Sexual Assault, Michigan, Immigration, PG&E, Freedom of Speech, Coronavirus

Today's News for February 1, 2020

As Reports of Sexual Assault Spike at Military Academies, Ernst Leads Calls for Answers
Source: Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
January 31, 2020
Following an alarming spike of reports of sexual assault at U.S. military academies, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), the first female combat veteran elected to the Senate, is leading a bipartisan group of senators in calling for answers from the Department of Defense (DOD). An annual report from the DOD detailed a 32 percent increase in sexual assault reports at the academies during the 2018-19 school year as compared to the year before.
Read more...

EPI Policy Center applauds Michigan Governor for moving to restore overtime pay for Michigan’s workers
Source: Economic Policy Institute
January 30, 2020
In 2016, the Obama administration published a federal rule that would have increased the overtime threshold to roughly $51,000 in 2020—a modest figure that was well within historic norms. However, the Trump administration abandoned this rule and published a much weaker version that sets the salary threshold at $35,568. In doing this, they cost more than eight million workers overtime protections—totaling $1.2 billion in lost wages. The United Way’s ALICE report on financially struggling households shows that Michigan families need about $61,000 a year to afford the basics. A strong rule would raise the salary threshold for workers who earn up to $61,000 and would also be indexed to inflation to keep pace with overall wage growth.
Read more...

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar Statement on Expansion of the Dangerous “Remain in Mexico” Policy to Brazilian Asylum Seekers
Source: Veronica Escobar (D-TX, 16th)
January 30, 2020
“Today, one year after the Trump administration announced the implementation of the dangerous and unlawful Remain in Mexico policy, DHS began depriving Brazilian asylum seekers due process and endangering their lives by sending them to Mexico, a country proved ill-equipped to safeguard the wellbeing of migrants.
Read more...

Eshoo Demands Accountability from PG&E at Congressional Hearing
Source: U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA, 18th)
January 29, 2020
“I don’t presuppose that everyone in Washington D.C. knows who PG&E is or what they’ve done. Now, Californians know it, I certainly know it, and my constituents have lived it,” Rep. Eshoo said to PG&E CEO Bill Johnson. “In your testimony on page three you indicate it will take 12 to 14 years—12 to 14 years—to harden and strengthen the grid. That time frame implies that you’ve deferred a lot of the maintenance over the last 10 years. So, my first question is: why did the deferred maintenance happen and why was this allowed to happen?”
Read more...

Victory! Lawsuit Challenging FOSTA Reinstated by Court
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
January 24, 2020
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that two plaintiffs in the lawsuit—brought by Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Alex Andrews, the Internet Archive, and Eric Koszyk to block enforcement of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)—had “standing” to pursue their constitutional challenge to the statute. The lawsuit argues that the act expansively criminalizes online speech related to sex work and removes important protections for online intermediaries in violation of their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are represented by EFF, Davis, Wright Tremaine LLP, Walters Law Group, and Daphne Keller.
Read more...

Emergency Nurses Association Monitoring Novel Coronavirus Developments
Source: Emergency Nurses Association
January 24, 2020
The two confirmed U.S. cases follow an outbreak in China that has prompted several U.S. airports to implement public health entry screenings. As new information develops, ENA President Mike Hastings, MSN, RN, CEN, called on emergency nurses to follow their current policies and best practices when screening patients for infectious diseases, and to revisit the use of personal protective equipment to limit exposure should a patient show symptoms of novel coronavirus.
Read more...

Donald Trump and Free Speech

Open Letter to Whom It May Concern:

Donald Trump is running again (no surprise) for President. In his campaign speech, he said he was fighting for all of our rights. He placed emphasis on our beloved 2nd Amendment.

The crowd cheered.

While I agree and applaud also, I also see the real danger that our 1st Amendment is in. Our Freedom of Speech, especially. Without our Freedom of Speech, our voices are silenced. All of our other freedoms are endangered. We cannot allow this to continue.

I ask, along with my peers, that special attention be placed on our Freedom of Speech. Censored posts on public platforms across the internet need to be re-evaluated. Our options to create our own financial freedom on the internet (and off) need to be protected and encouraged. We need to treat the internet as an opportunity, not a playground.

Please help us. Do something soon to put those protections in place and sanction those who would violate our freedoms on public platforms such as the internet.

Without Freedom of Speech we cannot be expected to teach our progeny the importance and value of all our freedoms. If we do not educate because we are silenced and financially broken, then we lose.

I want to "WIN, WIN, WIN"

Keeping America Great means keeping our God-given Constitutional rights.

Thank you,
Shonda Ponder, editor

Big Social Media Boss Stands in Way of Financial Well-being of Conservatives

When is it okay for someone to stop you from making a living simply because they don't like you or what you believe? In true Revelation apocalyptic prophetic style, how long before all those who call themselves "Christian" are kept from making money at all, unless they publicly renounce their faith?

It's coming to that. Check this out:

YouTube demonetizes conservative commentator one day after saying he didn't violate its rules
Source: The Hill
June 5, 2019
YouTube on Wednesday announced it will no longer allow a conservative commentator accused of online harassment to make money from ads on his videos, just one day after the company said he had not broken any of the platform's rules.

Read more...

High school student claims his freedom of speech was violated after MAGA hat censored in yearbook

Buy it: Besti Make America Great Again Donald Trump Slogan with USA Flag Cap Adjustable Baseball Hat RedSource: Yahoo Lifestyle
May 24, 2019
School officials in Littlestown, Penn. are investigating after two "Make America Great Again" hats were censored in a high school yearbook. Littlestown High School administration said in a statement that the censorship of the pro-Trump apparel was a "mistake" that was not noticed before printing.

Read more...

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on President Donald Trump's Executive Order on Free Speech

by: American Federation of Teachers

Washington, D.C. - March 21, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement after President Trump signed an executive order on free speech on college and university campuses:

“President Trump’s concept of free speech is speech that he agrees with, which is, in fact, the antithesis of what the First Amendment seeks to protect. He has repeatedly indicated his interest in ‘shutting down’ journalists and media outlets that criticize him, and he uses hateful and many times inciteful words on a daily and public basis. With a track record like this, there is no reason to believe that the speech he wants to ‘protect’ on college campuses won’t both suppress speech and enable incitement. If the framers of the Constitution were alive today, they would tell President Trump: ‘No, no, no, sir. You can’t use executive orders to suppress the speech of those with whom you disagree.’

“As educators, we are staunch supporters of a free exchange of ideas, the free expression that is crucial to intellectual discourse, and the responsibility that all speech must be coupled with an ability to reject that which will incite hatred or violence. Free and unfettered speech is supposed to be exactly that—free and unfettered—not subject to executive branch policing and interference.

“This order also sets a dangerous precedent that makes public activities at our nation’s colleges and universities susceptible to punitive action if they don’t meet a predetermined, purposefully ambiguous benchmark set by a White House with a very obvious political agenda. When schools are committed to civilized discussion and debate, we should be investing in more research to defend those democratic ideals, not denying them resources.”

President Trump issues executive order supporting free speech at universities

by: Alliance Defending Freedom

Washington, D.C. - March 21, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order Thursday that requires public universities to respect the constitutionally protected free speech rights of students in order to continue receiving federal research funds:

“The administration is right to recognize the threats to freedom of speech on public university campuses and the need to do something about preserving the marketplace of ideas. In the course of winning more than 400 legal victories since 2006, the ADF Center for Academic Freedom has continued to encounter massive free speech and other First Amendment violations, unconstitutional policies, and many repeat offenders. We appreciate the administration’s understanding of this problem as well as actions it has taken to help, including the briefs that the Department of Justice has filed in support of ADF clients who have stood up for their freedoms in the face of having those freedoms jeopardized. Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s voters and civic leaders. That’s why it’s so important that public colleges and universities exemplify the First Amendment values they are supposed to be teaching to students.”

Three ADF Center for Academic Freedom clients—Ellie Wittman, Bernadette Tasy, and Isaac Edikauskas—are scheduled to be present on stage with President Trump for the announcement of the executive order.

Has Political Correctness Silenced Us?

by The Pastor's Network

The Greek poet Euripides was known to say that “Silence is true wisdom’s best reply.”

But when it comes to discussing political views in this sometimes-tempestuous society, many are taking the stance that silence—especially in difficult conversations about politics, religion and other controversial topics—is preferred and safer.

As evidence, the American Pastors Network, the largest national network dedicated to equipping pastors to be a voice for truth in the public square, is pointing to a new Cato Institute study that found 71 percent of Americans say political correctness has silenced some of the discussions society must have, and 58 percent have political views they are afraid to share.

APN President Sam Rohrer says these findings are telling in regards to how Americans interact with each other, the cultural climate and the role of the church in these important conversations.

“The most pressing topics in our society are not being discussed because a culture has been created that silences our voices,” Rohrer said. “This can be due to a variety of reasons, including fear, isolation or ridicule. These are the topics, however, Americans should be discussing, and especially Christians as they hopefully bring the truth of God’s Word to our everyday conversations. Furthermore, how does this translate to the Church? We pray pastors are not silencing themselves as well, but we know that many choose not to address from the pulpit the crucial matters in our culture for whatever reason.

“One of the missional goals of the American Pastors Network is to encourage biblically faithful clergy to take seriously Jesus’ command to be the ‘salt and light’ to the culture, encourage informed Christian thinking about contemporary social issues, examine public policy issues without politicizing their pulpits and engage their congregations in taking part in the political process on a non-partisan basis,” Rohrer added. “We certainly can’t act as salt and light by hiding the light of God’s truth under a bushel, which is exactly what we resort to when we keep silent in an increasingly PC culture.”

The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, which polled 2,300 U.S. adults, also found that political party somewhat dictated how people felt about silencing their conversations. For example, a slim majority (53 percent) of Democrats do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73 percent) and independents (58 percent) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.

Cato also reported, “A solid majority (59 percent) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40 percent think government should prevent hate speech.”

Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:

51 percent of staunch liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.

53 percent of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.

51 percent of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.

65 percent of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.

58 percent of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.

47 percent of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

59 percent of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17 percent of conservatives agree.

39 percent of conservatives believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17 percent of liberals agree.

80 percent of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36 percent of conservatives agree.

87 percent of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in military combat roles, while 47 percent of conservatives agree.

90 percent of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47 percent of conservatives agree.

“These findings, especially the chasms between liberals and conservatives when it comes to moral and biblical issues such as a homosexuality, immigration, religion and gender, are especially important for church leaders,” Rohrer added. “While every pastor must first and foremost preach the whole counsel of God and reveal the Bible’s truth without waver, it is helpful to know where the people in the pews stand and the conversations they are having—or not having—regarding these important matters.”

Court Strikes Abortion Buffer Zone Law

Newark, NJ - November 27, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A New Jersey federal court struck down a City of Englewood eight-foot buffer zone that prohibits pro-life speech near abortion facilities. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 2014 opinion in McCullen v. Coakley, which held unconstitutional an identically worded Massachusetts buffer zone law, the New Jersey court ruled the ordinance violates the First Amendment.

The decision provides fresh optimism for Liberty Counsel's lawsuit against the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to strike down the twenty-foot buffer zone ordinance passed by the City at the behest of Planned Parenthood. The Harrisburg ordinance violates the constitutional rights of Liberty Counsel's clients Becky Biter and Colleen Reilly, who are Christian sidewalk counselors being prevented from telling women about alternatives to abortion they will not hear once inside Planned Parenthood. Just as in Englewood, the Harrisburg City Council failed to consider any less restrictive alternatives to its speech ban, opting instead to become enthusiastic agents for the Planned Parenthood agenda.

Both New Jersey and Pennsylvania are in the same federal appellate jurisdiction, covered by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where Liberty Counsel has already secured an early victory in the Harrisburg case. The Harrisburg trial court is now bound by the favorable Third Circuit ruling as the case proceeds, and should be favorably influenced by the plainly sound reasoning of its sister court in New Jersey.

"The New Jersey decision is a great example of clear constitutional reasoning, uncorrupted by the 'abortion distortion' that has pervaded so many court decisions since Roe v. Wade," said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "The decision should be an encouragement to pro-life sidewalk counselors around the country, and a warning to state and local governments who increasingly abdicate their duties to uphold the constitutional rights of their citizens in order to carry water for Planned Parenthood," said Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.


See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site

Congressman Yoho Statement on Richard Spencer and Antifa

Washington, D.C. - October 18, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Ted S. Yoho (R-FL) released the following statement on the upcoming visit of Richard Spencer to the University of Florida and the group Antifa who will be protesting the event.

"Richard Spencer, president of a hate group misleadingly named the National Policy Institute, is coming to Gainesville, FL to speak about his support of ethnic nationalism, racial division and white supremacy on October 19, 2017. Antifa, a so-called “anti-fascist” group comprised of radical Marxists and anarchists, is calling on its supporters to come and protest Richard Spencer, advocating violence and chaos in the process.

"In our constitutional republic, both sides have a right-and what I feel is a privilege-to espouse their views as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment gives individuals the right of free speech, peaceful assembly and protest to promote one's views. People must be serious about exercising these rights respectfully. You cannot have freedom without responsibility.

"Hate groups and groups that promote violence and anarchy have no place in our society. They simply have a self-serving agenda and feed off mob-like participation and divisiveness.

"When Richard Spencer comes to Gainesville, I want to ask that all people of differing viewpoints take responsibility for themselves and the groups they have invited to attend the event. It is estimated that this event will cost the University of Florida hundreds of thousands of dollars and Alachua County will have to mobilize hundreds of law enforcement officers, EMT's, firefighters and paramedics at a cost not yet determined but paid for by the taxpayers of the county.

"While these groups exercise their right of free speech and to peaceably assemble, I hope they will have respect for each other's rights to express their own points of view, and that all will agree to disagree peacefully. Let's hope they keep in mind the many first responders that are taking time away from their families and at great cost to Alachua County taxpayers for the protection of all parties. Let's hope these groups take responsibility for their members and that there is no violent behavior. However, if people do engage in violence, I will press state and federal prosecutors to bring charges against malefactors to the fullest extent permitted by law.

"As for me, I refuse to be anywhere near this event because Richard Spencer and Antifa’s viewpoints are both morally repugnant. I choose not to offer either of them an audience. Please join me."

====Special Offer====
Custom Bobbleheads

Southwest Flight Attendant Files Lawsuit for Union Retaliation for Criticizing Union Boss Political Stances

Source: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Dallas, TX - October 10, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a fired Southwest Airlines flight attendant sued her ex-employer and union officials on September 14, 2017, after voicing her views on abortion, supporting a National Right to Work law, and opposing union officials’ leadership. Charlene Carter has filed a court complaint against Transport Union Workers of America (TWUA) Local 556 and Southwest Airlines as well as Equal Opportunity Employment Commission employment discrimination charges against Southwest Airlines and Local 556.

Charlene Carter is a Christian who believes her faith requires that she spread her pro-life message. As a Southwest employee, Carter joined Local 556 in September 1996. She resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were going towards causes that violate her conscience.

As is her right, Carter dropped union membership but was still forced to pay fees to Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees.

Carter often directly messaged the president of Local 556 with criticisms of the union’s leadership and political stances. Carter never had any communication from Southwest, from the union, or the union president that such speech was contrary to the terms of her employment. That changed in 2017, when after several years of dissatisfaction with union officials, Carter criticized the union for supporting abortion and voiced support for National Right to Work legislation that would end the requirement that she pay forced union fees to a union that advocates against positions about which she feels strongly.

A labor dispute amongst Local 556 members began in 2012 and lasted more than five years concerning the legitimacy of the Local 556 Executive board. Two members of the board were removed after their opponents filed misconduct claims against them. Under union bylaws, two candidates from the losing party were nominated to fill the vacant positions. Audrey Stone of the losing party was elected president by the newly installed executive board.

Over the next two years, more than 90 employees opted out of union membership in response to what they saw as an improper power grab. The election was again contested via a Department of Labor complaint, but that complaint was eventually dismissed by Labor Department officials. Through 2016, over 7,000 signatures were collected for a recall of Stone but the union executive board dismissed this petition as well.

In January 2017, Carter found out that Stone and other Local 556 officials probably used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington DC” which showed support for several political positions she opposed, including abortion and funding for the abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

Carter posted in various Facebook groups for Southwest flight attendants and sent a personal message to President Stone, explaining why she was upset her money was going towards causes she did not support. These complaints garnered no response from either the union or Southwest. But then, Carter sent Stone another e-mail exclaiming her support for a National Right to Work bill.
Only six days after sending Stone that e-mail, Carter received notification from Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible in regards to “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screen shots of her pro-life postings. Southwest bosses questioned why she sent these messages, despite Carter explaining her beliefs. Southwest authorities said that Stone claimed to be harassed by these messages.

A week after this meeting, Carter was fired from her job. Southwest said she violated its “Workplace Bullying and Hazing Policy” and its “Social Media Policy” by sharing her pro-life beliefs because her message was “highly offensive in nature.” Carter had never previously received any discipline in her 20 year career with Southwest.

As Carter’s legal filings document, this explanation lacks any credulity. Throughout the five year labor dispute over the TWUA Local 556 executive board, supporters of Stone routinely encouraged violence, used vulgarities, and even sent death threats towards their fellow Southwest employees and union members who opposed Stone. Yet none of them have been fired for their offensive language, apparently because they had the right politics and supported the union brass.

“This case shows the extent to which union officials will wield their power over employers to violate the rights’ of the workers they claim to represent,” said Mark Mix president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Charlene Carter did nothing wrong. She merely voiced her opinion and opposition to her money being used for causes she opposes, expressing her protected religious beliefs. Southwest and TWUA union officials need to be held accountable for violating Charlene’s rights and the National Right to Work Foundation is pleased to help her stand up to this campaign of harassment.”

Hypersensitivity in Title IX Enforcement

Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute

Los Angeles, CA - September 22, 2017  (The Ponder News) -- Los Angeles lawyer Ken White notes that a professor is being “investigated for writing about being investigated for writing about being investigated.” This Title IX investigation has apparently been going on since last May, making it longer than some other investigations that courts have ruled unconstitutional due to their speech-chilling nature.

Previously, Northwestern University investigated Professor Laura Kipnis after she wrote an essay for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe,” which hypersensitive students claimed offended them and constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title IX, the federal statute against sex discrimination in educational institutions. After Kipnis defended herself against the harassment charges on Twitter, students then accused her of “retaliation” in violation of Title IX.  After an outcry from free speech advocates, charges were shelved months later.

These charges against Kipnis over an off-campus essay were made possible by the Obama administration. It changed the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX to require colleges to investigate even off-campus student or faculty conduct alleged to constitute sexual harassment or assault. The Obama administration’s position was at odds with federal court rulings saying that Title IX does not apply off campus, such as Roe v. St. Louis University (2014).

One of Kipnis’s accusers then filed a defamation suit against Kipnis for her book Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, which cast aspersions on a student’s sexual harassment claims against a former professor.

In May 2016, several Northwestern students—including the one who is suing Kipnis—then filed a Title IX complaint against the professor over her book. The University then launched an investigation, which has yet to reach a conclusion.

A lengthy investigation of a person’s speech can violate the First Amendment through its chilling effect, even if the person is never found guilty. For example, a federal appeals court found that an eight month-long civil rights investigation of citizens for their speech opposing a minority housing project protected by the Fair Housing Act was a clear violation of First Amendment rights, in White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000).

However, Northwestern University is a private university, and thus is not bound by the First Amendment. So Kipnis would have to show that federal pressure or policies caused the investigation of her before she could sue under the First Amendment.

These endless complaints against Kipnis are facilitated by other actions taken by the Obama administration, which left the misimpression that even unreasonable and false allegations of harassment and retaliation are protected by Title IX. According to the courts, sexual harassment allegations made to campus officials are not protected against retaliation if they are either (a) factually false, or (b) based on an unreasonable misinterpretation of what constitutes sexual harassment. [See Vasconcelos v. Meese, 907 F.2d 11 (9th Cir. 1990) (false allegations not protected); Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (unreasonable allegation not protected, such as complaint about fleeting exposure to sexual material that no reasonable person could have viewed as “severe” or “pervasive”)].

But in its publicly available letters of findings in Title IX investigations, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights fails to acknowledge that false allegations are not protected, and in 2016, one OCR staff attorney took the position that “reasonableness” should not be used in assessing harassment allegations. In 2015, an OCR regional office found that a student who made false allegations was entitled to Title IX “remedies” against a college. In its investigation of Michigan State University, it required college officials to offer “remedies” such as academic adjustments to “Student A,” whom both it and the University found had made a false allegation of sexual assault against two students. The Education Department’s strange logic was that the university did not begin proceedings against the accused students fast enough—even though it immediately kicked them out of their dorm and ordered them to stay away from the accuser. Such “interim remedies” against accused students who are never found guilty raise serious due-process issues. [See, e.g., Tyree v. Evans, 728 A.2d 101 (D.C. 1999) (due process required opportunity to cross-examine accuser before imposition of one-year no-contact order); Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1967) (overly broad no-contact order violated First Amendment)].

Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gerson provides disturbing details about the ongoing investigation of Kipnis at The New Yorker:

Kipnis… was surprised when Northwestern once again launched a formal Title IX investigation of her writing. … [I]nvestigators presented her with a spreadsheet laying out dozens of quotations from her book, along with at least eighty written questions, such as “What do you mean by this statement?,” “What is the source/are the sources for this information?,” and “How do you respond to the allegation that this detail is not necessary to your argument and that its inclusion is evidence of retaliatory intent on your part?” Kipnis chose not to answer any questions, following the standard advice of counsel defending the court case.

She did submit a statement saying that “these complaints seem like an attempt to bend the campus judicial system to punish someone whose work involves questioning the campus judicial system, just as bringing Title IX complaints over my first Chronicle essay attempted to do two years ago.” In other words, the process was the punishment. Possible evidence of retaliatory purpose, she learned, included statements in the book that aggressively staked out her refusal to keep quiet. …Her prior Title IX investigation, she writes, “has made me a little mad and possibly a little dangerous. ... I mean, having been hauled up on complaints once, what do I have to lose? ‘Confidentiality’? ‘Conduct befitting a professor’? Kiss my ass. In other words, thank you to my accusers: unwitting collaborators, accidental muses.” Also presented as possible evidence was her Facebook post quoting a book review—“Kipnis doesn’t seem like the sort of enemy you’d want to attract, let alone help create”—on which Kipnis had commented, “I love that.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education says that in addition to trampling on academic freedom, the investigation of Kipnis also seems to contradict the logic of a Bush-era 2003 Education Department guidance document that was never withdrawn by the Obama administration.

As Reason’s Robby Soave notes:

It should be obvious that the text of Title IX does not empower university officials to investigate tenured professors for criticizing Title IX, nor was the law intended to weaponize students' grievances. Kipnis’s ongoing ordeal is a testament to the pressing need for the Education Department to rein in the Obama-era guidance that spawned this madness, and a reminder that Secretary Betsy DeVos is wholly justified in doing just that.

I earlier explained why Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was correct to criticize Obama-era Title IX interpretations at this link, since those interpretations undermine free speech and student and faculty rights on campus.

Pro-lifers Offensive at Wright State University

Source: Citizens for Community Values

Fairborn, OH - September 22, 2017  (The Ponder News) -- University administrators at Wright State University have a problem.
A student group put up images and a display in the Quad that was so offensive, vile, and dangerous in the minds of these administrators that they had to send a warning out to all students.

“Members of our community who are uncomfortable with viewing these images may want to avoid the Quad area during this time. Furthermore, if you need support or wish to talk with someone, you are encouraged to visit our Counseling and Wellness Center” wrote Dr. Gary Dickstein, Interim Vice President of Student Affairs. “The staff in the Women’s Center will also be available.”

Anyone who spends time on a college campus today knows that offensive and graphic displays aren’t necessarily unusual. But a campus-wide warning like is something I’ve never seen before.
So what was happening that is so offensive and traumatizing that it called for such a dire warning?

Pro-life students were handing out literature on abortion.

As Dr. Dickstein wrote “Wright State University has received notification that a group of approximately 10 individuals from the organization Create Equality will erect an anti-abortion display and hand out literature on the Dayton Campus on Wednesday, September 20. The display is scheduled to be on the Quad from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. They have informed the university that they plan to bring large 4X3 placards that contain very graphic images.” (emphasis from Dickstein)
Apparently to Dr. Dickstein, at a school of more than 12,000 students, 10 students wanting to discuss the realities of abortion requires the student body be put on notice.

This is one of the most embarrassing messages I’ve ever seen from a university. Only an institution that is steeped in liberal ideology would think that a pro-life display would cause such serious trauma to the student body.

Thankfully we have leaders in Ohio calling out this absurd move by the University, like Rep. Niraj Antani who called out Dr. Dickstein in the Dayton Daily News.
It’s wrong for a university to send a message like this out to students, singling out pro-life speech. It’s insidious and coercive. Do they send out similar messages when pro-abortion students walk around with uterus hats on their heads? Do they send out messages like this during Pride parades that often have people walking around naked? I highly doubt it.

Yet students merely trying to show the realities of abortion warrant putting the campus on alert.

Ohio students deserve better.

Los Angeles Police Protective League Urges Hate Groups to Stay Home

by the Los Angeles Police Protective League

Los Angeles, CA - August 19, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- In anticipation of potential rallies and demonstrations being organized by hate groups, the Los Angeles Police Protective League issued the following statement today:

"Our Constitution prescribes the right for even the vilest, repugnant, and hate-filled individuals and organizations to peacefully assemble and protest. As members of law enforcement, no matter how much we abhor and repudiate the beliefs of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Anti-Semites and the KKK, we are duty bound by the oaths we swore to keep the peace when these disgusting and despicable individuals congregate.

The recent events that unfolded in Charlottesville, Virginia cannot be tolerated in our country and, make no mistake, there is no moral equivalency between Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Anti-Semites, or the KKK and those that showed up to protest against them. The tragic murder of Heather Heyer and the line-of-duty deaths of Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper-Pilot Berke Bates should serve as stark reminders that good people, good Americans, must continue to stand up and stand for what is right and peacefully confront hate and hate-mongers.

We strongly urge any organization or individuals planning to assemble with the goal of re-creating the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, to cancel their event and stay home. We urge them to look into their souls and try to figure out where their hate is coming from and seek professional help. No one is born hating other people."

Formed in 1923, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) represents the more than 9,900 dedicated and professional sworn members of the Los Angeles Police Department. The LAPPL serves to advance the interests of LAPD officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and education.

Policinski: It takes great effort, restraint to defend First Amendment

Greeley Tribune

History tells us of the rise at various times in our nation of groups preaching hate and bigotry and violence, using their rights of speech, press and assembly to inflame rather than inform, incite rather than inspire and indoctrinate rather than educate. Nativists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and others at various times have used fear, prejudice and ignorance to flourish and gain public accommodation or support — sometimes for decades — before crawling back under the social rocks from whence they came.

It's tempting to believe if only such domestic terrorists were silenced by government, their views would dissipate; that "out of sight" truly would mean "out of mind." But such censoring, suppressing and silencing is a betrayal of our core principles — along with being ineffective and often counterproductive.

Read more...

This guy is saying what I have been saying. He gets it.

South Florida activists host vigil for victims of Virginia white supremacy rally

Ft. Lauderdale:Sun-Sentinel

About 30 people came out to Cathy and Bob Anderson Park in Hollywood to speak out against racism and intolerance Sunday.

Protesters came donning signs and shirts with taglines such as “Refuse fascism” and calls to take down Confederate flags and monuments. The demonstration was meant to honor the people killed and injured protesting white supremacy in Charlottesville, Va. just a day before.

Read more...

Okay, since we are getting rid of all the symbols that represent people and ideas that we don't agree with,
let's get rid of the statues of Santa Claus in front of department stores at Christmas, and lets take down the statues of Martin Luther King, Jr. (who I totally admire, btw) around the nation, and all the statues of eagles that represent the freedoms we have according to our First Amendment, including Free Speech. While we are at it, since we are getting rid of the Confederate Flag, we should also get rid of the American Flag.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am for any of this at all, but if we are going to applaud people who call on suppression of Free Speech as a way to solve the race issue, I think we should be willing to give it up for ourselves, as well as make sure NO ONE has that freedom anymore.

Congresswoman Alma Adams’ Speaks Out Against Censorship of Winner of Congressional Art Competition

Washington, D.C. - January 12, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congresswoman Alma Adams (NC-12) sent a letter to Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-50) expressing her strong opposition and disappointment to the removal of the artwork of Mr. David Pulphus, the high school artist and winner of Missouri’s 1st District Congressional Art Competition, from the exhibit in the U.S. Capitol.

“As a practicing professional artist and retired 40 year college art professor, I am appalled that Congressman Hunter would take any action that would degrade and censor a high school student who was chosen as an official winner of the Congressional Art Competition,” said Congresswoman Adams.

“Representative Hunter’s actions not only disregarded and disrespected Representative Clay’s decision to award Mr. Pulphus with this special Congressional honor, but also silenced the very real experience of those citizens in Mr. Clay’s district- and more specifically this young student’s right as an artist to express himself.

“Our founding fathers enshrined the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, but this irreverent action showed, not only a lack of respect for our freedoms and civil liberties, but also a blatant disregard for our Constitution. Freedom of speech, which includes visual expression, press, and a lack of censorship are values that we have not only fought for, but also values that Representative Hunter and I have been elected to protect.”

The next day, after sending this letter, the painting was replaced in its original spot.