Facebook Employees Caught Doing THIS To Black Lives Matter Slogan, Zuckerberg’s Response Is Getting Attention

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his company are making headlines, but this time it’s not for something being offered to consumers. Instead, the news is coming from within.

Facebook maintains “free speech” whiteboards throughout it’s Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters. Staff members are allowed to write whatever they wish on the whiteboards.

Zuckerberg is apparently furious someone has, on more than one occasion, marked through “Black Lives Matter” statements and replaced them with “All Lives Matter” comments. Zuckerberg admitted in a private memo to employees he’d already asked his staff to refrain from marking through the BLM messages, yet someone keeps striking through them and writing “all lives matter.”

Zuckerberg was “disappointed” when it was happening earlier, but now he says he considers the action “malicious.” Zuckerberg then made reference to black social justice movements of the BLM group by saying the group only seeks to achieve “the justice they deserve.”

Zuckerberg said there were never any rules about what any staffer wanted to write on the whiteboards, but that striking through messages is equated to “silencing speech.” Zuckerberg then encouraged anyone and everyone to attend the on-campus “Black Town Hall” being held March 4.

It seems from the tone in the memo the free speech whiteboards may not be so free any longer if staffers are being told what they can and cannot do on the whiteboards. Faced with what Zuckerberg appears to view as a crisis of free speech, his leadership decision to investigate “the current incidents” may have some of his employees on edge for exercising their own rights to free speech by disagreeing with BLM statements.

h/t: Gizmodo

San Francisco Federal Judge Who Rules For Government Censorship Should Be Impeached

If you wonder how much damage a Presidential putz like Barack Obama can do to the nation, you have only to look at the case of Federal District Judge William H. Orrick III of the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Orrick III was a 2013 Obama appointee.

This is also the clown who ruled against investigative reporting in the case of The National Abortion Federation versus the Center for Medical Progress by issuing a preliminary injunction barring the anti-abortion group from releasing undercover videos taken at annual conferences of the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick III ruled the Center’s First Amendment interest in releasing the videos was outweighed by the National Abortion Federation’s right to privacy, security and association.

Apparently, Federal Judges appointed by Obama are now allowed to reinterpret the First Amendment to the Constitution when hallowed causes are involved.

If the Center had been, say, the New York Times publishing, say, the Pentagon Papers, then presumably Orrick III would have been more lenient in his interpretation, given the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in that case.

Fortunately for most of us, Orrick is swinging the barn door shut after most of the thoroughbreds have escaped and many of the videos are all over the internet, which leaves us with a case of ‘who do you believe? The baby killers’ trade association or your lying eyes?’

Orrick said representatives for the Center for Medical Progress had used false identification and set up a phony corporation to gain access to meetings of the National Abortion Federation. Surreptitious videos taken at the meetings violated confidentiality agreements the officials had signed to gain access to the meetings, Orrick said. Those confidentiality agreements provided for injunctive relief in the event of a breach.

Of course, selling body parts of dead babies which were custom aborted to preserve the parts do NOT qualify for injunctive relief.

Orrick also disagreed that the Center had used widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. The group’s projects “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal misconduct.”

The problem here is that CBS News just used the same techniques to look at lawyers who would set up money laundering operations, and nobody even went to the courthouse.

In the immortal words of Chief Justice John Roberts—with whom we occasionally disagree—the job of a Judge is to call “balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Judge Orrick III is definitely in there pitching—from far left field—and that, more than anything, is why he’s wrong.

Constitutional Law 101 teaches a 1971 case called New York Times Co. v. United States, a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Ironically, the New York Times had been enjoined by a federal judge pitching for the right from publishing further excerpts of the Pentagon Papers.

The Supremes—which tilted a little left back then—said that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

Why Orrick III is choosing to re-litigate this issue while pitching for the left is beyond me.

If Roe v. Wade is settled law, surely the First Amendment and freedom of the press is also settled law.

Yet we still have a Judge on the bench who tilts so far to the left that he is willing to simply serve as the handmaiden to the baby-killing industry.

He can rail against the anti-abortion groups all he wants, but government censorship—of anything that happens to be true or even arguable—is going so far that it should put a Federal jurist in line for impeachment.

Young Boy Stands Up For Trump- Then His Teacher Does Something Sickening In Response

Western Journalism has reported in the past on liberals who target conservatives’ exercising of their freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press on college campuses. Now, according to one 11-year-old caller to the Rush Limbaugh show, liberals are apparently going after pre-teens’ exercise of their freedom of speech.

An 11-year-old named Matthew, whose last name has not been released, spoke to Limbaugh on his radio show Friday. According to Matthew, his teacher asked for students to write the names of visionaries on the board. Some students wrote down names like Pope Francis and Rosa Parks, but Matthew chose Donald Trump. The student said he was immediately accosted by his teacher, who demanded that he erase Trump’s name from the board.

Matthew said his teacher then asked him what Trump ever did for anyone. He responded by saying that Trump was a successful businessman, and had built many beautiful buildings all around the world. He defended his view that Trump was a visionary, specifically mentioning his plans to close the borders by building a border wall with Mexico, and to put an end to ISIS.

Matthew had to erase Trump’s name, and was taken aback by the experience. He also said his classmates called him an idiot for supporting Trump.

“And she made me erase it. I’m thinking like, ‘Wait, why is…? I thought I had freedom of speech.  I mean, an anchor baby gets citizenship. Why don’t I?’ I kind of got mad after that. And people are targeting me, they’re saying, ‘Donald Trump’s sucks and you do too,’ and I really don’t know what to do,” he recounted

Stating that he didn’t want to disobey his teacher, Matthew told Limbaugh, “Well, she forced me to erase it because I didn’t want to disobey the teacher. But, I mean, I don’t exactly like backing down that much and I was kind of disturbed by that.”

Limbaugh encouraged Matthew to stay strong: “Well, it’s an honor to have you in the audience, and there’s no question about that. You’re very, very mature. Your parents gotta be so proud of you. You just continue to stay — I can’t believe I’m saying this to an 11-year-old — you just stay dedicated to what you truly believe, understanding that all kinds of people are gonna insult you or tell you you’re wrong.”

Small Town Shop’s Sign Enrages Feminists- So Owner Changes It To Something They Hate More…

As Americans across the East Coast brace for a rough winter storm, snow remains a popular — if more common — topic among Canadians, too. In one case, however, a Prince Edward Island car lot owner is in hot water with feminists over a comparison he made between women and the wintertime weather.

Like some of his entrepreneurial counterparts to the south, Mellish Motors owner John Mellish has reportedly long used his business’ sign to post funny, sometimes controversial messages. Though it has attracted him some mixed attention in the past, his latest controversy has garnered criticism and media coverage across Canada and beyond.

 

Well PEI friends…

Posted by Chelsea Ling on Saturday, January 16, 2016

One Facebook user shared an image of the sign, prompting both backlash against the business owner and criticism of those offended by his joke.

“Women make jokes about men daily that are pretty stereotypical and sexist and no one bats an eye,” one commenter wrote, “[M]ake a joke about women and everyone loses their minds. Happy Monday people! Don’t sweat the small stuff.”

The debate continued when another user responded, “If you were a woman and had actually experienced sexism that effected [sic] your life in major ways, you wouldn’t find the small stuff so easily brushed aside.”

In the midst of the controversy, Mellish Motors has reportedly changed its sign at least twice, with neither amendment offering anything close to an apology to those complaining online.

Inside The Garden Of Political Town Hall Plants

On Thursday, CNN will host a town hall with President Obama as part of his “final-year push to make gun control part of his legacy.” In addition to sitting down with liberal anchor Anderson Cooper, the network says Obama will “take questions from the audience.”

Uh-oh. Get out your best pruning shears and trowels. In an age of micromanaged partisan stagecraft and left-wing media enablers, there is no such thing as a spontaneous question.
CNN has a long history of allowing political plants to flourish in its public forums.

At the cable station’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas in 2007, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

At a CNN/YouTube GOP debate two weeks later, the everyday, “undecided voters” whose questions were chosen included:

–A member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Clinton Steering Committee.

–A young woman named “Journey” who questioned the candidates on abortion and whom CNN failed to properly identify as an outspoken John Edwards supporter.

–A supposed “Log Cabin Republican” who had declared his support for Obama on an Obama ’08 campaign blog.

–A supposedly unaffiliated “concerned mother” who was actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers — which had endorsed Edwards for president.

–A supposed “undecided” voter who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, but who had already publicly declared his support for former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s Democratic presidential bid.

–A staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; a former intern for Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former intern for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Once a manipulative gardener, always a manipulative gardener. During the push for Obamacare, Democrat plants spread like kudzu across town hall propaganda events. At White House “citizen town halls” in 2009, Team Obama hand-picked not-so-random “random” questioners who included:

–An operative for the Washington, D.C.-based Health Care for America Now, the K Street Astroturf outfit with a $40 million budget to lobby for government-run health care that directed its activists to “drown out” opponents at town hall meetings.

–An “unemployed” cancer patient who was actually working for the DNC’s Organizing for America and the Virginia Organizing Project, which coordinated lobbying trips and health care forums with HCAN.

–A Democrat National Committee member and community blogger at Organizing for America.

–The 11-year-old daughter of a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaign, as had her law firm employer.
Using young people as horticultural conduits to shape narratives wasn’t an Obama invention, of course. Last week, Hillary Clinton’s town hall events featured two children reading scripted questions on gender pay equity and guns. The campaign balked at accusations that they would exploit kids and manufacture questions.

But this is the campaign of the former secretary of state whose staff bragged in emails released last fall that it had “planted” questions with CBS News’s “60 Minutes” in 2011.
And this is the woman whose 2008 presidential campaign staff admitted to providing prefab queries to a Grinnell College student in Iowa. Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff exposed how a senior Clinton staffer approached her with “a binder with pre-written questions.” She told CNN — attention, CNN! — that the “top one was planned specifically for a college student. … It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

Gallo-Chasanoff conceded to asking the question, which read: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”
Upon reflection, Gallo-Chasanoff felt ashamed of her cooperation with Democratic Kabuki theater and condemned the charade as “dishonest.”

If only more self-respecting journalists felt the same way.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM