Pearl Clutching

Trump excluded certain left leaning members of the MSM from the White House grounds. The left is losing their collective minds, claiming this to be an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment, and of course making comparisons to Hitler, their standard accusation. They have almost completely memory holed the fact that both Obama and Biden did the same thing.

In October 2009, amid a feud in which White House officials (including Communications Director Anita Dunn) publicly described Fox News as not a legitimate news organization but more like “the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party” and said they would treat it “the way we would treat an opponent,” even while saying the network’s point of view was “ultimately destructive” to the nation, then ordered the Treasury Department to exclude a Fox journalist from a multi-network interview pool.

Obama’s administration was widely criticized by journalists (including from outlets not aligned with Fox) for tight control of information, fewer formal press conferences than many predecessors, restricted photographer access (favoring official White House images), delays or stonewalling on FOIA, and “blackballing” or limiting access for some critical reporters at agencies.

Obama’s efforts to plug leaks and persecute leakers even exceeded those of George W. Bush’s administration. The administration prosecuted Stephen Kim, a former State Department official, merely for discussing a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen, even going so far as to seize Associated Press phone records for two months and used the FBI to conduct surveillance on James Rosen (naming him as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in one case) and New York Times reporter James Risen while trying to identify sources.

Even in earlier times, the actions were hardly unprecedented:

  • Woodrow Wilson investigated journalists critical of his administration by invoking the espionage act of 1917.
  • During the late 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt harassed activists, including members of the press, who sought to keep the United States out of the war raging in Europe.
  • Richard Nixon went to great lengths attempting to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers because those documents exposed how US policymakers repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people about the Vietnam War.

Cato institute has a lengthy article about the abuses of opposing press outlets by Presidents. As for my blog, I detailed how the Bush administration and Republicans used laws against pornography. One of the Florida enforcers of this is none other than Sheriff Grady Judd.

Christopher Michael Wilson was investigated by Judd because he ran a website that allowed people to post nude pictures of women on the site, and it required a credit card to access so that the Wilson would know that people accessing the site were adults. Military men deployed in the Iraq war complained that they could not do so while in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, because the web servers in those countries blocked credit cards from being processed by companies who promoted pornography. Because of this, Wilson allowed members proving they were deployed by posting pictures from the war zone to have access to the site. Because of those pictures, the site became a photo journal that chronicled the Iraq war. It was one of the first sites to publish the Abu Grhaib pictures that so embarrassed former President Bush. The pictures being posted to that site caused major problems for the Bush administration.

Judd arrested Wilson on 301 counts of distributing pornography, even though Wilson did not post the pictures, he merely ran a site where people posted content, and the servers were not in Polk County (they were in the Netherlands). A plea deal was reached where Wilson had to turn the website over to Judd.

Even though the charges themselves were over pornography, according to Judd, the investigation was because of the Iraq pictures, also according to Judd.

Don’t forget that Grady Judd is also one of the Sheriffs who broke the law in 2011 when they lobbied the state legislators to defeat the open carry law. I am one of the few people not on the left who think Judd is a grandstanding, authoritarian asshole. He also has previously engaged in arresting people who are critical of his policies, including arresting one woman for “lewd activity in the presence of a minor” because her neighbor and his child heard a “sexual sounding noise” coming from the woman’s home 48 days earlier. Of course, it was only a coincidence that the woman had been critical of the sheriff and his policies. The charges were dropped, but the woman had to sign an agreement to stop criticizing the sheriff.

Yeah, so using political power to silence dissent is nothing new. It’s been going on as long as we have had a nation. Both parties do it, but each claims the other is the evil one. I have news for you: they both are evil, power grabbing assholes who will stop at nothing to gain power.

Words Are Violence

Tyler Robinson’s attorney is in court arguing Kirk’s murder is justified because Kirk engaged in what he refers to as “hate speech.” This is a pattern we have been seeing for awhile- the youth of today have been taught that objectional speech is violence that justifies a physically violent response, including deadly force. To quote him:

some hatred can’t be negotiated out… It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people…he spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships outside of marriage

The left is now declaring anyone who utters words in opposition to their beliefs is committing violence, and deserves to be killed. We are so close to a civil war in this nation, it is frightening.

First, it was young people saying that the First Amendment protection of speech doesn’t apply to anything “hateful.” The bar is low, because even disputing the results of an election isn’t protected speech.

Now we are at “Chud the Builder deserves to have his ass kicked for saying things I don’t like, and if he defends himself from that violent beating he should go to jail,” and “I can murder you if you say things contrary to my beliefs.“

Speech

A woman in Minnesota was just convicted for calling a Somalian immigrant a “nigger.” The Constitution won’t be rewritten, it will just be ignored.

Hendrix was sentenced to supervised probation, 200 hours of community work service, and a $1,000 fine.

and with that, free speech is dead. Say goodbye to the First Amendment.

That’s Some Soviet Shit

Remember when the left got their panties in a bunch when Florida prohibited teaching about gay sex? Papers were written, and the left’s chorus were all claiming it was a First Amendment violation. (pdf warning- not hosted here)

Proving once again that, if it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all, Virginia has passed a law that defies belief. It is now a crime in Virginia for a school to “state, suggest, or present as credible a statement or suggestion that there was extensive election fraud that could have changed or actually changed the results of the 2020 presidential election.” 

Not only that, but the same law says that school instruction must “Describe the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol as an unprecedented, violent attack on United States democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Not only is this law egregious, but CBS’ reporting of it is as bad. The reporting here would have made Goebbels or Zhdanov proud. First lie is in the headline:

Virginia passes legislation prohibiting schools from teaching falsehoods about Jan. 6 riot

Read the money quote:

The White House posted a series of lies about Jan. 6 on an official federal government web page on Jan. 6, 2026, including a bogus claim that police bore responsibility for the attack.

So is telling teachers to teach only one side of a story propaganda, or not? A First Amendment issue, or not? Wouldn’t it be better in a politically charged case like this one, to present both sides and let students decide for themselves? Are we teaching students how to think, or what to think?

  • “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
  • “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
  • “All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth. I don’t think this matters so long as one knows what one is doing, and why.”

Warning Sign

Until the killing of Charlie Kirk, I had a post laid out for this spot. I am not going to talk about the assassination, the killer, or anything to do with the actual events from Utah yesterday. Instead, I want to remark on the cosmic shift that this killing has signaled.

I was at work when the news broke. One of the nurses there began grinning and said “I will just keep my thoughts to myself on this one.” Then laughed. Leftists are just evil.

I have been saying since 2020 that one of the signs that a revolution is nearing its completion is the disappearance of people who can make trouble for the revolution. It’s a sign that the revolution is beginning to eliminate those who can make trouble for them. As I have been saying:

You bet your ass that I am closely watching the lists of Republican donors and prominent political figures. If the disappearances begin, you will know that its time to disappear before you hear the knock at your own door.

I have a list of prominent conservative figures- political, journalism, and donors. When they begin disappearing, it means that we are in real trouble. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one of them. He was one of the prominent figures on my list.

I will be closely monitoring the rest of that list. If this becomes a pattern, it may very well mean that this blog will have to be shut down.

Unless there are further developments, this will be the only post today…

Free Speech?

A man attended protests around the Tampa area. He is alleged to have been using racial and anti-gay language at these protests. The leftists do what they always do- they post pictures of people on the opposing side in the hopes that someone will identify them. That’s what happened here: someone recognized and identified him. At no time is he alleged to have identified his employer during the protests, nor is he alleged to have ever worn uniform items while protesting. Still, he was fired from his job at the Largo Fire Department as a result of his behavior at the protests.

Stoffel’s actions were not consistent with the standards and trust the community expects and deserves. ~Largo Fire Department officials in a statement to the press

A private employer would be in a good position to fire Mr. Stoffel. However, his employer is the government.

The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of speech. Government employees who are not at work do not lose their Constitutional rights simply because the government signs their paychecks. Government employees can speak as private citizens on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation, but their speech can be restricted if it disrupts government operations or is part of their official job duties. Since Mr. Stoffel was protesting on his own time and did not at any time indicate that he was a government employee, he is free to speak his mind. This is a well established legal principle.

The governing constitutional standard, known as the Pickering test, is a flexible balancing inquiry pitting the interests of the government as an employer against the free speech interests of their employees.

  • speech spoken as an employee gets no constitutional protections. So the speech cannot be made as a part of an employee’s duties. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
  • The speech must be one of concern to the general public. For example, speech complaining about your boss’ management style is not protected. Connick v. Myers (1983)
  • In Pickering v. Board of Education, a public school teacher was fired for publishing a “Letter to the Editor” that criticized the local school board’s allocation of school funds. The Court noted that teachers were “the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions” about public school expenditures. This establishes that sometimes citizens who happen to be government employees can have an educated opinion.

Speaking as a citizen and speaking as an employee appear to be mutually exclusive: a speaker can speak either as one or the other. An employee speaks as a citizen whenever the speech is neither an employment grievance nor speech that a part of their professional duties. And while speech spoken as an employee is unprotected, when an employee speaks as a citizen, any reactive adverse employment action would be subjected to a constitutional scrutiny whenever that speech is about matters of public concern. Simple, right?

One other caveat: The speech can’t be detrimental to the mission of the employer. In City of San Diego v. Roe (2004), a police officer was fired for selling sexually explicit videos of himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. When the case eventually made it to SCOTUS, the court ruled that the officer had damaged the mission of his employer because he appeared in uniform in the video.

So let’s now take a look at Stoffel’s actions- he was engaged in various protests in the Tampa area. At no time did he announce that he was a firefighter, never appeared in any sort of clothing that identified that he was part of that fraternity, and the speech was not a part of his duties. Some speech, like a public employee’s social media posts considered racist, sexist, or homophobic, could be seen as matters of public concern.

In deciding if the speech is disruptive to the workplace, the court will consider the content of the speech, as well as its manner, time, and place. In this case, it was at a protest where people of both sides of the argument were present.

There was a similar case a few years ago in Lake county, where a teacher that had expressed his disagreement with the concept of gay marriage was terminated after a parent recognized him and started a public cancelling campaign. He sued, and they settled out of court, paying him an undisclosed sum. I posted about it here.

In my opinion, Mr. Stoffel has a good case. He should retain a lawyer and file a lawsuit.