Monday, January 31, 2022

Bruce Springsteen guitarist Nils Lofgren removes his music from Spotify over Joe Rogan's 'lies and misinformation' on vaccines

The 70-year-old Bruce Springsteen guitarist made the announcement in solidarity with Neil Young, who removed his music from Spotify days earlier, by making his announcement in Young's newsletter.

Joni Mitchell has also followed suit by taking her music off the service in protest.

Lofgren, who has played on and off in Young's working group Crazy Horse, noted his long friendship with the Canadian rocker.

'We encourage all musicians, artists and music lovers everywhere, to stand with us all, and cut ties with Spotify. Music is our planet’s sacred weapon, uniting and healing billions of souls every day. Pick up your sword and start swinging,' he added, before mentioning that he was working in solidarity with Mitchell as well.

The exodus of rock legends from Spotify began after Young, 76, posted a since-deleted letter on Tuesday that took aim at Rogan, who signed an exclusive $100 million deal with Spotify in May 2020, which gave the streaming service exclusive rights to his popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.


NY: 'Jingle Bells' Silenced at Brighton Central Schools

When she discovered "Jingle Bells" was performed publicly for the first time by white actors wearing blackface, Kyna Hamill had no idea her scholarly paper would be used to silence the holiday classic in an elementary school.

But it was.

And Hamill, a professor and director of Boston University's Core Curriculum, can't quite believe the dustup her work caused at Council Rock Primary School in Brighton, New York.

She told The Rochester Beacon in an email that she is "actually quite shocked" that her scholarly deep dive on the origin of "Jingle Bells" caused the school to "remove the song from the repertoire."

"I, in no way, recommended that it stopped being sung by children," she told the news outlet. "My article tried to tell the story of the first performance of the song, I do not connect this to the popular Christmas tradition of singing the song now.




Sunday, January 30, 2022

Biden's Surgeon General Calls for Rogan's Podcast to Be Removed

This arrogant excretion thinks he and his ilk alone know what the truth is

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on Big Tech to remove Joe Rogan’s podcast because of so-called COVID-19 “misinformation,” on Tuesday.

Murthy was discussing what he considered to be COVID-19 “misinformation” on social media platforms with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski asked Murthy what he thought of Rogan’s podcast, which reached 11 million people per episode. Rogan has been criticized for promoting alternative treatments for COVID-19.

“What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continues to be aggressively pushed, whether it be Joe Rogan’s podcast or all over Facebook?” Brzezinski asked Murthy, according to The Blaze.

“We can have the best science available, we can have the best public health expertise available. It won’t help people if they don’t have access to accurate information,” Murthy said. Adding: “People have the right to make their own decisions, but they also have the right to have accurate information to make that decision with.”


Inclusive language risks ‘dehumanising women’, top researchers argue

Replacing words like “women” and “mothers” with terms like “birth-givers” and “pregnant people” in research risks dehumanising women and would harm decades of work to improve the visibility of women in medical literature.

That is the conclusion of 10 prominent women’s health researchers from Australia, the US, Europe and Asia who will argue in a paper published next week that replacing words like “breastfeeding” with terms such as “lactating parents” risks “reducing protection of the mother-infant [bond]” and “disembodying and undermining breastfeeding”.

An international group of women’s health experts argues removing ‘women’ from maternity literature and information risks harming protection of the mother-baby bond.
An international group of women’s health experts argues removing ‘women’ from maternity literature and information risks harming protection of the mother-baby bond.CREDIT:ALAMY

The authors acknowledge words are changing to ensure inclusion of those who give birth but do not identify as women, but they argue against removing references to the sex of mothers in research and medical information.

“Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive,” they write in the paper. “Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.”

Official changes to terminology to be more inclusive of trans people has become a contentious issue in Australia and overseas. The paper acknowledges that “the penalty for non-conformity with gender roles can be high”.

Governments and institutions are grappling with how to approach gender terminology. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald can reveal that a Federal Health Department guide for pregnant and breastfeeding women regarding COVID-19 vaccination and its impact on pregnant women was edited last year to remove the term “women”, introducing errors into the scientific accuracy of the material in the process.

The source information compared disease severity of COVID in pregnant women with non-pregnant women, but when the department removed the word “women” it compared “pregnant people” with “non-pregnant people”, changing the meaning to incorrectly include men.

The department released three versions of the document, the last of which reinstated the word “women”. A spokesperson for the department said the updated guidance was published following clarification of advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and was approved by the department.

A co-author of the new paper and former president of the Australian College of Midwives, Jenny Gamble, a midwifery professor at the UK-based Centre for Care Excellence for Coventry University and the university hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, said sex-based language “is important due to sex-based oppression”.

“Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.”

“The trend to erase the use of the term women or redefine it has started to sweep the world.”

“Pregnancy, birth and early motherhood are fundamentally sexed issues, not gendered. Pregnant and birthing women and new mothers and their infants have unique vulnerabilities and also require protection.”




Friday, January 28, 2022

Microsoft moves to censor computer users

Microsoft is implementing politically correct automatic censoring on its popular Microsoft Word product.

According to respected tech blog Gizmodo, Microsoft is aiming to automatically correct users use of “biased” language through its spellchecker feature.

This is yet another attempt by Big Tech to impose it’s radical woke politically ideology on Americans.

Specifically, Microsoft will now flag INDIVIDUAL WORDS you write for age bias, cultural bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, gender specific language, racial bias and sexual orientation bias. While the system is currently turned off, it is one software update away from being imposed on your computer.

I expect words and phrases like “mother”, “freedom”, “hard-working”, “Christian” and “God” will be automatically flagged in the near future.

It’s not clear to me if Microsoft will be notified if you use flagged words, but having experienced the cancel culture you and I both know that Microsoft is not putting this politically correct language feature in so it won’t be used.

This is all part of the left’s attempt to rewrite the entire English language to make it more inclusive.

Already the Biden Administration uses the term birthing-person instead of mother.

Microsoft is now joining this politically correct crusade!

Email from Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government.


YouTube Permanently Bans Dan Bongino

On Wednesday, Google-owned video-sharing platform YouTube permanently banned conservative commentator and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino.

Earlier this month, as Landon covered, Bongino faced a YouTube suspension for violating the platform’s policy on spreading Wuhan coronavirus “misinformation.” Now, both Bongino’s YouTube channels have been removed from the platform. A spokesperson for YouTube told The Hill that Bongino will not be able to create a channel in the future.

“The YouTube spokesperson confirmed that attempts to make new channels ‘associated with his name’ will also be denied,” The Hill’s report stated.

This week, Bongino reportedly announced in a now-removed video that he was planning on leaving YouTube. At the time, he amassed nearly 900,000 subscribers on his main channel.




Thursday, January 27, 2022

Political Pundit Says YouTube Censored His Interview with GOP Senator

Political commentator Clay Travis said this week that YouTube blocked a video of his interview with Republican Sen. Rand Paul (KY), who is an eye doctor.

“YouTube has refused to post our @clayandbuck interview with @RandPaul,” Travis wrote in a tweet on Sunday. “This is madness.”

“Regardless of what you think of @RandPaul’s opinions, he is one of 100 democratically elected senators. It’s the very antithesis of democracy to not allow American voters to hear the opinions of their elected officials. YouTube should be ashamed,” he added in a separate tweet.

In the interview, which was posted to video-sharing platform Rumble, Paul discussed Wuhan coronavirus mandates, the Omicron variant, and President Biden’s Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In a statement to The Hill on Monday, Paul’s office said that YouTube’s decision to censor his interview with Travis is “exactly why I decided to leave YouTube.”

"The truth comes from disputation and those who believe the marketplace of ideas is a prerequisite for innovation should shun the close-minded censors and take our ideas elsewhere," the Republican senator said.


There’s A Rule Liberals Are Designing To Totally Silence Any Concerned Parent!

In his last term, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio will be leaving a mark that will potentially silence parents who criticize school board policies, according to two parents and board leaders.

The said rule proposed by Chancellor’s Regulation D-210 will allow the Department of Education (DOE) the authority to “discipline and remove” elected parents from Community Education Councils (CEC) — the city’s version of a school board — if they criticize the school district they are charged with holding accountable, write former District 2 CEC president Maud Maron and current District 2 CEC vice president Danyela Souza Egorov in the New York Post.

DOE will have the power to silence parents by relying on the language to determine “violations of conduct” and, more disturbing, establish yet another administrative position to monitor parents: the equity-compliance officer. This (no doubt expensive) bureaucrat would be charged with deciding who to target for removal for violating the newly expanded “code of conduct.”

According to Maron and Egorov, the “whole point of an elected parent council” is to be able to freely oppose DOE policies. The proposal is set to be voted on December 21, a date chosen, write the parent leaders, because it is “not a historically high parent-participation date.”

A code of conduct, if properly implemented, is not unreasonable. But the fox shouldn’t guard the henhouse: The DOE cannot enforce an overbroad and pretextual code of conduct clearly designed to silence parents.

“Calling parents ‘domestic terrorists’ did not work to silence parents at school-board meetings,” Maron and Egorov conclude, “and trying to do an end-run around democratically elected parent leaders should not be allowed either.”




Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Those Meeting with Lawmakers Now Subject to Social Media Screenings

With the fallout from the events of January 6th set to continue for the foreseeable future, there is no telling what sort of strange new turns our national political discourse could take. There is already a glut of extremism easily accessible online, both in quasi-private places like discord, and blasted to the front page of places like Reddit. We live a digital world of algorithmic acceleration, where the reaction with the most amplitude is the one we strive for, whether it be on either side of the moral divide.

In an effort to keep our lawmakers safe from potential interactions with these far-our political forces, Capitol Police will now be conducting social media screenings for those who visit their public servants.

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, the Capitol Police’s intelligence unit quietly started scrutinizing the backgrounds of people who meet with lawmakers, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Examining the social media feeds of people who aren’t suspected of crimes, however, is a controversial move for law enforcement and intelligence officials given the civil liberties concerns it raises.

The move is in a morally grey area, of course, as there has been no presumption of wrongdoing against those who apply to meet their lawmaker. This search and seizure of online data could run afoul of the 4th Amendment.


Canuck Folk Rocker Wants Spotify to Take Action Against Joe Rogan’s 1A Rights

Take, for instance, the non-controversy over Joe Rogan’s COVID19 discussions. The left has labeled his two-way talks “misinformation” on more than one occasion, often out of context. Spotify has largely stood by Rogan and his 1st Amendment rights, however.

But now, one of Canada’s folk rock legends has an ultimatum for the platform: It’s Joe Rogan or me.

Neil Young posted a since-deleted letter to his management team and record label demanding that they remove his music from Spotify. “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” he wrote. “Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.”

As of this writing, no official word on the removal of Young’s music from the service has been given.




Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Censorship of Australia's National Archives blacks out history

The National Archives was sufficiently embarrassed by its High Court defeat over maintaining the secrecy of Sir John Kerr’s letters with the Palace that it released them in full without redacting any of them. Unfortunately, the sting of its embarrassment has been numbed by the passage of time.

When it finally cracked open its vault this month to release the correspondence between the Palace and six other governors-general, the Archives cut out whole documents or applied the black ink liberally to redact particular passages in the letters.

This would be fair enough if they revealed matters affecting Australia’s current national security or the identity of Australia’s secret agents, but this is not the case.

Mostly, the redactions seem to have occurred to protect the government or individuals from embarrassment – yet this is not a legal ground for preventing public access to these documents.

The problem with challenging redactions in documents held by the Archives is that the challenger is always arguing blindfolded. It is hard to point out how a redaction fails to satisfy the legal requirements if one doesn’t know what is in the redacted material.

Sometimes the Archives slips up, and the redacted part of one letter has not been redacted in a draft of the same letter, or in a separately released file.

On such occasions, this frequently shows that the power to redact has been used inappropriately, as the material redacted does not fall squarely within one of the listed grounds of exemption in the Act. But there is no point in anyone going to the effort to challenge the redaction if they already know what the documents says.


'Silenced and punished': Canadian teacher speaks out about controversial school board meeting

A teacher with the Waterloo Region District School Board, who was removed from a virtual board meeting this week after making comments the chair called "transphobic," said the experience left her feeling "bullied, slandered and abused."
On Monday night, Carolyn Burjoski expressed concerns that some of the resources in elementary school libraries were inappropriate for young children.

She began reading from a book by Alex Gina titled "Rick." In the second chapter, the character named Rick questions their sexuality and eventually identifies as asexual.

"While reading this book I was thinking: 'Maybe Rick doesn't have sexual feelings yet because he is a child,'" she explained in the meeting. "It concerns me that it leaves young boys wondering if there is something wrong with them if they aren't thinking about naked girls all the time. What message does this send to girls in Grade 3 or 4? They are children. Let them grow up in their own time and stop pressuring them to be sexual so soon."

Burjoski added that "some of the books make it seem simple, even cool, to take puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones."

Burjoski also brought up another book, titled "The Other Boy" by MG Hennessy, which tells the story of teen named Shane who was born female but now identifies as male. She called the book misleading stating that "it does not take into account how Shane may feel later in life about being infertile. This book makes very serious interventions seem like an easy cure for emotional and social distress."

Board chair Scott Piatkowski interjected twice during the presentation citing concerns about the Human Rights Code and then ended her presentation.

Burjoski posted a video to Twitter Friday where she addressed the situation.

"I feel bullied, slandered and abused," she said in part. "The school board has removed the video of the meeting from their YouTube channel so people are not able to hear what I actually said. Most of the short video is me reading excerpts from two books available to any young child who is able to read. My few comments expressed concerns about age inappropriate sexual content. I did not and do not question the rights of trans persons to exist in any way. I fully support the human rights of transgender people."

"The recording of the livestream was not officially posted due to concerns over a Human Rights Code violation," said Eusis Dougan-MacKenzie, the interim chief communications officer for the WRDSB, in a statement. "We are also sensitive to the many students, staff and members of the wider community who were impacted by comments made during the meeting."

Several school board trustees felt Burjoski should be allowed to finish her statement at the meeting, but that was ultimately defeated by a vote of 5-4.

"I stand by it," Piatkowski told CTV News on Tuesday. "It's extremely important that we uphold the Human Rights Code. There were comments that were frankly transphobic."

In Burjoski's Twitter video, she said further action was taken by the school board the day after the meeting.

"The following morning H.R. informed me that I was immediately assigned to home, pending a formal investigation and banned from contacted my colleagues and students. This was particularly upsetting to me because I love my students, and I have not seen them since December."

Burjoski stated that she feels "silenced and punished." Meanwhile, she said, "board members have taken to radio, television and social media to grossly misrepresent my remarks."

Burjoski ended the video by thanking those who reached out to her and said she no longer feels alone in her concerns.




Monday, January 24, 2022

Woman Learns the Hard Way That Pro-Abortion Activists Actually Hate Women

Concerted attempt to censor her

Pro-abortion activists say they are the ones who care about women’s rights, and they paint anyone who argues against abortion as anti-women. The exact opposite is closer to the truth.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, the largest pro-life student organization in America, got firsthand experience of the pro-abortion movement’s hatred of women before giving a speech at Wellesley College.

Hawkins and SFL are currently spearheading a massive offensive against the pro-abortion movement through their Final Fight for Freedom campaign. You can join SFL’s fight today by visiting here.

In an opinion piece for Life News, Hawkins said she was looking at the Wellesley speech as an opportunity to “engage with students who don’t understand the pro-life worldview.”

Sadly, many students made assumptions about her based on misconceptions before even hearing her speak.

“Students prepared for my visit by disseminating a 30-page document in which they attached every unfounded, trendy label they could to smear my name and included an 800-signature petition urging Wellesley to cancel my speech and shut down the school’s only pro-life campus group, Wellesley For Life,” Hawkins explained.

In addition, Hawkins said students published a defamatory article about her in the school newspaper and defaced pictures of her on campus. These are hardly the actions of people who love women and want to hear what they have to say.

Hawkins said that after receiving multiple violent threats, SFL published them in an attempt to alert the media and school administrators and ensure safety.

This was apparently effective, as Hawkins said the hundreds of pro-abortion Wellesley students who greeted her upon her arrival were mostly peaceful.

As she spoke with students, Hawkins said she realized their hatred was based on “their warped misconceptions of the Pro-Life Generation, not what we actually believe.”

Hawkins shared with the students some troubling history about their school. She alerted them to letters from mothers of previous Wellesley students who were forced out of campus housing because they were pregnant.

In addition, Hawkins explained the heart of SFL’s Standing with You initiative, which is designed to support pregnant and parenting mothers who are still in college. (Learn more about SFL and the Final Fight for Freedom here.)

It is hard to look at these two strategies and say that the university that booted pregnant students from campus loves women, while the organization with initiatives designed to support those women actually hates them.

However, Hawkins said the pro-abortion movement has pushed the lie that “pro-lifers don’t care about women” because the truth is much too damaging to its cause.

Hawkins understands that pro-abortion students like those at Wellesley are not her enemies. In many ways, they are victims themselves of a false information campaign fueled by colleges, Big Tech and establishment media outlets.

Vulnerable women are fed the lie that abortion is empowering for women, and they believe it because they do not know any better. When someone like Hawkins comes and tells them the truth, they begin to question the faulty logic of the pro-abortion establishment.

When it comes to the abortion debate, the facts are on the side of the pro-life crowd, and it’s crucial to spread those facts to the next generation.

This is exactly what Students for Life is fighting to do — train college students to be advocates for life, not death. By visiting here today, you can support this effort and bring the truth to those who need it most.


University language guide says 'grandfather,' 'housekeeping,' 'spirit animal' are 'problematic' words

A University of Washington language guide is calling everyday words used by Americans "problematic."

The University of Washington Information Technology department released an "inclusive language guide" that lists a number of "problematic words" that are "racist," "sexist," "ageist," or "homophobic."

According to the guide, words such as "grandfather," "housekeeping," "minority," "ninja," and "lame" are considered "problematic words."

For example, the language guide states that the word "lame" is considered problematic because it's "ableist."

"This word is offensive, even when it’s used in slang for uncool because it’s using a disability in a negative way to imply that the opposite, which would be not lame, to be superior," the guide states.

The guide also states that the term "minority" implies a ‘less than’ attitude toward a certain community.

"When ‘minority’ is used to refer to other races or abilities, used as a generalized term for ‘the other’ and implies a ‘less than’ attitude toward the community or communities being discussed," the guide states.

The guide considers "grandfather" a "problematic word" because the term was "used as a way to exempt some people from a change because of conditions that existed before the change."

"'Grandfather clause' originated in the American South in the 1890s as a way to defy the 15th Amendment and prevent black Americans from voting," the guide explains.

"Housekeeping," is another "problematic" word that the guide recommends should be avoided by others working in the information technology industry because it can "feel gendered."

Phrases with "man" such as "manpower," "man hours," or "man-in-the-middle" is considered "not inclusive" and "thus sexist."

The language guide also considers "preferred pronouns" as "problematic" because the term "preferred" suggests that "a person’s pronoun is optional."

Language such as "no can do," "spirit animal," and separating groups based on certain colors is "racist" or culturally appropriative.

According to the language guide, using "red," white," or "yellow" to separate different teams is based on "racist tropes."

"Using colors based as racist tropes — labelling [sic] ‘white’ as good, ‘black’ as bad, ‘red’ as attackers, or ‘yellow’ as excluded third parties — is offensive," the guide states.

The term "spirit animal" is also "problematic" because it uses "cultural appropriation," according to the guide.




Sunday, January 23, 2022

Canadian Law Has Preachers Speaking Up About Potential Ban on Select Sermons

It was billed as legislation to ban so-called conversion therapy in Canada. Instead, the language is overly broad to the point where it could make preaching the basic tenets of sexual morality laid out in the Bible illegal in the country.

That’s why, according to Fox News, more than 4,000 preachers in North America devoted their sermons Sunday to the perfidious influence that Bill C-4 might have on the freedom of religion.

Of course, attacks like this are nothing new — although Bill C-4 is particularly pernicious. Nevertheless, we’ve seen plenty of attacks on the pulpit in the name of tolerance over the past few years, and it’s only going to get worse. Here at The Western Journal, we’re dedicated to providing news and opinion from a biblical perspective — and we’re going to fight back when our basic freedoms are attacked. You can help us in our fight by subscribing.

Bill C-4 was fast-tracked through the Canadian Parliament without much debate last month and went into effect Jan. 8. According to Canada’s CTV, the bill “includes wider-reaching vocabulary of what constitutes conversion therapy than what the federal government attempted to pass in the last Parliament, and expands beyond the past proposal which focused on outlawing the use of the practice against children and non-consenting adults.”

CTV’s Dec. 7 report neatly describes what proponents of the bill say they’re banning: “Conversion ‘therapy,’ as it has been called, seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender. It can include seeking to repress someone’s non-heterosexual attraction, or repressing a person’s gender expression or non-cis gender identity.”

To put it another way: If someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual or experiencing gender dysphoria, there are controversial — almost always religious-based — programs that seek to disabuse them of these tendencies. Those involved with running conversion therapy programs in Canada will now be subject to a five-year prison sentence under the law.


Must not respect Russia

Sensible remarks not permitted

Germany's navy chief stepped down on Saturday after drawing criticism for saying Russian President Vladimir Putin deserved respect and that Kyiv would never win back annexed Crimea from Moscow.

"I have asked Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht to relieve me from my duties with immediate effect," Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach said in a statement. "The minister has accepted my request."

Schoenbach made the remarks to a think-tank discussion in India on Friday, and video was published on social media. The comments came at a sensitive time as Russia has amassed tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's borders.

Diplomatic efforts are focused on preventing an escalation. Russia denies it is planning to invade Ukraine.

In New Delhi, Schoenbach, speaking in English, said Putin seeks to be treated as an equal by the West.

"What he (Putin) really wants is respect," Schoenbach said.

"And my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost... It is easy to give him the respect he really demands - and probably also deserves," Schoenbach said, calling Russia an old and important country.

Schoenbach conceded Russia's actions in Ukraine needed to be addressed. But he added that "the Crimea peninsula is gone, it will never come back, this is a fact," contradicting the joint Western position that Moscow's annexation of the peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 cannot be accepted and must be reversed.

Prior to Schoenbach's resignation, the defence ministry publicly criticised his remarks, saying they did not reflect Germany's position in either content or wording.

Schoenbach apologized for his comments.

"My rash remarks in India ... are increasingly putting a strain on my office," he said. "I consider this step (the resignation) necessary to avert further damage to the German navy, the German forces, and, in particular, the Federal Republic of Germany."

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry had called on Germany to publicly reject the navy chief's comments. Schoenbach's comments could impair Western efforts to de-escalate the situation, Ukraine said in a statement.




Saturday, January 22, 2022

Influencer Jade Tuncdoruk’s Uber Eats rant prompts publicists to pull her from invites list

image from

It can be very difficult dealing with people who have poor or little English but you are not allowed to say so apparently

Aussie influencer Jade Tuncdoruk has found herself in hot water this week, following a refund “demand” she made — and now a complaint she made to Uber Eats in 2017 after it resurfaced online.

The 26-year-old complained to the online food ordering and delivery platform about their “annoying non-English speaking delivery drivers”, which has reportedly prompted publicists to pull her from their upcoming invite lists.

In her rant, she explained how she got a notification saying her food was arriving, taking the person “a further 20 minutes to get to my door because he hadn’t read my delivery instructions”.

“When I called him to explain he didn’t understand a word I was saying … when foreigners are delivering it takes twice as long for me to receive my then cold food. Sort it out,” the post to Uber Eats read.

After it was made public, Jade took to social media to apologise to “anyone I have hurt”.

“I’m sorry to anyone I’ve hurt with my comments. I hold myself accountable for my actions,” she wrote. “It doesn’t excuse anything, but know that I have grown immensely in the past several years. I always do my best to be someone others can look up to and I know I’ve let people down and for that I’m truly sorry.”

However, according to Daily Telegraph, the scathing post has prompted some to distance themselves from the influencer who boasts almost half a million Instagram followers.

The publication reported a high-profile publicist on Friday said she had been pulled from invite lists and brands were refraining from being associated with her.


Nestle gets its fingers burned over KitKat bars adorned with Hindu deities

Nestle has been forced to withdraw a range of KitKat bars adorned with Hindu gods after a backlash in India triggered by fears that images of deities would end up in bins and gutters.

Protesters argued that images of Lord Jagannath, Balabhadra and Mata Subhadra on KitKat wrappers would eventually be thrown away and end up on roads, drains, and dustbins - unconscionable amid growing Hindu nationalism in India.

“This pic of Bhagwan (lord) Jagannath will end up on the road or trash cans. People will walk on it. Why are pics of Hindu Gods/Goddesses used for marketing?" Ayudhika, an Indian student said, demanding Nestle withdraw the bars.

Nestle said the bars were introduced to "celebrate the culture" as they issued a rare apology and withdrew the bars.

The Kitkat travel packs were circulated in the eastern state of Odisha, with designs representing Pattachitra, an art form identifiable by its vivid imagery.

Nestle said: "We wanted to encourage people to know about the art & its artisans. We do understand the sensitivity of the matter and regret if we have inadvertently hurt people's sentiments."




Friday, January 21, 2022

YouTube Kicks Bongino Off for Slamming Masks; Same Day, CDC Admits Cloth Masks Offer Less ‘Protection’

An illustration of how the ever-mutating coronavirus has been accompanied by ever-mutating rules regarding who can say what came last week when a conservative commentator was punished for his talk about masks on the same day federal officials nibbled away at past comments in support of cloth masks.

On Friday, commentator Dan Bongino was hit with a suspension from YouTube, apparently for calling masks “useless.”

YouTube did not reveal which words triggered the one-week suspension, according to the U.K. Daily Mail. Bongino was also demonetized for 30 days, the Daily Mail reported, meaning his videos won’t collect revenue from advertising.

YouTube’s COVID-19 policy bans content criticizing masks, according to The Hill.

The Bongino Report Twitter account later shared a tweet that said Bongino had been suspended for daring “to question the mask fascists.” It copied an email Bongino sent YouTube that branded the Google-owned platform “tyrannical” and “free speech-hating” as well as other less printable thoughts.

In the email, Bongino promised that when he was back from time out, he would “immediately post content on why masks have been totally ineffective in stopping this pandemic. I dare you to do something about it.”


Twitter loses appeal in French online hate speech case

This could be very bad. Ordinary conservative discourse is called hate by many on the Left so if the new regs lead to greater caution on the part of Twitter, much conservative commentary could be suppressed

Twitter must disclose details on what it does to tackle hate speech online in France, the Paris appeals court ruled on Thursday, handing a win to advocacy groups that say the social network does not do enough to clamp down on hateful content.

The verdict upheld a decision by a lower court that ordered Twitter to provide details on the number, nationality, localisation, and spoken language of people it employs to moderate content on the French version of the platform.

The appeals court said it confirmed in full the first ruling and said Twitter should pay 1,500 euros in damages to each of six plaintiffs, a copy of the ruling seen by Reuters showed,

The lower court decision also included the obligation for Twitter to disclose any contractual, administrative, commercial and technical documents that would help determine the financial and human means it has put in place to fight hate speech online in France.




Thursday, January 20, 2022

Christian Celeb Accuses HarperCollins of ‘Bowing to the Mob’ for Canceling His Book, Signs New Deal

Christian singer Sean Feucht is accusing HarperCollins of “bowing to the mob” in reportedly canceling his book over his political views.

Feucht told The Daily Signal on Tuesday that he had just signed a new book deal with the conservative book publisher Regnery Publishing, saying he had “negotiated even better terms than the broken agreement with Harper Collins.”

Feucht said that he signed an initial deal memo for a book on bold faith with Thomas Nelson, a division of HarperCollins Christian Publishing, in November 2021. In early January, the Christian celebrity said, representatives at the publishing company told him that the book would no longer be published.

An employee at the company reportedly told Feucht that two marketing department employees within the company voiced complaints about working on his book, citing his political views, Feucht said. The Christian celebrity asked that the employee who spoke with him not be named in order not to injure the employee’s standing with the company.

Feucht said he is unsure which of his political views the employees took issue with: he is openly a supporter of both former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, both Republicans, and hosted multiple concerts at the height of the pandemic pushing back against the closure of churches and mask mandates.

Regnery Publishing also picked up Hawley’s book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” which later landed high on both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal bestseller lists.


Sex abuse victims being silenced in the UK by gagging orders

Sex abuse victims in the UK are being gagged by unchecked wide-reaching non-disclosure agreements similar to the one that nearly bought Prince Andrew immunity from prosecution.

The Duke of York’s legal team this week lost its bid to block Virginia Giuffre from taking him to court in the US. Giuffre alleges she was sexually assaulted by the prince when she was 17, which he denies. The duke’s legal team argued she had waived her right to sue him in a previously confidential $500,000 (£360,000) settlement she made with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The revelation that Epstein had tried to use his wealth to secure Giuffre’s silence, not just for himself but for others, was met with outrage. Campaigners said the case was “a clear cut example showing how the arrogance of power works to intimidate victims and silence them”.

Giuffre tweeted in response to the ruling: “My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law and must be held accountable.”

But the scope of so-called non-disclosure agreements in the UK has been growing with little to no oversight, lawyers told openDemocracy.

The government announced proposals for new legislation in 2019 that would introduce additional legal requirements for NDAs, but it has not been signed into law.

There is no record of how often the clauses are used, forcing victims to sign away their right to speak out in exchange for a payout they may desperately need.




Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Anti-white books banned as culture wars enter the classroom

Books that tackle issues such as race and sexual abuse are being banned as Republican-led school districts target award-winning novels in a right-wing version of “cancel culture”.

One of the authors affected is Margaret Atwood, whose dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale, depicting the violent oppression of women, has been turned into an acclaimed television series.

The classroom has become one of the key battlegrounds in America’s culture wars, which pit traditionalists against those with a left-wing agenda. The conflict is often fought over the teaching of critical race theory - the idea that racism is deeply entrenched in society - but more recently the row has spread to the subject matter of some popular children’s novels.

The death of George Floyd, a black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis in May 2020, spurred greater calls for the teaching of the theory, but in many areas of the country parents objected.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the office for intellectual freedom at the American Library Association (AMA), told the Axios news website that she had never witnessed such a “volume of challenges come in such a short time” in 20 years. The AMA tracked the targeting of 566 books in 2019 and 273 books during the pandemic in 2020.

“I don’t want my daughter growing up feeling guilty because she’s white,” one Pennsylvanian parent told a school board meeting in York county last year. The generally affluent county, which voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2020, is dominated by Republican officials. The row led to an order to freeze the availability of books that included references to critical race theory.

“Banning books on diversity is the direct result of this Republican-manufactured crisis on critical race theory,” Donna Bullock, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania legislative black caucus, said.

In October the school district in Katy, Texas, banned two books by the graphic novelist Jerry Craft that describe the experiences of two black boys who fall victim to racist abuse at school after 400 local parents signed a petition.

The ban has since been overturned, but critics argue that school districts are coming under pressure from politicians and that the action amounts to censorship. In some areas of the country proposed bans would lead to the removal of children’s novels that raise issues such as sexual abuse, teenage pregnancy and drug-taking.

In November the Spotsylvania county school board in Virginia ordered staff to remove “sexually explicit” books from libraries after a parent raised concerns about their LGBTQ themes.

The Handmaid’s Tale is one of the books that is most frequently challenged on account of its often violent and sexual content. “If you’re a writer and everybody likes you, a) you’re doing something wrong, or b) you don’t exist,” Atwood, 82, told the Associated Press.


Science Museum boards up display on early human migration because it is ‘non-inclusive’

Gallery covering human biology, including a cabinet that deals with genetics, is under review as ‘cultural trends influence science’

The Science Museum has boarded up a display on DNA and early human migration as part of work to address its “non-inclusive narrative”.

Curators are to alter the “Who Am I?” gallery covering human biology, including a cabinet that deals with genetics.

The display explaining mankind’s migration from Africa was earmarked for alteration in order to “update (the) non-inclusive narrative”, internal documents show, and the exhibit has been boarded up.

The display titled “How Did You Get Here?” stressed humanity’s common lineage, with a panel stating that the “human journey began in Africa” and “all humans alive today descend from African ancestors”.

Maps in the display also showed how mankind ultimately spread to the Americas and Polynesia, and displayed figurines, model boats, a bow, and drum to illustrate the far-flung areas of Homo Sapien colonisation

The cabinet on prehistoric “pioneers who open up new worlds” has been covered with white hoardings that state staff are “updating the contents of this case” and asking visitors to “bear with us and enjoy the rest of the gallery”.

A nearby plinth titled “Out of Africa” - the name of the theory of human migration from the continent - is now bare, but a display on “the first European” remains in place.

The Science Museum has not given a schedule for the changes to the display, and has not clarified which specific objects in the cabinet resulted in the display being assessed as “non-inclusive”.

It is understood the display contained a hula girl figurine - an object that has recently been criticised for presenting a stereotypical view of Polynesian people - and genetic studies relating to the San people in South Africa, who in 2017 devised a code of ethics for scientists studying them.

A spokesman for the museum said: “The How did I get here? display in the Who Am I? gallery is currently covered while curators review content that is more than a decade old relating to migration, race and genetics which no longer reflects current scientific thinking.

“We are planning to update the Who Am I? gallery on a rolling basis, where resource allows, to reflect areas where there has been fresh research or a shift in scientific understanding.”

The changes follow the earmarking of the Who Am I? gallery for updates, with The Telegraph previously revealing that a cabinet on gender differences titled “Boy Or Girl?” was also up for review following “complaints about a lack of mention of transgender”.

The proposals were criticised by Maya Forstater, executive director of campaign group Sex Matters and winner of a prominent employment tribunal relating to her “gender-critical” views, who said: “It is concerning that a place dedicated to science is being swayed by cultural trends in this way.”




Tuesday, January 18, 2022

DirecTV Removes Conservative News Network in Blow to Free Speech

The move is just the latest incident in which conservative bandwidth has been arbitrarily limited, and it certainly won’t be the last.

In our nation, we’ve long held the belief that the diversity of opinion is a tool for sharpening our abilities and ingenuity. The freedom to speak as you want is the best way to keep the evil among us from snatching up the entirety of the American Dream for themselves, and it levels the playing field among the masses.

That it why the latest move from DirecTV is so egregious.

The largest satellite provider in the United States said late Friday it will drop One America News, a move that could financially cripple the rightwing TV network known for fueling conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

The announcement by DirecTV, which is 70% owned by AT&T, comes three months after a Reuters investigation revealed that OAN’s founder testified that AT&T inspired him to create the network. Court testimony also showed that OAN receives nearly all of its revenue from DirecTV.

The sudden change comes after years of cooperation.

DirecTV, with approximately 15 million subscribers, is by far OAN’s largest carrier. According to testimony by OAN’s accountant reviewed by Reuters, DirecTV provided 90% of the conservative network’s revenue.

“We informed Herring Networks that, following a routine internal review, we do not plan to enter into a new contract when our current agreement expires,” DirecTV said in a statement.

The OAN-DirecTV contract is set to expire in the next several months. DirecTV began airing OAN in April 2017, a deal that began shortly after OAN and AT&T settled a lawsuit over alleged oral promises during negotiations.

The move is just the latest incident in which conservative bandwidth has been arbitrarily limited, and it certainly won’t be the last.


My Pillow CEO Blackballed by Banking Institutions Over ‘Reputation Risk’

The left is taking their war on conservatism to absurd new lengths.

As the 2022 midterm election remains just over the horizon, casting an already dark cloud over the coming months, there has been a concerted effort among those on the left side of the aisle to exploit the events of January 6th, 2021 for political gain. And, as Democrats continue to fear for the worst in 2022, they are casting an ever wider net.

The tactic is essentially spray and pray: Throw subpoenas and accusations all over the place, and then beg the heavens above that something sticks.

This is making life very difficult for those who are, or were once, associated with Donald Trump. This includes the CEO of the My Pillow corporation, Mike Lindell.

During a Friday episode of right-wing political strategist Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Lindell claimed that Heartland Financial and Minnesota Bank and Trust are attempting to “de-bank” him over concerns that they could face fallout related to having him as a client. During the podcast, Bannon and Lindell played an audio recording that they said was a call with a bank official.

“Just because of our organization saying, ‘Well, why are we connected with somebody that could be in the news.’ And, not that the FBI is even sniffing and looking, but what if somebody came in and said, ‘You know what, we are gonna subpoena all his account records…and then also we make the news,'” the person in the recording said. “So it’s more of a reputation risk.”

Lindell went on to tell Bannon that the financial institutions want him to shutter his accounts within 30 days. But the pro-Trump businessman insisted that he is refusing to comply.

“I said, ‘I am not being part of this. I’m not leaving. So you’re going to have to throw me out of your bank,'” he said. During the segment, Bannon put the phone numbers and contact information of top officials at the institutions onscreen—urging supporters to call and complain.

And, finally…

“Where does it end everybody? Where does it end?” Lindell asked, suggesting that he is being persecuted for his controversial activism. He contended that the banks’ decision was related to his refusal to comply with the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 pro-Trump attack against the U.S. Capitol.

As the January 6th committee grows bolder and brasher, we should perhaps expect more examples of such political discrimination to make headlines.




Monday, January 17, 2022

Maine High School basketball announcers are fired after getting caught on hot mic saying two 'awful' female players were 'extremely overweight'

Government agencies are allowed to mention "obesity" but all others must not mention excessive adipose tissue. And NOBODY is "fat"

Two Maine basketball announcers were fired by a local radio station for comments they made on a hot mic about female players.

Jim Carter and Steve Shaw were preparing to call a game on WHOU-FM's livestream while another game was going on ahead of them.

In a video posted to Twitter, you can hear either Carter and Shaw say, without realizing their microphones were on, that 'Easton has two girls out here extremely overweight. Awful.'

The other followed by asking: 'How come you don't get uniforms that fit the girls?' accompanied with derisive laughter.

Shaw - a retired athletic director who has a place in the Maine Basketball Hall of Fame as of 2021 - and Carter - a retired teacher, coach and author about high school basketball - went on to call the game but were fired immediately afterward.

Fred Grant, the owner of the station, said he fired Carter and Shaw after beginning to see complaints shortly after the comments were overheard.

'I started getting phone calls immediately,' Grant said by phone Friday morning.


Facebook refuses to delete a greatly defamatory post

Hannah Clarke and her three children were brutally murdered by her husband but now a men’s rights activist group is under fire for blaming her — and Facebook has not taken any action against the offensive posts.

Facebook has been slammed for not only refusing to remove an “extremely offensive” post that attacked murdered mother Hannah Clarke but also stating it did not breach their policies.

Hannah Clarke and her three children were ambushed by estranged husband Rowan Baxter as she was taking them to school in February 2020. He doused them in petrol and set Hannah and their children on fire.

The crime shocked the nation and threw a spotlight on the coercive control Baxter had used on his family before his act of deadly violence.

But the men’s rights activist Facebook page Don’t Believe All Women, run by Adam James, also known as Adam Benjamin Cocks, who has been convicted of stalking, has alleged Hannah Clarke used coercive control on Baxter.

“What is little known, as it’s been concealed by the family, is that Hannah was extorting Rowan in the days leading up to the deaths. What is known is that she had posted on his Facebook profile publicly that she was going to ‘take his kids and shut down his business’. Considering the bias in the court system she certainly would have easily succeeded at that,” he posted.

“The irony is that the coercive control laws are now only being used against men.

“Most disturbingly, her choice to extort him and what is an extreme example of coercive control by her, has now resulted in new laws that will further disempower men and give greater control to heterosexual women who use coercive control.

“We need to raise awareness of female perpetrators of coercive control like Hannah Clarke.”

“Being murdered doesn‘t excuse someone of their crimes though,” the post read.

A Brisbane-based domestic violence advocate Rachael, who has asked not to use her last name, said the claims were baseless. “It is absolutely disgusting. There is not a shred of evidence to substantiate his claims,” she said.




Sunday, January 16, 2022

Democratic congressman says it was a mistake for Twitter to suppress stories on Hunter Biden and Big Tech shouldn't be the 'arbiter of the truth'

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna said in an interview Thursday that it was a mistake for Twitter to suppress stories about Hunter Biden's laptop.

'I am not for having either the government, or you know, tech companies ultimately being the arbiter of truth,' Khanna said in a Zoom interview with Joe Lonsdale for the American Optimist podcast. 'In the book, I write about how I thought it was a mistake for Twitter to take down some of the stuff about Hunter Biden.'

In October, Twitter locked The New York Post out of its account after the newspaper shared its stories based on files found in a laptop abandoned at a computer store in Delaware by the first son.

At the time, Twitter said The Post violated the company's policies on sharing 'hacked materials.' later independently authenticated material from the laptop.

Twitter demanded that six tweets linking to Post stories be deleted.

The social media company backed down after the Newscorp-owned New York City tabloid refused to remove the offending tweets.


Doctors call out Spotify over ‘tidal wave’ of COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ spread by Joe Rogan

Washington: A coalition of hundreds of doctors and public health experts have called out Spotify for allowing Joe Rogan to spread “false and societally harmful assertions” about the coronavirus and vaccination on the streaming platform that hosts his wildly popular podcast.

In an open letter published on Monday, more than 270 medical professionals urge Spotify to stop “enabling its hosted media to damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance.”

Rogan, whose show reaches an estimated audience of 11 million people an episode, has repeatedly downplayed the need for coronavirus vaccines and used his platform to flirt with misinformation about COVID-19.

“Though Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, the company presently has no misinformation policy,” the group wrote in the letter.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Joe Rogan has repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine.”

Although the coalition is not asking for Spotify to cancel The Joe Rogan Experience, the group is pushing for the company to do more to prevent further misinformation from spreading on what is considered the nation’s most popular podcast.

Katrine Wallace, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health who signed the letter, said that the group of medical professionals came together to “fight against this tidal wave of misinformation” broadcast on Rogan’s show.

“I actually think he’s a menace to public health because he speaks on things that have no scientific backing,” she said Friday. “I’m to that point now where if I don’t use my platform to advocate for public health, who is going to do it?”




Saturday, January 15, 2022

Mississippi middle school is slammed for offering SHAPEWEAR to its young female students to help them with their 'negative body image'

A Mississippi middle school has offered body-slimming shapewear to female students this month, leading to furious backlash.

Southaven Middle School in northern Mississippi sent a letter home to parents of teen and tween girls, educating on the issue of negative body image.

It concluded with an offer from the school's counselors to provide shapewear — a foundation garment that's used alter a person's body shape — to any of the students, aged 10 to 14, whose parents agreed to it.

The shocking letter was shared on social media by mom Ashley Heun, who said that she was 'beyond p***ed.'

Heun was shocked by the letter, and told Today that she turned to social media to 'rally the troops to change this and to really let the school know how exactly tone-deaf it was.'

She wrote on Facebook: 'I am beyond p***ed, though I’m not sure if I’m more pissed at the fact that they had the "balls" to send this home or the VERY IGNORANCE of the ‘counselors’ at the school.'

'So you begin this masterpiece detailing how damaging a negative body image is for girls, how the stress of conforming to an impossible perceived image can adversely affect their mental health, and then OFFER TO GIVE THEM SPANX SO THEY CAN BETTER FIT THE PERCEIVED IMAGE?!? What. The. Very. F@%text.”

Other social media users have expressed their disgust as well.


UK: Supporters of popular doctor silenced

Cancer patients who say they were ‘written off’ by doctors are leading a backlash against an effort to strike a world-renowned oncologist off the medical register.

The patients claim to have been ‘silenced’ by a disciplinary panel that will this week decide the fate of Professor Justin Stebbing, a Harley Street oncologist and Imperial College cancer researcher.

In October, Prof Stebbing admitted 30 charges relating to over-treatment, not obtaining full patient consent, dishonesty and inappropriate behaviour in regards to 12 of his patients.

But supporters say evidence from some of the hundreds of patients satisfied with his care has been dismissed ‘out of hand’ by the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service (MPTS), which rules on cases brought by the General Medical Council (GMC).

Leading oncologists and medical researchers – some with personal experience of Prof Stebbing treating friends or family – also wrote to the MPTS to back him. In all, 600 messages of support arrived, of which 25 were submitted – but rejected – as potential evidence to the MPTS.

Extracts from letters praising the oncologist have also been passed to The Mail on Sunday, without the knowledge of Prof Stebbing or his legal team.

Restaurateur Graham Rebak, 47, who credits the oncologist with saving him from colon cancer, said: ‘I don’t understand why the GMC has done this to Justin. He only wants to help people.’ Another unnamed man with an ‘extremely rare’ cancer claimed he was told by another private oncologist that he would not ‘risk his career or pension’ to prescribe drugs that strayed from the ‘standard protocol’.

By contrast, he recalls, Prof Stebbing ‘has supported me’, adding: ‘If you have a rare or more complicated cancer in the UK you might as well be dead, as there is no room for thinking outside the box.’

Some former patients allege that insurance companies wanted to see Prof Stebbing’s wings clipped.

Efforts by Prof Stebbing’s lawyers to have testimonials admitted as evidence were twice rejected by an MPTS panel, which ruled them to be ‘of little (if any)’ value.

Medics at leading institutions including Imperial College London and Columbia University in New York have also written in his support.




Thursday, January 13, 2022

Not so silenced

The author below has a point. After the initial attempts by the mass media and social media to ignore and censor the Barrington declarers, they did get a lot of attention elswhere.

Attempts to censor something often make it more widely heard. It can generate interest. It can be good publicity. But the fact remains that the mainstream media did give the Barrington group short shrift initially. And given the notable academic authority of the declarers that strongly suggests a political motivation. It suggests that there was a Covid orthodoxy that was not open to challenge

Supporters and opponents of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) are unlikely to agree on many things. I hope one area of agreement may be the following: The authors of the GBD are not invisible, muffled mystery men and women. People who pay attention to COVID-19 policy know their names, and we know what they believe.

In fact, these individuals are rather omnipresent figures in the COVID-19 media landscape. They have been on many large podcasts. They have given many TV interviews. They have been interviewed by and written many editorials in large newspapers. They’ve been profiled by The New York Times and Medpage Today. They have a large presence on social media. They have made a truly remarkable number of YouTube videos (Dr. Jay Bahattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Marin Kulldorff), some of which have been seen by millions of people. They have testified before Congress and in courts regarding COVID-19 policy. Some have gained new funding sources or found new employment in right-wing think tanks. They’ve met with and influenced powerful politicians, such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. They held a “medical experts roundtable” at President Trump’s White House. Dr. Gupta met with and influenced UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Journalists rightly say they’ve become “famous voices” this pandemic.

Like I said, we know who the authors of the GBD are, and we know what they believe. Most importantly, we know how they’ve shaped our COVID-19 response.


Does free speech fly at Boston City Hall Plaza?

by Jeff Jacoby

NEXT WEEK the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston, a freedom-of-speech case that concerns a flagpole on Boston's City Hall Plaza.
The facts of the controversy are simple. The issues at stake are profound.

There are actually three flagpoles in front of City Hall. One always flies the American flag. The second is reserved for the flag of Massachusetts. The third pole is handled differently.

Ordinarily, the City of Boston flag flies from the third flagpole. But City Hall has a longstanding policy of letting private groups raise some other flag on that pole, typically in conjunction with an event taking place on the plaza below. Between June 2005 and July 2017, the city received 284 applications from various community, civic, or social organizations wishing to hold flag-raising ceremonies. Every one of them was approved.

Over the course of those 12 years, the banners of scores of countries and causes were temporarily flown from the third pole. Among them were the flags of Mexico, China, Brazil, and Puerto Rico, the LGBT Pride flag, the Juneteenth flag, and banners heralding Marcus Garvey Day, the Walk for Peace, and the Bunker Hill Association. Boston's published guidelines referred to City Hall Plaza and the third flagpole as "public forums" and said the city "seeks to accommodate all applicants." On its website, the city affirmed that its intention was to provide access to all groups: "We commemorate flags from many countries and communities at Boston City Hall Plaza. We want to create an environment in the city where everyone feels included."

In short, the City of Boston proclaimed a policy of unfettered free speech on the plaza and the third flagpole, and it upheld that policy without fail.

Until this case.

In 2017, Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and his Christian civic organization, Camp Constitution, applied for permission to hold a one-hour ceremony on City Hall Plaza to mark Constitution Day on Sept. 17, a federal observance of the day the US Constitution was signed, in 1787. They planned to raise a flag featuring a Christian cross in the upper left corner, as part of a program celebrating the Constitution and spotlighting the contribution of the nation's Christian Founders.

The city said no. For the first time ever, it refused to allow a private group to raise its flag — and it did so for one reason only: because Shurtleff's application had described Camp Constitution's banner as a "Christian" flag. Gregory Rooney, the City Hall commissioner who turned Shurtleff down, claimed that Boston had a policy of "refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles" — i.e., "a religious flag that was promoting a specific religion." But no such policy had ever been previously articulated. And Rooney later testified that it was solely the appearance of the word "Christian" on the application that triggered the city's rejection. There would have been no objection to Camp Constitution's proposed flag-raising if the flag had been described differently.




Wednesday, January 12, 2022

“Unreliable and harmful claims”: has been demonetized by Google

Roy W. Spencer

This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.

From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.

I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.

Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:

Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.

For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.


Based on False Assumptions, Amazon Still Censoring Book on Transgenderism

For three years, Amazon sold Ryan Anderson’s book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.” Then, last February, the book disappeared from Amazon’s virtual shelves.

Anderson—president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative research institute—first learned his book was being censored when he received a message from someone who wanted to buy the book, but could not find it on Amazon.

“So, I pull up my Amazon app, and the hardback is gone, the paperback editions gone, the Kindles gone, the audiobooks gone, even the used copies,” Ryan told The Daily Signal.

The author contacted his book agent and then the publisher. No one knew why Amazon had suddenly stopped selling “When Harry Became Sally.”

Upon contacting Amazon, a representative of the online giant informed Anderson it had removed his book because it violated its content policy.

Anderson, and many of the readers and political leaders who benefited from his extensive research on the transgender issue, were puzzled by Amazon’s vague rationale for censoring the book.

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Braun of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, and Josh Hawley of Missouri sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos last Feb. 24, asking a series of questions about why Amazon removed the book.

Brian Huseman, Amazon’s vice president for public policy, responded to the senators in a letter on March 11, writing: “We have chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.”

But “the book doesn’t do that,” Anderson explained.

“When Harry Became Sally” details the topic of “gender dysphoria, though it doesn’t discuss it in the context of a mental illness,” Anderson said, adding that he avoided using such language because it’s “stigmatizing.”

“It belittles people. It marginalizes people,” he explained.

Anderson first decided to write a book about gender dysphoria and the “transgender moment” when he began hearing the stories of those who had transitioned and then detranitioned. One of those accounts Anderson first heard was that of Walt Heyer.

Heyer spent eight years living as a woman before he detransitioned more than 30 years ago. Heyer, now 81, has dedicated the past several decades of his life to helping others struggling with gender dysphoria. After Anderson heard Heyer’s testimony, he began reading and watching videos of others who struggled with gender dysphoria.