There is a controversy in Oregon over a proposed change in the ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board. At issue is the use of “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and to make reporting such transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems before you can give stitches, you have to join snitches under one of the most ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.
I have been a critic of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss this trend in my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. In past debates over this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.
That ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from “melting pot” to phrases like “pulling oneself up by your own bootstraps” have been declared racist. Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregon’s state government as a “microaggressions expert.”
Professor Sue considers statements like “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough!” as an example of a microaggression. Sue’s work on “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” are being effectively adopted by the Board.
Notably, when I have objected to this category, advocates have insisted that they are merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory fashion by triggering investigations of professors and would inevitably be made mandatory.
That appears to be happening in Oregon. A couple of conservative sites have covered the controversy.
Under the new ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (over which a doctor can lose his or her license) will include microaggressions:
“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”
The new section “J” ranks microaggressions with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgeries.
Oregon Medical Board states that
“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a ground for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably impact racial equity by making discrimination a ground for discipline for OMB licensees. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments will impact racial equity in the state.”
The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethic rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.
We have seen the same trajectory in other areas like land acknowledgments where the line between the optimal and the mandatory is hard to discern. As discussed in my book:
“What began as voluntary statements have become either expressly or implicitly mandatory…George Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students alike to agree to a land acknowledgment statement to even gain access to virtual classrooms. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as compulsory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a prewritten ‘Indigenous land acknowledgment’ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that ‘The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.’
Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declared…’I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.’ … He was told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’s dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed his students offering an apology for their professor’s ‘offensive’ opinion and advising them on ‘three ways students could file complaints against’ him.”
Federal courts have ruled in favor of academics in disputes over microaggression rules, but the movement is expanding beyond campuses, as shown in Oregon.
I have no objection to the sharing of views of others on how certain phrases are received. I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. When others have a reasoned basis for objecting to language, I err on the side of caution to avoid making others uncomfortable. Yet, this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. That makes for a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.
The free speech concern is how such microaggressive terms can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigations. Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than intended. Schools need to be clear as to whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.
Consider again the language from the Oregon Medical Board. It would encompass any “indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.” The standard is heavily laden with subjectivity. (Notably, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably whites or males).
The board then amplifies the standard by making it mandatory for other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed ruled,
“a licensee must report within 10 business days to the Board any information that appears to show that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a licensee with a physical incapacity.”
So doctors will have to police any “indirect or subtle behaviors” that “reflect negative attitudes or beliefs” . . . or face discipline themselves.
The hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than merely publish opinions on phrases or practices that can be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose an ambiguous speech regulation that is likely viewed by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior snitches.
The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.
This column appeared on Fox.com
OMG! I just went to the post office, and it was closed. Apparently, today is a holiday, June-somethingth, for a particular race. Nothing says unassimilable like welfare, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, Obamacare, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, AAEP, BAASEP, AAPC, UNCF, NAACP, etc., and a race-based holiday, Junsomethingth—whatever! These people have no intention of assimilating. Their intent is to conquer. They are motivated by supremacy and privilege. They intend to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” out of the possession of actual Americans and into their own, as La Raza is intent on and has almost completely subsumed the Southwest. Now you understand why the Founders wrote the original immigration laws.
OMG! I just went to the post office, and it was closed. Apparently, today is a holiday, June-somethingth, for a particular race. Nothing says unassimilable like welfare, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, Obamacare, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, AAEP, BAASEP, AAPC, UNCF, NAACP, etc., and a race-based holiday-Junsomethingth—whatever! These people have no intention of assimilating. Their intent is to conquer. They are motivated by supremacy and privilege. They intend to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” out of the possession of actual Americans and into their own, as La Raza is intent on and has almost completely subsumed the Southwest. Now you understand why the Founders wrote the original immigration laws.
This might shed some light: https://www.amerikaerwache.com/2024/06/19/the-irony-of-juneteenth/
See the following from Senator’s Cornyn and his colleagues on the history and meaning of Juneteenth. https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-colleagues-introduce-resolution-recognizing-juneteenth/
Liberal NYT Columnist Thinks Oregon’s Too Liberal
As a gesture to support trans kids, Oregon took money from the tight education budget to put tampons in boys’ restrooms in elementary schools — including boys’ restrooms in kindergartens.
“The inability of progressives, particularly in the Portland metro area, to deal with the nitty-gritty of governing and to get something done is just staggering,” Representative Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who has been representing and championing Portland for more than half a century, told me. “People are much more interested in ideology than in actual results.”
In 2022, the Portland Freedom Fund helped a Black man named Mohamed Adan who had been arrested after allegedly strangling his former girlfriend, holding a gun to her head and then — in violation of a restraining order — cutting off his G.P.S. monitor and entering her building. “He told me that he would kill me,” the former girlfriend, Rachael Abraham, warned.
The Freedom Fund paid Adan’s bail, and he walked out of jail. A week later, Adan allegedly removed his G.P.S. monitor again and entered Abraham’s home. The police found Abraham’s body drenched in blood with a large knife nearby; three children were also in the house.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/opinion/progressives-california-portland.html
……………………………….
Columnist Nicholas Kristof is an Oregon native.
YAWN
Book About Book Bans Banned
Alan Gratz’s children’s book “Ban This Book” was published in 2017. Seven years later, his novel for kids ages 8 and older is at the center of a debate over book banning after a Florida school district last month took took the title literally and banned the book.
The Florida school district of Indian River County last month voted to remove “Ban This Book” from its shelves. In removing the book, the school board overruled its own review committee, which had recommended that the school district retain the novel.
The American Library Association (ALA) has found that the number of books targeted for censorship surged 65% in 2023 compared with a year earlier, reaching the highest number of titles ever documented by the group.
In all, about 4,240 books were targets of censorship efforts last year, with about half of those books written by or including people of color and those from LGBTQ+ communities, the ALA found.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ban-this-book-florida-school-board-ban-alan-gratz/
…………………………………
It’s odd that free speech champion Johnathan Turley never writes about book bans. One would think these bans would be a natural topic for Turley. But Fox News producers may have said, “Stay away from that”.
So we, as readers, are left with the notion that threats to free speech are coming from ‘only’ the left.
Censoring kid’s content is different than censoring adult’s content.
And that accounts for a 65% surge in bans..??
Entirely
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^^
A cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat cull, tried this deflection:
It’s odd that free speech champion Johnathan Turley never writes about book bans.
Where can normal Americans go to read the list of books that have been banned by “the right> prohibiting those books’ sale from vendors like Amazon? I can’t find any such list by doing Internet searches.
If there isn’t such a list, then once again we have a cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat, lyin’ like a proud Biden. Or as The Big Guy brags: “If we aren’t lyin’, we aren’t really tryin’, Jack!” In this case, claiming there is a list of books that “the right” have banned and are prohibited from sale to groomers and perverts.
Of course, these are the Soviet Democrats who claim it’s a “book ban” when parents and school boards decide they aren’t going to allow activist groomer unionized teachers to put magazines like “Hustler” with naked crotch shots in elementary school libraries for kiddies that still believe in Santa Clause.
Note to cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat perverts: if YOU want to give your own little children your boxes of ‘Hustler’ magazine and any other hard core porn you’ve collected over your lifetime, you’re free to do that – they’re not banned nor are you banned from warping your children by doing that. But you don’t get to force other parents to put the same porn you shill for in public schools with their children.
If only Oregon had the 10 Commandments as a guidepost. If only the Left had learned from history in the value of the Decalogue wisdom that has guided centuries of generations. Happily, Louisiana has now made it the law to display them in schools.
Sit back, relax and watch the Left go full blown Linda Blair in The Exorcist. That alone is all the more reason to display the Ten Commandments Moral instructions? Heaven forbid!
Louisiana Requires Ten Commandments to Be Displayed in Public-School Classrooms
Louisiana will require public schools to display the Ten Commandments, reigniting the debate over where such displays are permissible.
The state’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed a bill into law Wednesday mandating that every public-school class post the display no later than January. The Ten Commandments are a set of moral instructions in the Bible telling people to not kill, steal or lie, among other directives.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/louisiana-requires-ten-commandments-to-be-displayed-in-public-school-classrooms-f2e855b2
Jonathan: Now that DJT is waiting for his sentencing hearing on 7/11 what is he doing with the time. He is out campaigning–well his version. On Saturday, he rented a Black church in Detroit–part of his “outreach” to the Black community. It didn’t go well. First, the Black parishioners of the church were all absent. The pews were filled with the White MAGA faithful. Second, the DJT campaign claimed there were 8,000 people at the event. Photos inside the church showed at the most a few hundred. Small details that the mainstream press often misses.
After that event DJT went nearby where he addressed Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA “People’s Convention”. Kirk is openly racist. Last year Kirk posted on “X that “Whiteness is great. Be proud of who you are”. If Kirk/DJT think that kind of openly racist rhetoric will appeal to the Detroit Black community they are barking up the wrong tree. The Black community is smarter than DJT by half.
The lowlight of the Kirk event was prior to DJT’s arrival. Kirk’s people were parading around the stage with a red flag with large white letters that read: “White Boy summer”. No doubt Martha-Ann Alito will want 2 of the flags so she can display them proudly in front of the Alito residences!
Dennis – How many times did Hillary Clinton come to a black church in 2016? I don’t even recall her visiting Michigan.
Liar
He didnt rent the church
There were thousands there
The crowd was 80% black
The Left lying, again, about Trump. Imagine that.
“On Saturday, [Trump] rented a Black church in Detroit . . .”
He did *not* rent the church. The event was hosted by the church’s pastor.
“It didn’t go well.”
The church’s pastor disagrees with you:
“President Trump, I’m so humbled that you would be here. President Obama never came to the hood, so to speak,” Sewell said to applause. “President Joe Biden went to the big NAACP dinner, but he never came to the hood — so thank you.”
Dennis McIntyre, Bribery Biden’s Baghdad Bob, Is A Thief Using Turley’s Columns As His Own Private Blog
Dennis McIntyre, Soviet Democrat police state fascist is not only a professional liar and groomer promoting groomer Soviet Democrat policies put forward by Daddy-Daughter Showers Biden (whose own DoJ said he was a felon, but they would protect him from prosecution as they did Holder and Clinton before him), but Dennis is a THIEF.
A thief in that McIntyre makes daily visits to Turley’s blog to use it as his personal political blog, posting his completely off topic sophomoric commentary overflowing with lies. As Thief McIntyre’s boss Bribery Biden proudly brags: If we ain’t lyin’, then we aren’t really tryin’
McIntyre indulges himself in this daily theft of Turley’s blog for his own purposes because he will not spend his own money to create his own blog. He will not spend the money Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats pay him to be a low level professional liar. Communists like McIntyre (and his boss The Big Guy) expect that OTHER people are to give them their money and their belongings – like this comment section – because they are not only lifelong welfare cases but lifelong thieves as well.
So today McIntyre is here to support Biden by lying about racism and who is and isn’t racist.
McIntyre’s boss Bribery Biden, who started his corrupt career by fighting against black children being allowed to go to school with white children, claimed he didn’t want his kids in “jungle bunny schools”, and said in 40 years of politics he never met a clean, decent, well spoken black American until he met a mulatto named Barack Obama… raised by a communist white mother and wealthy communist grandparents, but renounced his White Privilege to run for political office as a po’ little black chil’.
Yep, McIntyre says it isn’t his boss Bribery Biden who’s the lifelong racist – it’s Trump and Kirk!
Meanwhile, Thief McIntyre has to take a kick at Alito because he’s a white justice and not racist like his favorite SCOTUS justice, Sotomayor: who publicly claimed that no white could be as smart as a Latino woman. Nothing racist in that! No doubt Thief McIntyre longs for the days when Ruth Bader-Ginsberg would happily appear in public forums to make attacks on Trump, both as a candidate and then as president.
Thief McIntyre and the Soviet Democrats never complained about that – or demanded that Bader-Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving Trump. But a SCOTUS justice’s wife putting up a flag that offends him is intolerable!
As always with Bribery Biden and Thief McIntyre: one set of rules for them and their Biden White House Crime LLC cartel – and a completely different set of rules and meanings for those who are obstacles to their totalitarian communist tyranny.
Talk About Stupid:
Jim Jordan Investigating YouTube For Restricting Videos On Modifying Guns
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is seeking answers on whether YouTube changed some of its content moderation policies surrounding firearms due to the influence of government officials, particularly New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D).
Jordan, acting in his capacity as chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee of Weaponization of the Federal Government, sent a letter to the legal counsel for YouTube parent company Alphabet on Tuesday.
Earlier this month, the Google-owned platform announced that it would age restrict “content showing the use of homemade firearms, automatic firearms, and certain firearm accessories,” and outright prohibit content “showing how to remove safety devices.”
“Recent reporting and other publicly available information suggests that YouTube’s decision to change its firearms policy may have been influenced by government officials and third parties interested in suppressing certain Second Amendment-related content,” Jordan wrote in the letter, first shared with The Hill.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4727835-jim-jordan-youtube-firearms-bragg/
……………………………….
YouTube imposes an age restriction on videos concerning the modification of firearms, and Jim Jordan starts an investigation! Like minors have a right to see how silencers are attached?
Professor Turley would have us believe stupid speech policies are the exclusive domain of liberals. WRONG!!
Anonymous: +500!
Talk about stupid!
Can you say, “Shall not be infringed?”
__________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
infringe
verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
violate; breach – infringe a patent
______________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like minors have a right to see how
silencersFTM TRANS 🍆 & 🍒 are attached?Anti-Trans!!! hater!!!
YAWN
“. . . Jim Jordan starts an investigation!”
You’re misrepresenting his investigation, in a slimy attempt to smear him.
In a nut shell:
________________
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
Is it even possible that a perspective or opinion on race is unconstitutional given that the American Founders passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802, which required that immigrants admitted to become citizens must have been “free white person(s)?”
Is it even possible that legislated facilities to enable unassimilable persons to be forcibly integrated are constitutional given that the American Founders passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802, which required that immigrants admitted to become citizens must have been “free white person(s)?”
Is it even possible that the immigration intent and law of the very Founders of America could be arbitrarily extirpated by kinetic force, circumventing the licit, constitutional legislative process?
Were the American Founders who wrote the Naturalization Acts unconstitutional and criminal racists?
Is the Constitution unconstitutional?
________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
I note that the citizenship limitations for free blacks imposed by those early Naturalization Acts and the Dred Scott decision in 1857 were removed by the 14th amendment in 1868 and the Naturalization Act of 1870.
So right. At gun point. Secession was not prohibited and fully constitutional. Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional beginning with his unconstitutional denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession.
In a society of laws, laws must be strictly adhered to.
Reprehensible slavery was dying. The South would have seceded, failed, then reunited with the North. Long-suffering freed slaves would have finally received their due and been returned to their homeland and compassionately repatriated – Lincoln’s original idea.
“Microagression” is a myth. It PRESUMES you are GUILTY of a heinous offense if someone decides to TAKE OFFENSE at something you said – no matter what you said, nor your intent, nor whether it was really even a slight.
It is the passive-aggressive Demunist’s bludgeon of choice. Tell them to pound sand, and that if they thought THAT was insulting wait until you get warmed up…
This kind of childish behavior will work until Xi gives the signal to the 200,000 mandarins that PJoe has let cross the border and is now taking their positions – probably at the pop of the EMP.
As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.
It isnt just Oregon monitoring speech. Harvard University is once again monitoring speech but this time of faculty.
Respected Harvard faculty, Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, Dr Jeffrey Flier, Psychologist Dr Steven Pinker and Mathematician / Economist Dr Eric Maskin, a Nobel Prize winner, have written a Letter to the Editor, in the Harvard Crimson denouncing Harvard’s Dean of Social Science Dr Lawrence D. Bobo on curbing faculty free speech. Strikingly Dean Bobo appeals to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy. Why is it the Holmes’ “fire” analogy is almost always misconstrued?
Good to see distinguished Harvard faculty stepping up for the First Amendment and against their university leadership.
From the Leadership of CAFH: Don’t Punish Faculty Speech
In an unprecedented repudiation of the principle of academic freedom, Dean of Social Science Lawrence D. Bobo argued in a recent op-ed that it is “outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct” and sometimes even a “sanctionable violation” for a “faculty member to excoriate University leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent to arouse external intervention into University business.” He goes on to question whether a faculty member’s right to free speech does not protect behaviors that “invite external interference and encourage student misconduct.”
It is downright alarming that such a stunning argument would come from a dean who currently wields power over hundreds of professors — without indicating that he would refrain from implementing his views by punishing the faculty he oversees.
We strongly reject Dean Bobo’s arguments. He does not invoke generally agreed-upon exceptions to the right to free speech, such as inherently verbal crimes like libel, or justifiable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Instead, he references an analogy from former Supreme court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Class of 1861, arguing that shouting fire in a crowded theater is sanctionable.
The analogy is inapplicable for many reasons. Holmes alluded to falsely crying “fire,” whereas the speech that Dean Bobo would sanction is reasoned opinion, not known falsehood. The analogy pertains to a reflexive and predictable mob reaction; faculty opinions may be evaluated and deliberated over time. And the actual legal decision Holmes justified, which convicted people who criticized the draft during World War I, was later effectively overturned in a judgment that limited suppression of speech to incitement of “imminent lawless action.”
Analogies aside, Dean Bobo’s assertion that faculty who criticized Harvard’s leadership should be sanctioned because of an “intent to arouse external intervention” is troubling. He has no grounds for imputing such intent, nor for asserting that outside attention “impedes the University’s function.”
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/19/CAFH-punish-faculty-speech/
Whether you see flames or smell smoke or not, you are responsible for your actions. If I’m holding a firearm and someone hollers fire who is responsible for me pulling the trigger?
if you shoot at your own feet, thats on you, but dont let any of us tell you otherwise. Any other stupid questions should be addressed on Reddit where Gen Z imbeciles will mock you ruthlessly
Micro Aggressions become Macro Grievances made from a gravitational pull of Tyranny. Fools a-plenty scurry about with their self-inflated Egos thinking they know best, dictating language and thoughts to be monitored by none other than, themselves. Oh, such a sorry state we may become with this rear-end attitude of governance!
‘May God help us’
The reply to allegations of miccroaggression should be real aggression. As in thr Go f*** yourself or shove it up your a**.
The Oregon Medical Board has given us another example of a dangerous local trend in administrative law, the tendency to adopt the philosophy and tactics of the anarchic leftists destroying American universities. We have seen the same at the federal level, particularly under Obama and Biden. Their overreach is often smacked down in the courts, except by Obama/Biden judges, but that is expensive and takes a long time.
During the Covid epidemic some medical boards punished doctors who prescribed HCQ and Ivermectin despite their being effective treatments. The rubric adopted was that neither was approved for treatment of Covid. That is a deceit. Once a medication is approved it can be used legitimately off-label for other conditions. Something like 30% of all prescriptions are off-label. Letitia James, predictably, has picked up the same nonsense argument and has begun to threaten doctors who prescribe the medications.
Medical Boards are not the only organization that can go off the rails. School boards and other local and state organizations can as well.
At the local level, regulated professionals and, more broadly, Republican precinct committeemen, need to focus and organize local opposition to these rogue organizations. Lately parents have been voting out school boards that have gone mad but agencies like Medical Boards and State Bar Associations need attention as well.
If one is familiar with the “Broken Windows” approach to law enforcement, something of the same needs to be adopted for dealing with local government institutions gone radical. Fight for every inch of civilization.
Teacher’s union president Randi Weingarten’s COVID policies — from masking to lockdowns — harmed COUNTLESS black and Hispanic children (harmed all children). She posted on x.com about Juneteenth and locked down replies after getting pummeled by X users. She was blown to bits as the hypocrite, racist, groomer Randi Weingarten is, or in other words, a typical Democrat
🤡
https://twitter.com/rweingarten/status/1803414987580330439
Speaking of microagressions, Leftists love to project their moral defects of character onto everyone else except themselves. It is now literally a risk to be a Jew and live in NYC. Democrats are Nazis
NYPD hunts for anti-Israel protester who told ‘Zionists’ to ID themselves on subway
The incident unfolded the same night a mob of anti-Israel protesters ghoulishly swarmed a downtown Manhattan exhibit memorializing the victims of the Nova music festival who were slaughtered and kidnapped on Oct. 7.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/19/us-news/nypd-hunts-for-anti-israel-protester-who-told-zionists-to-id-themselves-on-subway/
“NYPD hunts for anti-Israel protester who told ‘Zionists’ to ID themselves on subway.”
Bragg probably wants to give him a medal.
Jonathan: Great news! The Celtics have won another NBA championship. Long time coming after so many years. Mark Cuban still owns a 27% stake in the Mavericks. Despite the loss to the Celtics, Cuban just announced he is supporting Joe Biden. Other great news! Now I know there will be naysayers on your blog–anyone who would support Biden doesn’t deserve the NBA championship. It’s the usual “Trump world” crowd that always looks on the negative side.
Speaking of the “Trump world” crowd did you notice that some on your blog actually believe DJT is a special case. They believe the ordinary rules of civil and criminal law don’t apply to their cult leader. Ironically, DJT HAS been given special treatment by the courts. Ordinarily, a criminal defendant who trash talks a judge’s daughter, witnesses and jurors–and the entire court system–would find himself in jail after the first contempt citation. Justice Merchan has given DJT 10 bites of the apple and never put him in jail for even a day. Now that’s special treatment. But the MAGA crowd is never satisfied.
Now they bizarrely claim Merchan’s gag order is an infringement of DJT’s 1st Amendment rights. Except in extraordinary circumstances gag orders have been upheld by the courts. That applies to Justice Merchan’s gag order on DJT. The NY Appeals Court just upheld Merchan’s gag order as not infringing on DJT’s constitutional rights.
That’s because a “convicted felon” loses a lot of protected rights. He can’t vote. He can’t travel without the approval of his probation officer. He can’t own or posses a weapon. But DJT thinks he should be treated differently. He still is in possession of one of the 3 handguns he legally purchased. He turned over 2 of them but claims the third gun was “legally” transferred to Mar-a-Lago. Nope. Now DJT has committed another felony. So unless DJT turns over the 3rd handgun before sentencing on July 11 he will be in a heap of more legal trouble!
Dennis is full of shit.
Trump owned over 200 guns, and every one of them were transferred to his sons the day after he was arraigned.
Next?
Mark Cuban’s approval rating among independents is 0.8%
Dude, your a prime example of Trump Retardation Syndrome
felon: someone convicted of a felony
convicted felon: spastic term used by idiot non savants who don’t own a dictionary
MDs who care for patients in Oregon should leave Oregon! move to a state where holier-than-thou people make up nonsensical regulations such as this!
Why are the Democrats so determined to fund a terrorist organization like the IVF?
“Snitches Give Stitches: Oregon Moves to Make Reporting Microaggressions Mandatory for Doctors”
-Professor Turley
____________________
“It’s the [dictatorship of the proletariat], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
“AN EARNEST OF THE EPOCH TO COME,” KARL MARX.
America was compelled down the path of communism in 1860.
You can thank the tyrant, “Crazy Abe,” for his denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession, his illicit seizure of power, and his unconstitutional insurrection.
Karl Marx did, as he and Lincoln began the “reconstruction of a social world.”
___________________________________________________________________________________
“Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your [fixed] re-election by a large majority.”
…
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD” [B].
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
Tom Woods: Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics
The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration. And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers — even if only out of curiosity — considered, pursued or even raised.
Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.
In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”
What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”
Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character. King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.
“Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics”
And yet, among countless similar opinions about immigration:
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges…” (GW)
Next time you purport to present the Founders’ view of something, have the intellectual honesty to present the *totality* of their views — not just the cherry-picked ones that support your preconceived notions.
Obviously, we have a contextual anomaly, which you abuse simply to further an inane and vacuous debate.
Ultimately, George Washington et al. ratified the 1st Amendment freedom of religion, supported the severe voter restrictions that led to an 11.6% turnout in 1788, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, etc.
In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.