political correctness

Judge rules California can’t force Christian baker to make same-sex wedding cakes

A California judge refused this week to order a baker to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that to do otherwise would be to trample on the baker’s free speech rights. Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe said in his Monday ruling that wedding cakes run to the core of the First Amendment. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” the judge wrote. His decision contrasts with a ruling out of Colorado, where a court ruled that a baker could not refuse to bake for a same-sex couple, arguing the state’s public accommodation law trumped that baker’s First Amendment claims. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a complaint after Colorado baker Jack Phillips told them he wouldn’t create a custom cake for a party celebrating their union in 2012, because it violated his Christian faith. After feeling rejected, the couple filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission. As a result of the ruling, Mr. Phillips has not been making wedding cakes at all in order to appease the court’s order and not violate his faith, which has cost him a large portion of his profits. His case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, we hope he is successful at the Supreme Court.  Kudos to Judge Lampe in California for his excellent decision!  Freedom of speech and expression go BOTH ways, and these bakers have every right to bake what they want for whom they want (or don’t want) without some fascist governmental body (as in the case of Colorado) telling them to support activities or individuals they don’t want to.  It’s beyond ridiculous…and a clear violation of Constitution.

Kenyon College Cancels Play About Immigration; Starts ‘Whiteness Group’

“Today is the end of [liberal education at Kenyon College],” Fred Baumann, a professor of political science at Kenyon, proclaimed last week to a panel and its audience. The panel had been convened to discuss the retraction of professor and playwright Wendy MacLeod’s latest play, The Good Samaritan. MacLeod’s work had been circulated to the students and community, with the intention of production in early April. The show centers on the experiences of Guatemalan illegal immigrants working only a few dozen miles away from Kenyon on an egg farm. As MacLeod explained in an email to the campus about the play, these characters “had been working without pay and living in dire conditions.” The Good Samaritan is based on a true story and MacLeod attempted to unearth it in her work, to, with humor, in her words, “[bring] the repressed to light.” Her play posits, satirically, what might happen if one of these illegal immigrants escaped from the egg farm and found their way to a school like Kenyon. Following the circulation of the play’s transcript, brigades of students, joined by some professors and campus administrators, pressured for the play to be censored. They justified such censorship on the grounds that it was “harmful on many levels.” One student emailed the administration and faculty complaining about the race of MacLeod, the author: “I personally take issue with The Good Samaritan because it’s yet another narrative written about a person of color from the uninformed perspective of a white academic.” He claimed that the play was “an exercise in cultural hegemony with heavy notes of white savior complex.” In the Kenyon student newspaper one professor claimed that after reading The Good Samaritan “she has identified 40 instances of ethnic insensitivity.” Among the charges of insensitivity might be a character’s name “Juan Deere” and improperly-rendered Spanish, which at times, resembles Italian. A teaching associate went a good deal further, calling the play “unapologetically racist and mocking. . . . It is an act of violence, dehumanizing and degrading the suffering that immigrants endure in coming to this country, and the many acts of racism and violence that members of the Latinx community endure every day, including on this campus.” She declared that “this play has no place on our campus. I call on the college leadership to responsibly answer the concerns of students and faculty, and withdraw it from production.” But the college leadership didn’t have to do anything, because MacLeod decided to censor herself. MacLeod canceled the production, she says, “out of respect for the concerns of students and members of the faculty.” She insisted this move was “solely my decision as the administration has supported the principles of freedom of expression.” Which then led Kenyon’s president, Sean Decatur, to invite students to the panel discussion in order “to participate in the conversation, and to play an active role in shaping the discourse” surrounding the play and its retraction. Evidently discussions are acceptable only after the mob has gotten its witch. The Good Samaritan’s retraction comes serendipitously at the same moment as the creation of a new student group at Kenyon: “the whiteness group.” The group was founded by a student, Juniper Cruz, and is notable not just for its name, but for its rules, which state that “no white person can ask a person of color questions; white people must try to answer their questions for themselves. And no spreading rumors about what people say during the meetings.” If you were going to set out to create a more illiberal student group possible at a college, you would be hard-pressed to do so. And as for Baumann’s suggestion that liberal education was finished at Kenyon, he’s certainly on to something. Following the panel where Baumann made his stand, one student took to Facebook, saying that if liberal education “necessitates the silencing of marginalized communities, the protection of racism, and our complicity with both, then let the damned thing die.”

Americans who practice yoga contribute to white supremacy, Michigan State University professor claims

White people who do a downward-facing dog are contributing to a “system of power, privilege, and oppression,” according to a Michigan State University professor. Shreena Gandhi, a religious studies professor at Michigan State, claims in an article she recently co-authored that Americans who practice yoga are contributing to white supremacy and promote the “yoga industrial complex.” White Americans should learn yoga’s history, acknowledge the cultural appropriation they engage in and possibly reduce the cost of yoga classes for poor people, a group that often includes people of color and “recent immigrants, such as Indian women to whom this practice rightfully belongs,” Gandhi argued. She co-authored the piece titled “Yoga and the Roots of Cultural Appropriation,” with Lillie Wolff, a self-described “anti-racist white Jewish organizer, facilitator, and healer,” who has called for “decolonizing” yoga, the College Fix reported. The two argued “the explosion of yoga studios, yoga video, apps, yoga pants, and other yoga swag over the last two decades is evidence” of the “(mis)appropriation of yoga” that “is part of systemic racism” built on “the labor of black people and people of the global south.” “We would argue one of the goals of white supremacy is to buffer white people from the pain that comes from the process of exchanging cultural grounding for the unearned power and privilege of whiteness,” they wrote. “…this modern-day trend of cultural appropriation of yoga is a continuation of white supremacy and colonialism, maintaining the pattern of white people consuming the stuff of culture that is convenient and portable, while ignoring the well-being and liberation of Indian people.”

Where do these people come from?  Now doing exercises is racist.  What a moron..

 

Colorado Lawmakers Considering Proposal to Allow ‘Legal Drug Injection Site’ in Denver

Colorado lawmakers are considering a proposal to allow a legal drug injection site in Denver for heroin users. Under the proposed bill, the site would allow illegal drug users to shoot up under medical supervision without fear of being prosecuted, KDVR reported. The idea behind the bill, according to some lawmakers, is that a medically-trained supervisor can provide life-saving medical interventions if a drug user overdoses. State lawmakers got the idea for the legal injection site after touring a similar site in Vancouver, British Columbia. “One site we visited had over 4 million visits over the past years,” said state Rep. Leslie Heron (D-Denver). “And they have reported zero overdose deaths, zero.” But the bill’s sponsors told the Denver Post that their legislative efforts could die in committee, as many opponents of the bill expressed concerns about whether the state should be endorsing illegal activity. “Initially, the trepidation I have is over creating enclaves of illegal activity and calling it legal,” said Senate President Kevin Grantham (R-Cañon City), one of the opponents of the bill. Other cities have proposed plans to create “legal injection sites” or “safe injection sites” for illegal drug users. In January 2017, Seattle approved the first “safe injection site” in the U.S. for illegal drug users.

Let’s hope this stunningly stupid idea does die in committee..

Tim Allen to tackle PC culture in comedy and colleges as part of a new docudrama

Actor Tim Allen has joined the cast of new movie aimed at disrupting the liberal and PC culture in Hollywood, on college campuses and in comedy. Allen’s “Last Man Standing” sitcom was canceled last year and outraged fans believe ABC pulled the plug because the family comedy highlighted conservative values. ABC denied it was over politics. Allen has signed onto the docudrama “No Safe Spaces” that’s expected to hit theaters in the fall. Fellow comedian Adam Carolla and conservative radio show host Dennis Prager are making the movie to promote free speech at a time they say the entertainment industry, media and college campuses too often shut down or blackball controversial viewpoints. “Nothing kills comedy quite like people who are constantly offended,” Carolla told the Post. “It’s impossible to be funny if we’re not allowed to poke fun at each other and that’s what’s happening with a new generation of people who seem to be offended for a living. “If we can’t have fun with one another than we lose our humanity. If free speech goes, then our basic freedoms will follow soon after.”

Agreed!!  Can’t wait to see this!!  To read more, click on the text above.     🙂

Angel Mom Agnes Gibboney on DACA: ‘We Don’t Owe Illegal Aliens Anything’

“We don’t owe illegal aliens anything. Why do people feel that we owe them anything?” asked Angel Mom Agnes Gibboney on Tuesday, reflecting on how she will soon commemorate her late son’s birthday at his grave. Her son, Ronald da Silva, was murdered in 2007 in El Monte, California, by an illegal immigrant gang member. Gibboney joined SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, hosted by Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak, to share her views of ongoing Capitol Hill negotiations pertaining to the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy and broader immigration and border security issues. “In five days, my son would have been 45 years old,” said Gibboney. “In five days, I’m going to be sitting in a cemetery caressing his headstone, at the cemetery with a cupcake, singing “Happy Birthday” to him. So does he know what my pain is? We families that have lost a loved one because our government didn’t protect us are suffering, and we’re going to suffer until the end, until we go and meet our loved ones. They have no idea.” Gibboney read from a letter she composed and recently sent to President Donald Trump on behalf of her late son. “As a U.S. citizen born in Long Beach, California, in 1973, I am having my mommy, as I called her, sign this letter. You see, I am unable to sign it because my life was cut short by a previously deported illegal alien in 2002. I have no voice. I became a statistic. All I am is a memory.” The memories of American citizens killed or murdered by illegal aliens demand construction of a border wall, said Gibboney. “They need to know my son would have stood for this. All these victims that were killed by illegal aliens would have stood for the wall. Their dreams were cut short. Does anybody, does any politician ever talk about the dreams that our victims had?” Gibboney further listed her immigration reform and border security priorities in her letter to the president. “I ask you to please continue to fight for the wall–no DACA, no amnesty, end birthright citizenship, mandatory E-Verify, increased border patrol agents, end chain migration, [and] set up a biometric system to remove all visa overstays.” “Congress wants nothing but to protect illegal aliens,” said Gibboney about Capitol Hill’s focus on legislative amnesty proposals for illegal aliens. “I feel that the Democrats are standing in our way,” said Gibboney. “They are doing nothing but standing in President Trump’s way.” “Shame on them,” said Gibboney of Democrats. “Instead of working with our government to secure our borders to make sure that American citizens and people that are coming to visit this country are safe, not being taken over by illegal aliens disrespecting this country, demanding things be given to them, shutting down offices in Washington, DC. This is an outrage.” “Why are we having to negotiate with our government to obey our laws?” asked Gibboney. “We have laws for illegal immigrants. We have laws pertaining to immigration. Anyone who breaks these laws or enables another person to do should be deported or imprisoned. I don’t understand why we’re having such a discussion.” Any extension of amnesty to DACA recipients must be narrow, said Gibboney, listing her preferred criteria for such a measure: “You can apply [for a green card], but if you have any criminal record, if you have ever applied for public assistance, you’re out. And I’m not talking about a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor that most of the time they’re doing now. Any criminal record, you’re out. You have to have graduated from high school, college, and have an ability to support yourself. And none of this giving legal papers to the mother and three or four siblings and aunts and uncles and cousins. None of that anymore. We need to stop that. President Reagan did that several years ago, and it’s proven to be a disaster. We can’t go on like that. We can’t make the same mistake.” Having recently seen border wall prototypes near the southern border, Gibboney expressed hope. “Those prototypes, those samples gave me hope. Hope that not another American citizen will be killed.” “The physical wall is necessary,” added Gibboney, noting that varying topography along the U.S.-Mexico border with require varying forms of barriers.

Wow..  A powerful personal story here; a story that needs to told.

Starnes: NFL rejects veterans group’s Super Bowl ad urging people to stand for the anthem

The National Football League has rejected a Super Bowl advertisement from American Veterans urging people to stand for the national anthem. The nation’s largest veterans service organization had been invited by the NFL to place an ad in the Super Bowl LII program. AMVET’s advertisement included a two-word message – “#PleaseStand.” “It’s a simple, polite request that represents the sentiment of our membership, particularly those whose missing or paralyzed limbs preclude standing,” wrote National Commander Marion Polk in a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. American Veterans accused the NFL of outright censorship by rejecting the advertisement. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy defended the league’s decision to ban the American Veterans’ advertisement noting that the game day program “is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams and the Super Bowl.” “It’s never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement,” McCarthy told Army Times. So, the NFL believes that politely asking people to stand for the Star-Spangled Banner is akin to making a political statement? The NFL has been rocked by national anthem protests throughout the season — leading to a massive decline in television viewership and game day attendance. Still, the NFL and most team owners refused to order players to stand for the national anthem. Instead, the commissioner and many owners shamefully turned a blind eye as football players took a knee and disrespected not only the flag, but the brave men and women defending our freedom. Perhaps Goodell was concerned that a “political statement” in the game day program might take away from the “political statements” being made on the football field when players take a knee. “Freedom of speech works both ways. We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought – and in many cases died – for,” Polk wrote. “But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.” McCarthy told Army Times they gave American Veterans the option of changing their proposed advertisement to read, “Please Stand for our Veterans.” But the NFL said they never heard back from the group. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the NFL’s disdain for American patriotism is not just isolated to the gridiron. It’s apparently infested the front office. “Veterans are good for more than just military aircraft flyovers, photo opportunities during halftime, or props to sell camouflage-style NFL apparel; although, the NFL’s stance on not allowing the veterans’ unfiltered voice to be heard says otherwise,” Polk wrote to Goodell. I wholeheartedly concur and might I suggest that freedom-loving Americans stand up to the National Football League by turning off the Super Bowl.

Sounds like a good idea..  Thanks to veteran culture warrior Todd Starnes for calling it exactly right.