do so,” Rogen wrote. Rogen’s representatives did not immediate respond to request for comment.

Seth is a stunningly stupid person, and c’mon…let’s be honest..  He’s a dreadful actor.  I remember seeing The Green Hornet when it came out.  Kato was great!  Seth, was awful.  But, I digress..    I’ve seen Seth interviewed a few times, and I think I lost a few IQ points watching him.  Seth doesn’t understand the irony in him trying to get Costco to not sell a book because it compares extreme liberals to nazis.  Nazis are socialists by definition.  And, extreme liberals in this country like Bernie Sanders, Obama, Hillary could easily be called socialists.  Heck, Bernie openly admits he is a socialist!  Socialists also like to censor speech, etc. …kinda like what Seth is trying to do with Costco.  See the irony?  Someone needs to break it down for the pot-smoking moron.  I don’t have the patience..  Oh, and Dinish is a great writer.  Anything written by him is worth reading!

Federal court upholds prayer in Congress

A federal court ruled Wednesday that Congress can continue to open its sessions each day with a prayer, and upheld the House’s ability to pick and choose who’s allowed to lead the prayer. U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, a Bush appointee who sits in Washington, D.C., rejected a challenge by Daniel Barker, co-president of Freedom From Religion Foundation, who said he was not permitted to give an opening invocation, even though other guest chaplains have been permitted. Judge Collyer said House rules didn’t permit him to lead the prayer because he had left his faith. Judge Collyer also said an opening prayer has been a tradition in this country for more than two centuries, and the Supreme Court has ruled it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause. “To decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer,” Judge Collyer wrote in her opinion on Wednesday. Mr. Barker said her ruling was tainted by personal bias against nonreligious people. “The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers,” he said. But House Speaker Paul D. Ryan applauded the ruling. “Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated,” said Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican. He added the return of Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, who was shot earlier this year by a left wing zealot, reminded Congress of the power of prayer.

Indeed..  This ruling was spot on, and with precedent from the Supreme Court.  This idiot from FFRF got slapped down, and rightfully so.  This is a small, yet important, victory for religious freedom, and for freedom of speech.  As we’ve documented on numerous occasions here at The Daily Buzz… The whole notion of a “separation of church and state” is bs.  There is no such thing.  That phrase originated in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the members of a church where he raised the idea in a philosophical sense.  That’s it.  Nowhere in our founding legal documents (i.e. The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) is that phrase found.   Our founders intended freedom OF religion; NOT freedom FROM religion.  Kudos to Judge Collyer for her spot-on analysis, and excellent ruling!

UC student who stole ‘MAGA’ hat in viral video could face felony charges

A college student in California who says he was assaulted by a classmate for wearing a ‘MAGA’ hat on campus said he plans to file criminal charges against his attacker. Matthew Vitale, a member of the University of California, Riverside Republicans, said he was “stunned” when classmate Edith Macias snatched his “Make America Great Again” hat from his head during a campus meeting. Vitale alerted authorities after the incident but declined to press charges because campus police told him it would only be a misdemeanor. But then Macias posted a bizarre, profanity-laced “SnatchAHat” video online, which eventually went viral, that showed her physically removing the hat from his head – and then verbally attacking him for promoting “genocide.” By showing that she took it off his person, the crime rose to the level of felony, Vitale said campus police told him. And now, he says, he wants her arrested. “Honestly, this isn’t me trying to get revenge on her,” he told Todd Starnes during a Fox News Radio interview, “this is me just trying to say: ‘Look, behavior like this is not tolerated in this country. There are individual rights and individual freedoms that we are granted as per the constitution, that everybody’s granted. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are.’” University chancellor Kim A. Wilcox released a statement afterward promoting “respectful dialogue” – though Vitale said it didn’t go far enough in condemning Macias’ behavior. “Coequal to our dedication to mutual respect is our commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” the chancellor’s statement said, according to the College Fix. “A university requires an environment where students and scholars can freely express ideas and pursue knowledge, while also promoting respectful dialogue among individuals or groups with opposing viewpoints.” Vitale called Wilcox’s response “very disappointing.” “UCR affirms its dedication to free speech, but [adds] free speech has to come under our shared values of mutual respect, which is not freedom of speech,” Vitale said. “The moment that you stop protecting speech that is controversial, is the moment that your right to speak your mind is taken away.” A university spokesman told Fox New UC champions free speech – as long as it remains cordial. But he was vague on where it would draw the line. “The university stands very strongly for free speech and its protections, and for a congenial dialogue on campus,” university spokesman John Warren said. “The students on our campus have used this episode to affirm their support for free expression, and a productive exchange of ideas.” Some students on campus started a “Statement of Solidarity with Edith Macias.” The statement claims free speech has been “used as a dog whistle for the protection of white supremacist violence in the University of California system and elsewhere.” The statement also claims that Macias has been “doxxed” and “harassed,” and they demand the university pay Macias’ rent, grant her amnesty, cover her legal fees, condemn white supremacist violence, and support a sanctuary campus. Vitale dismisses the solidarity statement as a fringe group, but says he is “overwhelmed” by the support he’s received from across the country from people on both sides of the political aisle. “This just goes to show,” he said, “that I think freedom of speech and individual rights are maybe just one thing that everybody in this country can rally around.”

Glad Matthew is finally fighting back against this piece of garbage.  If you’ve not seen the video of Edith snagging his MAGA hat off and going on a silly rant, you really need to.  Just click on the text above.  Keep in mind, Edith, who has the IQ of a chihuahua,  is actually a college student.

Opinion: Enough with the hate labels. Why I’m standing up to the Southern Poverty Law Center

Nazi. Fascist. Misogynist. White supremacist. These are some of the most hateful terms around, and yet they are freely lobbed at anyone who even slightly diverges from the left’s worldview. This fall, I became the one targeted by exactly this sort of bullying at the hands of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It’s an understatement to say that I was dumbfounded as to how I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) LGBTQ hate-list — I have never said or done anything to indicate hate for the LGBTQ community. When I called to inquire, SPLC informed me that I am guilty because I did a radio interview with Family Research Council Radio (FRC). I am a program coordinator for The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform. org. The segment was about socialism, but because FRC holds traditional family values, I was labeled an LGBT-hater just for being a guest on the show. No LGBT topics even came-up. SPLC’s hate-list exemplifies a bullying tactic employed by the left to silence conservative ideas. Regardless of the issue, support for the conservative point of view results in a litany of hateful labels and reputation-smearing. The goal is to paint any opposition to the far left as morally depraved and, therefore, unworthy of being included in conversation. Dr. Carol Swain, an African-American woman and former Vanderbilt professor, is a perfect case-in-point; she was labeled a white supremacist sympathizer by the SPLC for pointing-out SPLC’s hypocrisy on racial issues. This tactic is more than illogical; it’s dangerous. Reckless and irresponsible hate-labeling not only stifles free speech and expression, it empowers and emboldens vicious groups and individuals to violently attack people. Consider the 2012 Family Research Council shooting, when a man walked into the organization’s office in Washington, D.C., with 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He planned to kill as many staff members as possible and smear the sandwiches in their faces. He said he chose his target based on SPLC’s Hate Map. Nowhere is the danger more real than on our college campuses where Antifa, By Any Means Necessary, and other domestic terror groups (which are not found on any SPLC hate list) now feel emboldened to attack conservative students and shut down events under the guise of — ironically — fighting fascism, hate and white supremacism. Two Berkeley students recently spoke to Martha MacCallum about being targeted, stalked and physically assaulted by Antifa for being members of the College Republicans club. This bullying needs to stop if we want to protect a free society — on and off campus. Americans are afraid to voice any form of dissent from the social or economic progressive agenda for fear of losing their academic standings, their jobs, or being labeled hateful and bigoted. While I am lucky to have a current employer that is understanding of this injustice, many others are not willing to give the benefit of doubt. I will now have to explain to every future employer why my name is on a hate list. If there’s one thing I gained from this, it’s a newfound respect for conservative students who face this type of mistreatment every day on campus. Groups like the SPLC threaten our constitutional rights and the very fabric that makes this nation great. We need to start pushing back. If this trend of bullying and ostracizing anyone with a different opinion continues, we can only expect a chilling, mob-rule effect and the suppression of speech and ideas in this country. I am calling on SPLC to remove me from this list and stop engaging in the game of identity fear politics. I urge all Americans who have been bullied, silenced, and pushed into a corner by radical groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to push back too.

Agreed!  Here at The Daily Buzz we wholeheartedly support  Hannah Scherlacher (the author of this piece), and others who have been unfairly targeted and smeared by the entirely discredited SPLC.  To see a photo of this conservative cutie, click on the link above.  Keep Hannah in mind the next time you see some member of the dominantly liberal mainstream media (i.e. PBS/NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or the worst…MSNBC) refer to the SPLC as some authority on “hate.”  They are truly awful…

Tancredo: The Nazis Are Coming! The Nazis Are Coming! And They Are All Wearing Che Guevara Tee-Shirts!

Who would have believed that our Hollywood actors and late-night comedians could be counted on to be canaries in the mine? Their incessant chirping now warns us of the poison gases of hate wafting in on the nightly news reports of riots and blood-letting. These celebrity canaries are so concerned, they devote precious airtime, otherwise used to award each other prizes for being wonderful (and radically relevant), to sound the alarm. These celebrity cherubs and their sycophantic pols see Nazis everywhere and shudder at their resurgence. So do I. As a matter of fact, I have seen them with my own eyes. I saw them on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where, as an invited speaker a few years ago, I had to have police swat teams provide a protective barrier to get into the lecture hall. Then the real party started. At Chapel Hill, the screaming brown shirts (led by several “professors”) were so loud inside that the cacophony was deafening. After a few minutes, bricks started coming through the window and a panic ensued while everyone scrambled for the doors. I was spirited away by two policemen as another nail was put in the coffin of free speech by a fascist mob hell-bent on protecting the campus from purveyors of heretical ideas. So much for our halls of academe leading to the free marketplace of ideas! The war on free speech has now reached epidemic proportions on college campuses nationwide. One brave scholar, Stanley Kurtz, has recently chronicled this firestorm of intolerance, which is all the more alarming and insidious because it is tacitly -– and often openly— aided by university administrators. The most ironic location for such a display of totalitarian temperament was at the University of Michigan LAW School, where after having been thwarted in their efforts to intimidate by rock throwing and sign waving in the streets, they pulled the fire alarm each time I tried to speak. Of course, that was the just a mild prank compared to the black mask wearing, window smashing, bottle throwing, pepper-spraying mob that injured 11 cops in St. Louis a few days ago. And so, I say “Right On!” to the public condemnation of the neo-fascists who disrupt peaceful rallies and incite mob violence. I want every act of a rally disruption or a synagogue desecration investigated thoroughly because I believe that, more often than not, you will find they are leftist agent-provocateurs and “false flag” miscreants who paint the swastikas on the walls. Through my Team America PAC, which has the distinction of being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, I have offered cash rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone committing these acts of vandalism in Colorado. So far, no takers. I venture to guess that around the nation, you will find that similar acts have been perpetrated by the same type of brown shirt/ski mask fanatics who defaced the statue of Christopher Columbus in Central Park and spray painted “Racist anthem” on the Baltimore monument to Francis Scott Key, who penned the words to the Star Spangled Banner. They are doubtless ignorant of the fact that Key was an outspoken opponent of the slave trade. Yes, there are indeed “Nazis” everywhere, quite a few of them operating from “safe places” inside our hallowed universities. They all learned from the tactics of their namesakes who first burned books and defaced artworks and broke out all the windows on Kristallnacht in Germany, in 1938. They, of course, soon graduated to burning people instead of just buildings and books. By all means, let’s all be on the lookout for the modern-day Nazis who use violence or intimidation to silence dissenters. They are on the march and have gained the support of the same mass media and organs of government charged with the responsibility of keeping them in check. What are we to do with public officials who promote self-censorship instead of defending the rights of citizens and groups targeted by the threat of violent disruption? Does anyone think history cannot repeat the Nazi reign of terror or Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward”? When we look back at the 1930’s and wonder how a nation like Germany, with the highest per capita education level in Europe at the time, could descend into the snake pit of evil that led to the death so many millions, we should think of this: •According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of millennials are ok with limiting free speech, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that 54 percent of Americans surveyed cannot accurately identify the Bill of Rights. •The same study found that 10 percent of the college students surveyed thought Judge Judy was on the Supreme Court. Hmmm. I have not yet been asked if I would trade Judge Judy for Associate Justice Sotomayor, and that’s good: it would be hard to resist that choice if I put my country’s well-being ahead of mere rules and precedents. But, hey: if the Constitution is only a useless piece of paper left behind by “dead white males,” why let the Rule of Law stand in the way of progress?

Things that make ya’ go, “hmmm…”   That outstanding piece was written by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).