August 20, 2019

Suspended Black Conservative Columnist Speaks Out About Why She Quit St. Louis Post-Dispatch

*Editor’s Note* – Earlier today I posted President Donald Trump’s FAKE Executive Order  that he presented as “policy” of his administration to protect the right of free speech and freedom of religion. In my editorial note included with that post, I wrote of how there was no such thing as freedom of speech and that the Executive Order of Trump’s was nothing more that a further guarantee of the Government’s authority to control every aspect of your life.

The erosion of freedom of speech is further substantiated in the information contained in the press release that follows of one person being “suspended” from a news media company after writing an article about the Second Amendment.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“It’s Never Been a Secret That I Support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association”

St. Louis, MO / Washington, DC – Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington , a black conservative, was recently suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after writing a column defending gun ownership.  She is now speaking out and available for interviews about the allegations made against her by the newspaper’s management and her decision to end writing for the Post-Dispatch altogether.

Washington was recently selected to help guide Project 21, a leadership network promoting the diversity of political opinion within the black community in America, as one of its co-chairmen.

A freelance contributor who began writing a column for the Post-Dispatch last November, Washington was suspended by the newspaper on April 28 after writing a column on guns that her editor complained did not mention her past affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA).  While she has worked with the NRA on media programs and projects in the past, she says she was never paid for her services and the opinions in the column were her own.

Washington’s support of gun ownership has never been a secret.  In her first column for the newspaper, she wrote: “With my father on active [military] duty, guns were always a part of life, so I considered the Second Amendment second in importance only to the religious protections afforded to us in the Constitution.” Before becoming a columnist, the Post-Dispatch reported on her work with the NRA. She also said the column in question –  “Guns and the Media” – was reviewed by the newspaper’s staff before publication.  That column criticized other Missouri newspapers that recently featured commentaries speculating that gun owners favored guns over child safety and asked readers to compare the NRA to the ISIS terrorism network.  In her column, she wrote: “Gun ownership in America is a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, and owning a gun has no bearing on whether people love their children.”

 Commenting on leaving the Post-Dispatch, Washington said:

It’s never been a secret that I support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association. To effectively be suspended by a newspaper for that seems beyond comprehension. But that’s what I believe happened to me.

Last week, my final column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – “Guns and the Media” – discussed two anti-gun opinion columns in other Missouri papers. I think these commentaries were allowed to falsely accuse gun owners of prioritizing guns over child safety and tried to make the NRA and ISIS morally equivalent. I suggested such radical allegations were allowed to be published without challenge due to an editorial bias against guns.

Like all of my columns published by the newspaper, it was submitted, accepted, edited and approved by the staff of the Post-Dispatch. As a freelance writer, I was unable to post my work directly to their website. So I was obviously surprised when I was notified of a suspension that readers were told was due to my “ active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association, [which] represented an unacceptable conflict of interest.”

 I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of the NRA. I was not compensated for my participation in an NRA documentary that was released last year nor was I paid for any appearances on NRA-affiliated media over the years. Some of this work was even previously reported on by the Post-Dispatch. There was never any attempt at deception.

 After much consideration, I have decided to terminate my relationship with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. When I began writing for the paper, it was with the belief that I would be able to present my opinions from a conservative perspective without interference. This has not been the case, and it makes any future relationship with the newspaper untenable.

 I stand by what I wrote, and it represents me and no other person or organization. I believe that, even in a commentary, it is irresponsible and proves an inherent bias when newspapers permit the comparison of NRA members to Islamic State terrorists and imply that gun-owning Americans cherish their firearms more than the safety of their children.

 To book an interview with Stacy Washington, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

Project 21 members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 40,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from some 60,000 individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

Trump’s FAKE Executive Order on Religion and Free Speech

*Editor’s Note* – If there existed any such thing as FREE speech of FREE religious practice, there would never be an “executive action” sold as a protection. Government action, disguised as protection is nothing more than further limitation of a freedom. This Executive Order is nothing that even closely resembles ensuring the protection of free speech or freedom of religion. What is does protect is the Government’s authority over its subjects to do any damned thing they want to while calling it a freedom protection.

We have been trained to only focus on what someone tells us we should focus on. We are told we have freedom of speech and most Americans ignorantly brag about America’s exceptionalism because we have such freedoms and yet never, ever ask why those freedoms are limited more and more with each passing hour. We just believe what we are told to believe. We boast of free speech and yet with each passing hour political correctness, which is nothing more than the destroyer of free speech, is avidly promoted by the same ignoramuses standing in public with a lying, dysfunctional president promoting the continuation of the same policies of limiting free speech. And, this is not just relegated to free speech. Pick any subject. Government insures it WILL control ALL “freedoms.”

If you read the executive order correctly, you will see that it is ALL about ensuring that no laws that exist, said to protect free speech or religion, will be infringed upon. In other words, the Government will never limit it’s ability to limit your freedoms. But I question whether you can see that or not or whether you would choose to see things any other way. But, that’s your choice…albeit a government-limited choice.

Government regulation already exists, and will continue to exist, limiting free speech, freedom of religion and all other limited “freedoms” granted by the Government to us.

This executive order makes a bunch of ignorant people feel good because they are getting hung with a new rope instead of the old one used from decades before them. And they like it…evidently.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2.  Respecting Religious and Political Speech.  All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  As used in this section, the term “adverse action” means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Sec. 3.  Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

Sec. 4.  Religious Liberty Guidance.  In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Sec. 5.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 4, 2017.

Share

Hey, Mike! Take a Hike!

We will see whose undies Sample’s new sign in Boothbay Harbor, Maine wads up in places where the sun don’t shine and most people have their heads.

miketakehike

Share

Pope Says You Can’t Make Fun of Someone Else Religion

Yahoo! News reports that Pope Francis says there must be limits to speaking freely and says that, “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” It would seem then, from the Pope and Catholic Church’s perspective, that poking fun of people and their religious beliefs merits limits while the Pope and the entire Catholic Church has for centuries and continues to this day, murdered millions of innocent people all in the name of the Vatican’s disapproval of anyone who does not buy into the false teachings of Catholicism. The Church never took the time to insult their religions, they just went out and murdered the masses of them, including their own people when appropriate.

Spoken as a true anti Christ.

Share

Radio Ad for Gun Safety Course Offering in Texas

VIDEO/AUDIO: Make sure to listen all the way through and then call the Department of Homeland Security or you can piss and moan about what this guy said right here. Go ahead!

Share

Journalism Professor Hopes Next Gun Violence Victims are NRA Members

journalismprofessor

According to the woman in this video with Cam Edwards, a journalism professor “tweeted”, in response to the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard shootings, that he hoped the next time there was a mass shooting like this that NRA members and their families were the victims.

The discussion early on in the video is about rights, i.e. freedom of speech. The woman declares that journalism students have a right to “be comfortable” in this professor’s classroom and that they cannot exercise their freedom of speech if they feel intimidated by this professor’s comments.

In addition, the woman points out that because the professor’s Twitter profile describes him as being a journalism professor at a university, makes whatever he writes on Twitter connected to the university. The professor claims what he does off or away from the school is his own business.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think too many would argue that making such a statement in a public setting and being a college professor (sort of high profile) is quite over the top. Perhaps it is more of a reflection of the divide and hatred that is being fomented in this country over issues. It’s also not a real smart thing to be spouting off about in public. Apparently the professor was confronted by media after the statement and is not regretting making it.

My question, to myself and to readers is, are we making more out of this, because we have become a hateful, spiteful, politically correct bunch of cry babies? Or is this overstepping one’s belief in what freedom of speech is? I guess I would have to add to this the question of whether or not people actually understand what freedom of speech is and why it was important to include it in the Bill of Rights?

Share