Bill Maher Goes On Epic Anti-PC Rant

There was a lot from Bill Maher’s show Friday night to piss people off. Like his fake Jesus comments, attacking the GOP on the Charleston shooting, and Ann Coulter going on another rant against immigrants. We’re going to focus on the one thing we agreed with him on…comedy and mocking whiny liberals who can’t take a joke.

(Warning: video below contains strong language.)

“One undergrad from San Diego actually wrote to Jerry an open letter on The Huffington Post to help him, Jerry Seinfeld, better understand how comedy works. Now I sure wouldn’t want to be judged by what I wrote at 20, but, stupid though I was in 1976, I wouldn’t have presumed to lecture George Carlin on comedy.”

“I sure wish he was around to write a letter back to this kid — as only he could. But since he can’t, allow me: ‘Dear you little sh*t, I’m sure you’re busy with your new letter explanation astrophysics to Stephen Hawking. And giving jump shot pointers to Steph Curry…”

He even called out leftists and their faux-tolerence for Muslim intolerance of gays and women…because in that case, it’s just a cultural difference and they’re really a culture of piece. I mean, peace.

That’s the problem with the lefties because they arbitrarily decide what you’re allowed to find funny. There’s a lot we don’t find funny. There’s a lot we didn’t find funny on Friday night’s show specifically. The difference is we just shrug our shoulders and switch the channel. Leftists want you run out of business.

Welcome to the new America.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

One Line Clint Eastwood Just Said About ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner Drew Immediate Reaction

Famously outspoken film icon Clint Eastwood is in hot water with Spike TV executives after he shared an off-color joke at Bruce Jenner’s expense. Throughout weeks of media reports chronicling Jenner’s transition into living his life as a woman, transgender activists used the opportunity to demand Americans use more inclusive language when referring to those in his position.

A few public voices have refused to acquiesce, however, earning both criticism and praise for their politically incorrect rhetoric. One such example came during the filming of the 2015 Guys’ Choice awards.

Presented by Spike TV, Eastwood was on hand to introduce guest Dwayne Johnson. Recalling the actor’s past as a professional wrestler, Eastwood found it appropriate to mention other accomplished athletes who made a transition into entertainment.

The veteran actor reportedly cited “Jim Brown and Caitlyn somebody” as two examples, the latter an apparent reference to Bruce Jenner’s new identity.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, some felt his joke was insensitive to Jenner and others in the transgender community. Criticism, however, was but a small percentage of the overall reaction to Eastwood’s remark.

“I support Clint Eastwood,” one Twitter user declared, adding that Jenner “set him self [sic] up for these jokes.”

Another lamented that people “cannot have an opinion unless its [sic] PC and approved by LGBT group.”

Nevertheless, Spike TV announced it would edit Eastwood’s comments before the show airs.

“We will remove the reference in the version that will air,” a network source confirmed to Hollywood Life.

The decision to censor Eastwood’s joke earned even more social media scorn for the cable news network.


Should Spike TV censor any speech critical of transgenderism? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Demands Censorship Of Her Critics

Hillary Clinton, taking a lead from socialist Bernie Sanders, has declared that if elected president, she will not appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court unless that person promises to overturn a Supreme Court case that allowed criticism of one Hillary Clinton.

The Citizens United case has become the bene noir of liberal politics. The case was about a citizens group that planned to release a movie during the height of the 2008 presidential campaign about Mrs. Clinton. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said they could not. The Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, said they could.

At issue was the ill-convinced McCain-Feingold law that made it a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison to broadcast the movie or pay for advertising promoting sales of the movie during the 2008 election cycle solely because of its political content. During the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito asked a simple question:  Could the government ban books if the content of the book was designed to promote a candidate? The Deputy Solicitor General replied: ‘Yes.’

In what should have been a unanimous decision, the court overturned the government’s effort to censor the movie, with the liberal wing of the court standing with the government in favor of restrictions on freedom of speech. Since then, the decision has been attacked uniformly by liberal partisans who have even gone so far as to submit a Constitutional Amendment to change the First Amendment for the first time in American history.

Now, Hillary has entered the fray. She has declared that any person she suggests for the Supreme Court will have to pass the Citizens United litmus test. In short, that nominee will pledge to allow the government to bar criticism of the President of the United States. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Four Things Every American Should Keep In Mind In The Aftermath Of Garland, TX, Shooting

There is no “line” of free speech.  As a matter of fact, even the Supreme Court says that “hate speech” is free speech. See RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992)

The media is now suggesting we should have a “serious” debate on whether a cartoon should be considered “responsible” speech.

First of all, the standard is not “responsible” speech. The standard is NOT right or wrong. The standard is not whether this speech makes you feel good. The standard is FREE speech, the Liberty to speak according to our own conscience irrelevant of what others may believe. The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that speech should be limited based on political correctness.

Liberty and free speech should be non-partisan. Our friends in the liberal media world would be good to remember the words of one their heroes:

Noam Chompsky said: “Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

If we truly love Liberty, we will be rejoicing in the presence of all speech, no matter how much it offends us. The fact that we are being led into a debate over the “reasonableness” of speech is very telling of the nature of Liberty lost.

Many Americans have even been led to believe speech can be limited based upon safety. We are told that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is illegal. That is NOT true. You can shout “fire!” in a crowded theater all day long, and no one will rush in and arrest you for saying “forbidden” words.

Thomas Jefferson said: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Second, free speech is not GRANTED by the Constitution. The Right to speak freely and voice your conscience is an inherent right, not a gift from government. Government was never delegated the authority to regulate it.

Thomas Jefferson also said: “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.”

Third, free speech is NOT protected by the Constitution. The Constitution has no power to protect speech on its own. Free speech cannot protect itself. Free speech is protected when we speak freely on a regular basis. Liberty is a ‘use-or-lose’ principle, and a voice not used will atrophy into complacency and compliance. There is no point of having a right to free speech if we do not regularly say unpopular and controversial things.

Benjamin Franklin said: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”

Finally, when we refuse to speak because it might offend someone, when we censor ourselves to be politically correct, and when we choose not to speak our conscience because we feel uncomfortable, we have voluntarily surrendered our Liberty. A Liberty once surrendered is not easily restored.

Now, not only do we face the danger of jihadists; we also face danger from certain Americans who will allow the government to justify censoring our speech–or even worse: Americans who will demand we censor ourselves in the name of safety. The danger is allowing the enemy to force us to attack our own liberties.

If we allow violence or threats to silence speech, we allow the destruction of the very liberties that make America an exceptional place–and the Constitution a unique document.

Without freedom of speech, there is no freedom of the press, no right to peaceably assemble, no way to petition the government for a redress of our grievances, and no freedom of religion. Each liberty in the First Amendment is dependent upon the other. When we give up speech we surrender all Liberty. Free speech is not radical; it is not extreme. We should not be uncomfortable speaking our conscience.

Exercising rights is only uncomfortable to two classes of people: tyrants and slaves. How do we classify ourselves?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Pro-Life Group At Johns Hopkins University Will Be Permitted To Have Fetus Display After It Was Initially Banned

After initially being banned, a pro-life group at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md., will be allowed to set up a display giving center stage to several fetuses from the early stages of conception to shortly before birth.

The Hopkins Arts and Crafts Committee initially told the JHU Voice For Life group that the display would be prohibited from inclusion in the university’s Spring Fair because it “contains triggering and disturbing content,” FoxNews reported.

Here is the display in question:

Life Site News

Life Site News

“Out of respect for our relationship of the past 30 years, we would appreciate if you refrained from using the fetus models,” the committee said in an email to the pro-life group. “We hope you understand that our intention is not to restrict your freedom of speech or expression, but rather to create an inclusive and respectful environment for all.”

Voice For Life’s president, Andrew Guernsey, shot right back: “Abortion is disturbing, that’s the reason we have such a table,” Guernsey told Fox News.

I certainly find it ironic that a university that has dedicated itself to the advancement of medicine and biology would find displaying medically accurate fetal models disturbing and offensive…I mean, these are images shown in high school textbooks.

Not long after the outlet emailed the Arts and Crafts Committee inquiring as to why the display would not be permitted, the decision was reversed. They explained in a statement to Fox News:

We … were wrong in our initial decision and, upon further reflection, have decided we will not impose restrictions on the displays presented by any community groups at Spring Fair …. The committee values free speech.

Voice For Life was never prohibited from participating in the fair.

Share this if you support the right to life.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth