I was appalled when I saw a picture of a biological boy maintaining a stranglehold over a girl contestant in a school wrestling match. This is the insanity that results from letting boys who self-identify as girls take over girls’ sports
I’m not the only one who is struck by the basic unfairness of the situation. In June, three female high school athletes in Connecticut filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights alleging that the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference unlawfully discriminated against girls when it allowed transgenders to compete in girls’ sports. The girls argue that the school policy violates Title IX, a federal law passed in 1972 to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. The Obama administration opened the door to allowing boys in girls’ sports when it usurped legislative power and administratively puffed up the definition of ‘sex’ in Title IX to include ‘gender’, thus protecting transgenders against discrimination. So, does protection for transgenders trump protection for female athletes for whom Title IX was written? We’re going to find out. This last week, the Department of Education granted the request to investigate the girls’ allegations of illegal discrimination against them. The case will go forward.
Title IX states that, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX is an example of how the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause has been interpreted and applied over time.
The complaint describes how one boy, who didn’t do so well in male track events, all of a sudden started competing in girls’ events. That student now holds 10 records that used to belong to 10 different girls. The girls complain, and rightly so, that the inclusion of boys in their events has deprived the girls, not only of recognition and publicity, but of college recruiting and scholarship opportunities. This is yet another example of how liberal policies are not just wrong, they hurt people. It’s also an example of the pretzel logic of the Left where you can complain all day about the evil patriarchy, then turn around and make sure the patriarchy squelches any real chance girl athletes have for advancement. Can it get any crazier than this?
Connecticut Girls Sue Over Letting Biological Boys Compete in Girls Sports (Constitution news round-up)
14A: Connecticut girl athletes file federal complaint over school rule allowing transgenders into athletic events; biological boys rewriting the record books and denying college scholarships to the girls
Free Expression - draft executive order would direct FCC, FTC to scrutinize tech company censorship of the Right; critics say it smacks of speech police
Separation of Powers: Dems call Trump’s foreign aid freeze unconstitutional blockage of Congressional appropriations
Kirsten Gillibrand files brief telling Supreme Court conservatism is sick and threatens court-packing legislation to ‘heal’ the Court. #NiceSmileTeethOfIron
17A: federal court to decide whether appointed Sen. McSally can serve 27 months without special election
1A: federal appeals court greenlights Baton Rouge cop’s lawsuit against BLM organizer for his part in injuries cop suffered during protest; conduct is not speech
1A: federal workers union suit alleges interpretation of Hatch Act keeping them from advocating impeachment or using #resist online violates free speech
1A: “Texas Appellate Court Strikes Down Electronic Harassment Statute” - ban on online speech unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
2A: The Problem with 'Red Flag' Laws (new article)
5A Eminent Domain - D.C. Circuit reaffirms “Kafkaesque” practice of letting private companies use eminent domain and issue ‘petitions for rehearing’ without triggering federal appeal rights
10A: federal judge rules Trump administration can’t withhold law enforcement grants from sanctuary Portland (but last month 9th Circuit found a ‘bonus point’ system kosher)
14A: article suggests reparations fail Supreme Court test for allowing ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites; no ‘compelling governmental interest’ that would survive ‘strict scrutiny’
14A: married male couple wins battle in Utah Supreme Court against state law requiring at least one surrogate parent to be female.
14A: federal judge buys artificial ‘gender identity’ construct baloney, hands transgender student a win in a bathroom case; another transgender case is pending before the Supreme Court. #AntiScience
14A: federal judge in Alaska rule Christian women’s shelter cannot be forced to admit transgender
Article I, Section 10: North Dakota law retroactively changing terms of contracts between manufacturers and dealers of farm equipment violates the contract clause (Eighth Circuit)
Article suggests replacing Chevron deference with giving additional but not conclusive weight to agency determinations
Kudos! to U.S. Olympic Committee for preparing to punish U.S. athlete who took a knee at Pan Am Games in violation of commitment to refrain from political demonstrations
Presidential Qualifications: Trump sues California over law requiring the release of tax returns to appear on the ballot.
2A: After Dayton and El Paso, Sen. Graham reaches bipartisan deal encouraging ‘red flag’ laws allowing states to take guns from potentially dangerous individuals
5A Due Process: ACLU sues to stop speedy deportation under Trump administration’s expansion of established ‘expedited removal’ process
Interstate Commerce, 1A: federal judge greenlights lawsuit over California law requiring pharma to provide advance notice of and state reasons for drug price hikes
1A Religion: Satanists argue Missouri law requiring abortionists to provide women with information, ultrasound, and alternatives pushes religious beliefs on people
1A: video lays out rules for when the government can restrict spending money on speech
1A: ‘hate speech’ is protected by the First Amendment - “censoring hate speech actually does more harm than good”
1A: Facebook page satirizing local police department (minorities need not apply, pedophiles to receive police honors, etc.) is constitutionally protected. Ridiculing the government is quintessentially American (6th Circuit)
Free Expression: bill introduced in the House to stop social media censorship
Free Expression: Congress granted immunity to Internet publishers, but interesting dissent argues using algorithms to match Hamas terrorist messages with people receptive to them makes Facebook more than a ‘publisher’.
2A: NYC loosens restrictions on where locked and unloaded handguns can be carried to stave off Supreme Court review
2A: Remington asks Supreme Court to review case by Sandy Hook victims pinning liability on gun manufacturer for what people did with the product. #PandorasBox
2A: Florida AG tries to block ‘assault weapons’ ban from ballot because it does not accurately disclose types of weapons reached, or the fact owners would have to register or face felony charges
4A: warrantless inspection of rancher’s truck OK because ‘commercial trucking’ is a highly regulated industry (8th Circuit). Hmmm....
5A Fundamental Rights: federal judge dismisses activist climate change suit after finding there is no fundamental ‘right to wilderness’ (this is NOT the Climate Kids case)
Movement to give rivers and nature ‘environmental personhood’ and rights in court growing internationally
Economic Freedom: 8th Circuit greenlights lawsuit challenging Minnesota law requiring wineries to use 51% Minnesota-grown grapes if they offer wine tastings or sell direct to consumers
Electoral College: Colorado group turns in signatures to get on the ballot to challenge state’s joining the National Popular Vote Compact
Appointments Clause: Study finds some 2,500 FDA regulations unconstitutional because they were promulgated by low-level officials lacking Senate confirmation (subdelegation issue)
Kudos! To the 2-year-old who can recite the Pledge of Allegiance
The Left is eating up an award winning Broadway play - “What the Constitution Means to Me” - that is about to tour the country. The playwright, Heidi Schreck, has discovered, like the producers of the play Angels in America and many other artists before her, that the ticket to success in the arts world is to tilt to the Left and serve up exactly what Progressives want to hear.
As a teenager, Heidi Schreck loved the Constitution and paid for her entire college education by going around the country giving speeches on it. Her play “What the Constitution Means to Me” features her as an adult revisiting her teenage love of the Constitution and finding fault in the document now that she’s older. Her current views are quite far to the Left. She believes that transgenders have a basic human right to serve in the military, when the fact of the matter is NO ONE has a right to serve in the military. It’s a privilege reserved for those who qualify. She’s in favor of the Climate Kids lawsuit which seeks to establish a Constitutional right to a pristine environment, even though it would mean that the entire U.S. economy would be run by one federal judge out of a courtroom in Oregon, which is what the Climate Kids are asking for. She believes that our democracy is a lie and the United States is sliding into tyranny under President Trump, even though he has not shut down any newspapers or thrown any editors in jail. Schreck suffers from full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The adult Heidi Schreck has developed two problems with the Constitution, both straight out of the Left’s playbook - first, that the Constitution fails to achieve diversity and inclusiveness and, second, that it fails to protect people against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. With regard to diversity, Schreck says the Constitution only protects “the people who are already protected” - whatever that means - and is working perfectly as intended - to protect rich, white men. Everyone else is pushed to the margins of the Constitution, she says. We all belong in the Preamble, she declares. Never mind that the Preamble starts with “We the People”, not “We the Rich, White Men”. It’s an “appalling” document, she says, because it views blacks as property, not human beings. Never mind that the Constitution set things up to eventually get rid of slavery. [E.g., Slave Trade Clause - Article I Section 9].
The original Constitution may not look so good when viewed through the narrow prism of today’s identity politics, but this ignores the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments - getting rid of slavery, ushering in Equal Protection, and guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race or biological sex. Why would you throw out a document that has shown it can bring the blessings of liberty to more and more people over time, as our Constitution has? The worn-out observation that the original Constitution included some people but excluded others is true, but misleading.
Moreover, judging the Constitution by the standards of the Left’s diversity narrative du jour ignores all the things that are wrong with the narrative itself. Here are just three: First, it’s way out of balance. It crowds out other important values that the Constitution does embody like limited government, popular sovereignty, personal freedom, and individual rights. Get people all hepped up on diversity theory to the exclusion of all other considerations and, before you know it, they’re in Kentucky teens’ faces at the Lincoln Memorial [Nicholas Sandmann] and committing hate crime hoaxes in Chicago [Jussie Smollett]. Second, diversity policies hurt people. Just ask the excellent Asian students who can’t get into Harvard because of affirmative action policies favoring other groups. Third, the diversity narrative is leading to absurd results, like the resegregation of college dorms and the self-identify phenomenon where you can wake up one morning and proclaim you are something you are not and everyone else just has to bow down to it. Schreck and her play say nothing about any of these complications.
But there’s a second, more fundamental flaw in Schreck’s thinking. She criticizes the Constitution for failing to protect people, like her grandmother who was the victim of an abusive childhood. “I believe we need a brand-new positive rights document...,” she says during the play. The Constitution contains mostly negative rights that keep the government from doing bad things to you, like shutting you up or searching your house without a warrant. Positive rights include various forms of economic security, such as the rights to housing, education, and a job in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. But positive rights also include the right to police protection, thus her beef with Justice Scalia’s opinion in a 2005 case [Castle Rock v. Gonzalez] declining to find a due process right to police enforcement of a restraining order against a father who ended up taking and murdering his three children. With positive rights, the three children and Schreck’s grandmother would have been protected, Schreck evidently believes. Forget that that police don’t always get there in time and all the other real-world complications to her rose-colored view.
The impulse behind all these positive rights is to have the government put a soft pillow under absolutely everybody for absolutely everything. Security in all things. As Schreck puts it, "Maybe instead, we could start thinking of the Constitution as a kind of ur-mother, whose job it is to actively look out for all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us." That’s the pioneer spirit.
There’s a lot of pseudo-science coming from the Left purporting to show that people on the Right are a bunch of fraidy cats and their brains are wired differently to seek security in all things. [Language of Terror by Kendall, et al.] Never mind that Social Security was a left-wing invention. But here we see the impulse for absolute security on full display from the new darling of the Left, which gets to the heart of the matter. As told to me by a former Leftist, the Left honestly believes it can bring about heaven on earth and the end of all human suffering. They believe they alone possess the secret knowledge to fundamentally transform human nature and bring about this earthly paradise. The rest of us are too stupid to figure it out. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s a bunch of malarkey. It’s a pipedream, it’s not ever gonna happen. Which makes Heidi Schreck’s play a nice bedtime story but nothing of substance that goes beyond the realm of fantasy.
So there you have it: a complete mirage from a mixed-up playwright. One minute she’s calling the Constitution “magical” and a work of “genius”, and saying it’s “appalling” the next. One minute she’s expressing her fundamental faith in the Constitution because it gives us what we need to make the country better, then calls for “a brand-new positive rights document” the next. Just because she’s conflicted and mixed up about the magnificence of our country’s founding document doesn’t mean we have to be.
California Tries to Add Tax Returns to Constitutional Presidential Qualifications (Constitution news round-up)
Presidential Qualifications: California law purports to add qualification that presidential candidates must reveal tax returns to get on the ballot
Separation of Powers: Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s use of redirected military funds to build the border wall while an appeal is pending.
Due Process: federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration rules requiring illegal aliens to apply for refuge in transit countries before applying for asylum in the United States.
1A: Trump sues New York on free speech grounds for law requiring disclosure of his state tax returns to congressional committees seeking them
1A: Trump officials shielded by First Amendment, federal judge says in dismissing DNC lawsuit for supposedly conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections
1A: conservative political consulting firm sues Ann Arbor over law requiring firm to work for left-wing groups under the guise of stopping discrimination. (Make no mistake: They always have a ‘good reason’, but the authoritarian Left is coming for your liberty and won’t be satisfied until they take ALL of it.)
1A: ‘professional speech’ cases are a growing area of First Amendment litigation; case-in-point - Tennessee’s new requirements for auctioneer licenses
1A: 6th Circuit muses whether a showing of no probable cause should really be required in order to bring retaliatory arrest claims when only speech (and not conduct) is involved.
Free Expression: Facebook agrees to help French ‘hate speech’ police, will turn over user ID
Free Expression: Authoritarian transgender activist proclaims what is acceptable and unacceptable speech for the rest of us
1A Free Press: UC-San Diego’s defunding of student newspaper for writing satire about trigger warnings and safe spaces violates freedom of the press (9th Circuit)
1A Free Press: 4th Circuit knocks down Baltimore police practice of requiring nondisclosure agreements as a condition of settling police misconduct claims
4A: posting video on Facebook posing with guns and smoking pot gives police probable cause to get a warrant to ask Facebook for identity (8th Circuit)
14A Equal Protection: racial quotas in Connecticut schools create roadblocks for minority children; high-achieving magnet schools have empty seats because there aren’t ‘enough’ whites
14A Equal Protection: lawsuit challenges State Department policy of conferring automatic citizenship to U.S. couples’ children born abroad, but not if it’s a same-sex marriage
Discrimination: EEOC to argue in Supreme Court in October it is allowed to puff up the definition of ‘sex’ as a protected class in its enabling statute to include ‘gender identity’ (lots of civil rights commissions are playing this game)
Economic Liberty: Supreme Court struck down Tennessee law prohibiting new residents from getting a liquor license for 2 years (law protected existing liquor stores from competition)
Appointments Clause: Supreme Court to consider ‘subdelegation’, i.e., whether ‘inferior officers’ in administrative agencies can issue legally binding regulations or Senate confirmation of the issuing official is required
Shame! “Parents Laugh and Urge Children to Take Turns Whacking ICE Agent Piñata at Chicago East Side Community Day”
Kudos! “Prize-Winning Student Film Shows What It Means to Be American” (we have the freedom to hold our government accountable and the duty to maintain our Republic by doing so)
Last Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an interim ruling against the Trump administration’s policy of indefinite detention of certain asylum-seekers pending their deportation hearings. The court ruled that the government failed to make “a persuasive showing that it will suffer irreparable harm if it is required to provide bond hearings pending the outcome of this appeal in the same way it had done for several years.” Getting to the heart of the matter, the court went on to say that the government is not likely to succeed on the merits of its “underlying argument that the government may indefinitely detain the plaintiffs without affording bond hearings at all.” Bottom line: the affected class of asylum seekers will have the opportunity to post bail while an appeal on the merits goes forward.
There is a long history of revulsion for indefinite detention going back at least as far as the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 which the noted legal authority Blackstone called the “second magna charta, and stable bulwark of our liberties.” The late Justice Scalia recounted this history in a 2004 dissent, concluding, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.”
Habeas corpus is found in our own Constitution - Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. We also have the 8th Amendment which states “excessive bail shall not be required.” All of this applies to noncitizens by virtue of Due Process which, under the 5th Amendment, is afforded to all “persons”, not just citizens.
Abraham Lincoln is reviled by some for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, rounding up 14,000 political prisoners, shutting down 300 newspapers, and throwing editors in jail. Lincoln also ignored the Supreme Court which ruled he did not have the authority under the circumstances to suspend habeas corpus. At least he had the excuse there was a Civil War on.
FDR placed Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps in World War II. On that occasion, the Supreme Court upheld the action in the Korematsu case, which is widely recognized as one of the worst decisions the Court has ever made.
In recent times, the U.S. has used indefinite detention in the War on Terror, notably at Guantanamo. Efforts to amend the NDAA to prohibit indefinite detention of U.S. citizens failed in Congress, but the ACLU and others object strongly to the practice. To sum it all up, we have had some instances of indefinite detention in our history, but it’s still strongly disfavored.
We’ll have to wait and see what the 9th Circuit does on the merits when the indefinite detention question is squarely before the court. The court granted the government’s request to expedite the appeal, so we should have an appellate-level ruling sooner rather than later.
Due Process: 9th Circuit rules against indefinite detention of illegal aliens seeking asylum
5A Eminent Domain - NYC landlords sue to overturn new rent control laws as regulatory taking
1A: federal judge cuts way back on Planned Parenthood’s civil lawsuit against baby parts videographer, citing the First Amendment
1A: NY assemblyman sues AOC for blocking him on Twitter (follows ruling Trump cannot block followers)
14A Equal Protection: court allows North Carolina to implement voter ID law
14A Fundamental Rights: “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Arkansas Abortion Restrictions”
Free Expression: Dennis Prager testimony - ‘social media censorship on ideological grounds is a bigger threat to America than any external enemy’
1A: James O’Keefe sues Ohio to go undercover to investigate political campaigns
Economic Freedom: federal judge backs dieticians monopoly, upholds Florida ban on giving dietary advice without a license
1A Commercial Speech: NYC ban on advertising in Uber vehicles upheld even though no such ban applies to taxicabs (2nd Circuit)
2A: Virginia Beach city employee circulating petition to make his workplace no longer a gun-free zone
4A: it’s OK to force female inmates to stand naked, submit to cavity searches in full view of male officers because it’s just a VISUAL inspection (7th Circuit)
4A Property-in-Property problem: can police search a backpack owned by A when lawfully searching a house or car owned by B? No clear answer.
8A Excessive Fines: homeowner fights $30,000 fine for not mowing the lawn
8A: Colorado Supreme Court rules corporations entitled to protection against excessive fines; but lets huge total fine stand because protection only applies to amount of daily fine
8A Cruel and Unusual / Due Process: 4th Circuit strikes Virginia’s civil regulation of ‘habitual drunkards’ as unconstitutionally vague
14A Property rights: new Florida law overturns court ruling woman could not grow vegetables in her front yard
14A Equal Protection: drawing Utah county districts to pack Navajo residents into one district and therefore limit them to one representative is prohibited racial gerrymandering
14A Equal Protection: landlords can decline to accept Section 8 housing vouchers even though they are disproportionately used by minorities (5th Circuit)
Shame! on Blacksburg, Virginia festival organizers for denying a booth to a gun rights groups
Shame! on Colorado State University for telling students not to use the term ‘Americans’ in order to be overly welcoming to foreigners. What foreign university does that?
Kudos! To hockey coach who told players to ‘get out now’ if they intend to disrespect the national anthem
Observers were pretty amazed earlier this month when the 9th Circuit, of all places, handed President Trump a win in a sanctuary city case. I got curious because previous cases made it clear the Trump administration could not take away funding, or place extra conditions on federal grant money, or commandeer state employees into enforcing federal immigration laws.
It turns out, according to a 9th Circuit three-judge panel, all the Trump administration had to do was change the grant process to award bonus points to cities focusing on illegal immigration and promising to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. In contrast, Los Angeles - whose case was before the 9th Circuit panel - chose “building trust and respect” as its focus area and declined to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in such matters as turning over fugitives for deportation.
The 9th Circuit panel noted that no federal funds were withdrawn from Los Angeles, nor was Los Angeles automatically barred from receiving federal policing grants because of sanctuary city and state policies. The administration did not add extra conditions to the grant; it merely prioritized money to locales that would serve the administration’s policies better, something which L.A. and California had been free to do. Thus, the administration’s bonus point system complied with all the requirements that had been built up over time in case law interpreting the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution [Article I, Section 8, Clause 1].
The panel went on to say that merely awarding additional points to grant applications that emphasize lawful purposes did not amount to coercion. No city or state laws were overturned in the application process. There was no coercion and no Tenth Amendment violation, the panel said. The panel concluded by saying the administration had acted within its statutory authority, that Congress had been silent on the precise question presented, and that the administration had acted reasonably - not arbitrarily or capriciously - in prioritizing recipients of federal grants closer in line with administration policies.
Los Angeles received over $3 million from the police grant program at issue the year before the case arose. The latest report I could find indicated the city is reviewing the panel’s decision. Conceivably, Los Angeles could appeal to the full 9th Circuit or to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.
5A Eminent Domain: Gangster Baltimore gives up quixotic quest to seize Pimlico race track and Preakness horse race; negotiating with owners to stay in the city
Art. I Sec.8: federal grants can be withheld from sanctuary cities and prioritized for locales that play ball on immigration enforcement (9th Circuit - can you believe it?)
Administrative Procedure Act - 4 advocacy groups sue to stop Trump administration asylum rule requiring prior application for refuge in transit country
Executive Power: appeals court greenlights (for now) Trump executive orders cutting time government employees may devote to union activities, redirects challenge to administrative agency (D.C. Circuit)
Emoluments: 4th Circuit dismisses emoluments lawsuit involving Trump's D.C. hotel, suggests suit was harassment and should not have been brought (a “complete victory”, Trump’s attorney said)
1A: President Trump cannot block his Twitter followers, 2nd Circuit rules
8A Civil Forfeiture: new law prevents IRS from seizing bank accounts without a connection to criminal activity
1A: “Democrat Montana Governor Vetoes Campus Free Speech Bill”
Free Expression - UK activist Tommy Robinson gets 9 months in prison for telling the truth about Islam; thousands protest
2A: federal judge blocks California agency effort to ban gun shows from San Diego county fairgrounds
Shame! - Minneapolis suburb abolished Pledge of Allegiance at city council meetings but forced to relent after nationwide backlash
Kudos! - Patriots bring American flags to Colorado ICE facility after protesters take down and attempt to burn Stars-and-Stripes, hoist Reconquista Mexican flag
Unless you’ve been living in a cave the last six months, you undoubtedly have seen story after story about how the authoritarian Left is trying to silence conservatives and other non-Left voices. Whether it’s breaking down Tucker Carlson’s front door or attacking journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon, it’s clear we’ve entered a new phase. Now is the time for all good people to fight back, or watch the Left destroy our First Amendment.
In January, I gave you lots of examples of how the Left is assaulting free expression in public, on campus, and online. More recently, I’ve been tracking stories about how people are fighting back. Here are some of the more interesting ways people are taking a stand:
Our friend Senator Ted Cruz will hold hearings Tuesday July 16th on Google’s anticonservative bias. Dennis Prager, who was kicked off of YouTube - owned by Google - will testify. This follows previous hearings about anticonservative bias at Twitter and Facebook. The tech companies are probably not free speech zones, which one may reasonably conclude after the Supreme Court declined to apply the First Amendment to public access cable television earlier this year. So going after the tech giants is in the interest of free expression overall, not free speech rights under the First Amendment.
But speaking of Facebook, Laura Loomer sued Facebook for $3 billion for defamation for calling her a “dangerous individual” and a domestic terrorist. Other recent free expression-related litigation includes #WalkAway founder Brandon Straka suing a New York City gay community center for canceling his event and the state of Texas suing San Antonio for denying an airport concession to Chick-fil-A. The Chick-fil-A controversy also resulted in a new state law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor to rectify the situation, as well as an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Elsewhere at the state level, 28 states now have campus free speech laws or bills and Kentucky has a new law allowing Bible classes to be taught in public schools. A pending resolution in the Pennsylvania legislature condemning a state lawmaker for harassing anti-abortion protesters now has 40 co-sponsors.
On campus, an incoming freshman tore up her acceptance letter from NYU for its anti-Semitism. Her great-grandfather had founded the music department there.
Playwright and activist Phelim McAleer fought back by finding a new venue after a theater in Washington, D.C. cancelled a contract allowing him to stage his play ‘FBI Lovebirds’ about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The play was rescheduled in the Ronald Reagan building. It is based on Strzok and Page’s unintentionally funny texts. The show went on and a good time was had by all.
Shareholder resolutions protesting censorship or seeking ideological diversity on corporate boards were introduced at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Twitter. Shareholders also went after JPMorgan Chase for debanking conservatives.
What can you do? Here are two easy-peasy action items that will take you a grand total of five minutes. First, sign the White House petition to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist group. The petition was inspired by Antifa’s attack on Andy Ngo in Portland. Second, sign the open letter to the U.S. Army War College to reverse its decision to disinvite a speaker after CAIR - the Council on American Islamic Relations - made trouble.
Finally, there’s the story of the 10-year-old girl in Britain who was suspended from school after asking to be excused from LGBT lessons during Pride Month. She said the lessons were confusing her classmates who are now calling themselves bisexual and trans. If a 10-year-old girl can fight back against the authoritarian Left and its insanity, so can we.