Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins.

About the Author

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department.

It’s a form of psychological warfare designed to create a Catch-22: If the target population sits back and does nothing in the face of the cultural onslaught, their heritage and their beliefs are systematically dismantled. If people take action to disrupt the saboteurs, they are accused of being hypocrites who don’t actually value the freedoms they claim to value.

However, this little mind game relies on a certain false relationship. It requires that the population under attack continues to see the saboteurs as integral members of that society with the same freedoms and the same protections. They are Americans just like us, and therefore we have to treat them merely as citizens in disagreement even though they would like nothing better than to see our culture burn.

Globalists and woke leftists often openly boast about their agenda to deconstruct western society and replace it with their own ideological cult. They are not simply in disagreement, they have declared war.

They’ve been treating conservatives and patriots as the enemy for quite some time, while we continue to treat them as fellow citizens. They tried to erase all of our freedoms permanently during the covid panic (which they perpetuated through false information). They tried to create a government apparatus working with social media corporations for mass censorship. They tried to create punishments for people who spoke against the establishment narrative. They supported vaccine mandates that would have enslaved Americans for years to come. They almost got what they wanted, too.

They then twisted the events of the Jan 6^th protests and declared war on us again. They fired rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowds, got a violent response, and then acted as if the reaction was an “insurrection.”

They have targeted our children with political and sexual indoctrination in an effort to groom them into willing servants to the woke cause. They have saturated our media from commercials to movies with an endless stream of DEI propaganda, all while claiming WE are “terrorists” because we refuse to spend our money on woke products.

When someone is actively at war with you they are no longer a part of your community or tribe.  They can’t claim to be Americans while also planning to undermine everything that makes America what it is. When someone is working tirelessly to destroy the constitutional principles you hold dear, they don’t get to use those same freedoms as a buffer against retaliation.

An enemy in war is meant to be defeated; their “rights” are secondary to this goal.

Again, this is not a political disagreement. This is not a friendly debate among countrymen with the best of intentions. This is not a cultural speed bump on the way to mutual benefit. This division is irreparable. It cannot be salvaged. This is about survival. THIS IS WAR.

This is why I smiled when I read the story of Michael Cassidy, a former US Navy fighter pilot who destroyed a satanic statue of Baphomet on display at the Iowa State Capitol Building. The political left is in an uproar on social media, and as expected they argue that this incident is proof that conservatives are “authoritarians” hellbent on dictatorship. They say the statue has a constitutional right to be there if any other religious symbols are allowed to be there – But does this really matter to the situation?

My personal feelings about organized religion are complicated, but I still recognize the replacement tactics being used by the political left to undermine the west; they have been clearly targeting Christianity for many years. The satanic statue in Iowa may or may not represent satanism and evil to the people who paid to have it placed in the capitol, but it does represent their ongoing effort to wear down American foundations using any tool they can find.

Here are the reasons why what Cassidy did is absolutely acceptable under our current political conditions, even in the face of constitutional questions…

1) Do we really even live in a “constitutional society” anymore?  Or does the 1st Amendment only apply when it’s convenient to leftists?  As mentioned above, the political left and their allies have been working overtime to destroy freedom of speech through collusion between governments, corporate media and Big Tech.  Mass censorship was the norm during covid and leftists defended it vigorously. These people are in no position to use the 1^st Amendment as a tent pole for their ideological games. Sorry, but that ship has sailed; they have lost the privilege of wrapping themselves in the flag.

2) The political left has been aggressively attempting to demolish historic monuments and statues of Founding Fathers in an effort to erase our connections to the past.  In 2021 they even removed a nearly 200-year-old statue of Thomas Jefferson from the New York City Hall building on the grounds that it was a “symbol of racism.” What goes around comes around.  They tear down our statues, now we tear down their statues.

3) Michael Cassidy is not a government representative, just as most of us are not government representatives. Leftists seem to operate under the false assumption that constitutional rules are meant to restrict public behavior. They are not. They are meant to restrict the government.

The Iowa state government didn’t tear that satanic statue down (unlike the New York City government that removed Thomas Jefferson). Rather, it was just a man, a regular citizen.

This is not a 1^st Amendment issue because Michael Cassidy is not bound by the 1^st Amendment in this situation. He might be guilty of vandalism under the law, just like thousands of woke activists across the country are guilty of vandalism for destroying monuments and government buildings, but that is all.  This is not a legal battle, this is war.

4) Most conservatives are not even arguing the matter on 1^st Amendment grounds. Instead, they argue the matter on moral grounds. Is it right to allow satanic symbols to stand in our institutions of law and institutions of heritage? Symbols that represent moral relativism, narcissism, chaos and psychopathy? Is it right to look the other way while a subversive activist movement works to demolish everything we hold dear?

5) Does every belief system or ideology deserve a place of “equality” within our society? Every death cult? Every terrorist or criminal philosophy? Are they ALL entitled to statues and monuments on public property? Or, is there a line? Should there be statues of Hitler, Stalin and Mao in the halls of Congress? Should there be a Pol Pot bust on the floor of the Senate? Should Charles Manson get his face on Mount Rushmore because of the 1st Amendment?  There is such a thing as standards, but leftists think that when it comes to their ideological goals, there are no standards.

Never before in the history of the US has there been a time when a statue of Baphomet in a state government building would have been treated as acceptable, even under constitutional law. Suddenly, in the past decade we’re supposed to treat these destructive symbols as equal to other religions and give them places of reverence on public grounds? I think not.

6) Satanists like to play games with legal categorization when it suits them. When they want to argue for their presence in public schools they say they are NOT a religion and are merely a philosophical club. When they want 1^st Amendment protections they claim they are a religion.  If these groups are going to refuse to identify what they are in finality, then they should be restricted from access to public institutions until they make up their minds and the courts can establish a fair precedence.

7) We have to ask ourselves what really defines freedom? Does freedom mean being able to do whatever you want whenever you want without being subject to scrutiny or skepticism? Does freedom extend to hedonism at the expense of morality, truth, responsibility and order? Because this is what the political left is demanding and it’s leading to the self immolation of civilization.

I think we have allowed them to indulge themselves for far too long, to the point that they have become arrogant and presume themselves untouchable. They laugh at us because we play by a certain set of rules by which they see no reason to abide. We engage in a battle of ideas and facts while they go scorched Earth, rigging the fight using central government and corporate power to their advantage.

Maybe we stop playing by these rules? Maybe every time they try to tear down our statues and symbols, we tear down their symbols until there’s nothing left of them? Maybe we remove the enemy that has declared war on us, and then continue on with life as we did before?  Would the populace really miss the antics of woke activists, or would they applaud if these people were shipped off to an island somewhere?

If they hate the cultural roots of this country so much then they can always leave. They choose not to, and instead scheme to upend everything we used to stand for. So no, I shed no tears for the progressives or the satanists (almost the same thing at this point) or the globalists when their mocking statues are cut in half. After years of trespasses they are finally facing some blowback. As the leftists like to say, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences.

Looks like a CNN hit piece is coming out to provide air support for Biden DOJ’s assault on the First Amendment.

By charging and convicting Douglass of a felony for sharing satirical meme about Hillary, the regime attempts to codify the discredited “disinformation” scam into law.

Looks like a CNN hit piece is coming out to provide air support for Biden DOJ's assault on the First Amendment.

By charging and convicting Douglass of a felony for sharing satirical meme about Hillary, the regime attempts to codify the discredited "disinformation" scam into law. https://t.co/74UKIjEFUn

— Darren J. Beattie (@DarrenJBeattie) December 18, 2023

Beattie was referring to a statement dropped by one of the original victims of the regime’s war on memes, Douglass Mackey. They noted that CNN was coming out with something soon. According to Reclaim The Net, the NY Times has already dropped their load:

It’s that time of the US election cycle again: what were formerly known as “newspapers of record” attempting to, for political reasons, promote odd ideas like regulating jokes.

It’s the New York Times this time, looking like it’s terrified that Donald Trump might be successful in his new presidential bid, and so going guns blazing after what it calls his “troll army.”

And “troll” here means – meme creators. As for the memes themselves, the NYT either pretends not to or doesn’t get the joke – namely, that they are jokes, and basically treats them as sinister tools for peddling misinformation and deepfakes.

To add insult to the paper’s injury, the memes not only support the Trump campaign, but Trump also enjoys them, and takes time to communicate with the meme creators.

The article claims that there is a large number of “sexist and racist tropes” being repeated in these memes, but singles out a video collection of some of President Biden’s many gaffes.

As usually, this latest round of attacks has to do with Donald Trump being the likely opponent to whoever becomes the Democrat nominee for president.

Here’s the statement about the coming attacks by James Lawrence, Mackey’s attorney:

The media has already widely reported that some of the hundreds of thousands of social media posts Doug Mackey made between 2015 and 2018 contained inflammatory and vulgar content. As he truthfully testified under oath, he regrets the tone and substance of these posts, and they do not reflect his current views or the person he has been for the last several years. However, he does not regret using his anonymous account to promote conservative political ideas or then-candidate Donald Trump.

In the prosecution, the government only alleged two satirical memes he found on 4chan about “voting by text” violated the law, not these offensive tweets. Despite attempting to track down every person who texted the phone number in the memes, the FBI could not find a single person who ever believed the memes were serious, let alone did not vote because of them. Mr. Mackey’s other tweets have no relevance to whether these memes are protected by the First Amendment or violate 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiring to violate the civil rights of voters. Americans have made literally millions of vile and repellant—but First Amendment-protected—social media posts without facing federal prosecution. The government and media only bring up these other offensive tweets to bias the public against him.

Doug is grateful that former President Trump, his son, and thousands across the political spectrum can see through these smears and distractions and recognize that his case is about protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans. He looks forward to making his case before the Second Circuit.

BREAKING: Statement on forthcoming CNN hit piece

James Lawrence, civil attorney for Doug Mackey:

The media has already widely reported that some of the hundreds of thousands of social media posts Doug Mackey made between 2015 and 2018 contained inflammatory and vulgar content.… pic.twitter.com/fIPFIEqC29

— Douglass Mackey (@DougMackeyCase) December 18, 2023

Here’s Mackey’s GiveSendGo.

This may be all about Trump now, but it’s really about subverting the American people’s rights to express ourselves. They want a compliant and obedient populace and the people standing in their way are patriots.

“Advocates of transgenderism can be as doctrinaire as religious zealots these days,” law judge John Van Laningham wrote in a dispute over the firing of science teacher Yojary Mundaray.

She was dismissed in 2019 by Jose de Deigo Middle School in Miami for a conversation with a student, a girl, who demanded the teacher refer to her as a boy.

According to a report on the situation that developed, cited by the Daily Mail, the student was scolded by Mundaray for “routine horse play.” At that point, the girl demanded the teacher refer to her as a boy, instructing the teacher “God made a mistake.”

The teacher responded, “I’m a Christian, and my God made no mistakes.”

The student complained and the teacher was fired.

The judge called for the exoneration of the teacher, writing, “As this case demonstrates, adhering to the traditional view that gender is biologically determined can get a person excommunicated, from a job in this instance.”

The judge explained the teacher was free to hold her beliefs.

“Given that Mundaray made no attempt to force Pat to accept, conform to, or even acknowledge any Christian doctrine, the allegation that she imposed her personal religious views on Pat is untrue,” he wrote. “At most, Mundaray expressed her view that God is inerrant, which is about as anodyne a theological statement as one could make.

“‘Further, she did so only in defense of the God she worships. Surely, such cannot constitute a disciplinable offense in a country whose foundational principles include religious freedom.”

And the judge noted that Florida law has changed, and if the situation developed now the teacher’s job would be protected by statute.

The teacher’s case remains to be concluded, with the Education Practices Commission set to issue a final ruling.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s judgement that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC and FBI violated the First Amendment while finding that “the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” Yet it found the injunction, issued by District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty in July, was “vague and broader than necessary.”

“Ultimately, we find the district court did not err in determining that several officials—namely the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI—likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media, platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions,” the court wrote. “In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.”

Doughty granted a broad injunction barring President Joe Biden’s administration from collusion with pro-censorship nonprofit organizations, in addition to social media companies, in the free speech lawsuit Missouri v. Biden. The injunction found that government officials likely violated the First Amendment by suppressing protected speech, and the order states that government actors are barred from “collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with” research groups and projects that advocate for censorship.

BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit has upheld the district court’s order in our free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, enjoining the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, & FBI from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 8, 2023

The court axed nine of ten provisions of the injunction but kept provision six, which bars officials from ““threatening, pressuring, or coercing” companies to remove speech, though it altered the language to avoid capturing “otherwise legal speech.”

“Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech,” the new provision reads. “That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.”

The court also extended the Biden administration’s request to fully freeze the injunction for ten days pending their application to the Supreme Court.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Many of us who have been keeping tabs on restrictions on all kinds of individual freedoms have been aware of this dangerous trend for quite some time already. However, it was during the covid crisis that it became obvious to a lot more people too. Anyone reluctant to fully embrace and follow the state’s edicts and “science-based rules” (which, if you recall, kept changing from week to week) was, at best, branded a “denier” or, at worst, actually arrested in some jurisdictions.

We saw dramatic evidence of that extreme response coming from China, Australia, and the United States, among other places. That’s to say nothing of countless other cases of people who lost their jobs or were denied access to basic public services.

Apart from those “straightforward” scenarios of punishment and retribution, though, there were other instances that were much more subtle and indirect. The story of the Canadian “Freedom Convoy” stands out as a solid example of how the banks themselves can be weaponized in the war on dissent. Individuals who supported the antilockdown convoy with donations found their bank accounts frozen, without any warning or due process. This was (or at least should have been) a serious wake-up call for all freedom-loving citizens, whether they agreed with the protesters’ views at the time or not.

Fast-forward to this July, when the “debanking” scandal of Nigel Farage made international headlines. The story, involving political angles, the banking sector, and the mainstream media, was very illuminating, and it revealed just how far establishment forces are willing to go to silence those who disagree with them. The bank at the heart of the scandal is the 330-year-old private bank Coutts, which is owned by NatWest, which in turn happens to have the United Kingdom government as its biggest shareholder following its taxpayer-funded bailout in 2008.

Mr. Farage’s Coutts account was summarily closed without any explanation. When he publicly insisted that it was due to his political beliefs, the bank shrugged him off, while the BBC went on to publish reports suggesting that the move had nothing to do with his ideology. Instead, according to the public broadcaster, it was the state of his finances that was to blame—his account supposedly had fallen below a certain threshold. Mr. Farage didn’t take long to hit back: he obtained a forty-page dossier from the bank exposing internal communications and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that his allegations were justified.

The documents showed that Coutts’s reasons for the account closures were his support for Brexit and Donald Trump and his “transphobic” and “xenophobic” views, among many other beliefs that he had expressed that were not “compatible with Coutts.” As Mr. Farage himself highlighted, “This story is not just about me. You could be next . . . if this situation is left unchecked, we will sleepwalk towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the ‘correct’ views are allowed to fully participate in society.”

Indeed, the story clearly struck a nerve with the general public, and it quickly snowballed into an industry-wide and soon nationwide cause of outrage. The BBC had to apologize, and the CEO of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, was forced to resign, but that wasn’t enough to appease all those who finally realized the disproportionate and largely illegitimate and unchecked power that banks can have over their customers.

As the Financial Times reported, “It raised wider questions about the ability of banks to remove accounts without explanation, leaving them or their small businesses cut off from the mainstream financial system. In an increasingly cashless world, having a bank account has become an essential service. David Davis, former Brexit secretary, likens closing someone’s bank account to cutting off their water or electricity supply. ‘You should be able to get a bank account regardless of your political views, whether you are a communist or a fascist,’ he says.”

The key takeaway from all this, however, is not this particular story itself. It would not be wise to regard it as an isolated incident or as something that could only ever affect account holders that have a high profile or a large audience. To the contrary, if it can be done to Nigel Farage, it can be done to anyone.

The lesson to be learned is that the threat is posed by the banking system itself, and that is why it is more important than ever to rethink your own financial structure and your plan. Keeping part of your savings outside the banking system and in physical precious metals is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the whims and trespasses of both governments and banks.

About the Author

Claudio Grass is a Mises Ambassador and an independent precious metals advisor based out of Switzerland. His Austrian approach helps his clients find tailor-made solutions to store their physical precious metals under Swiss law. ClaudioGrass.ch. Article cross-posted from Mises.

The Supreme Court could hear cases next term that have important ramifications for Americans of faith, according to legal experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Supreme Court will potentially weigh several faith-based cases involving free speech, sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics and workplace accommodations after handing down several religious freedom victories this past year, according to legal experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The court handed down two highly-anticipated decisions in June, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Groff v. DeJoy — the former dealing with the right of business owners to not be compelled to use certain types of speech and the latter regarding an employee’s right to a religious accommodation. These cases have set the stage for several other cases to be brought before the Supreme Court next year, legal experts told the DCNF.

“So far the court has only filled up around a third of its docket, maybe 20 out of 60 cases, or 20 out of 70 cases, and hasn’t really started filling in religious liberty cases yet,” Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the DCNF. “So we’re more in a position of like, what are the big cases heading up to the Supreme Court in the near future?”

One such case that could be heard involves Christian baker Jack Phillips, who won a Supreme Court case in 2018 for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. Despite his initial win, Phillips was sued again in 2021 for refusing to decorate a cake for a gender transition party and is currently awaiting a decision from the Colorado Supreme Court, according to John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“What it will come down to in the Colorado Supreme Court is whether they think that cake artistry qualifies as speech,” Bursch said. “The US Supreme Court in 303 Creative cited an amicus brief … favorably, when it was talking about visual artists and that brief talks about cake artists. So if the Colorado Supreme Court just looks carefully at what the Supreme Court ruled in 303 Creative, that should control the outcome in Jack’s case, but if for any reason they disagree, then we’ll have to go back to the Supreme Court and ask for relief again.”

Another religious battle in the works is Hittle v. The City of Stockton, which is currently being fought in the Ninth Circuit Court regarding Fire Chief Ron Hittle, who was fired for attending a Christian leadership conference. Hittle’s case is about to get a lot of attention because of the Groff decision, according to Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute (FLI).

The Groff case involved a postal worker who was forced to leave his job after being unable to obtain a religious accommodation to not work on Sunday. The Supreme Court ruled in the case that an employer could only deny such a request if they could prove it would cause “substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer’s] particular business,” which changed nearly 50 years of legal precedent that had required an employee’s request be “reasonable” to prevent an “undue hardship” for the company, according to Shackelford.

“[Groff] changed the protection for religious liberty in the workplace and actually restores religious freedom in the workplace,” Shackelford told the DCNF. “But [the Supreme Court] didn’t go into detail on exactly how that would look and by laying out the new standard, they threw out the old standard. So you’re gonna have all these future cases that are going to come up that are going to play out with this new standard.”

The Supreme Court could also take up a case involving Catholic pro-life activist Debra Vitagliano, who, under a Westchester County, New York, law that creates a bubble zone 100 feet around abortion clinics, would not be able to pray outside of or minister to women considering an abortion.

Becket sued on behalf of Vitagliano in 2022, arguing that the law violated her rights to express her faith and her concerns about abortion under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld a similar law in Hill v. Colorado in 2000, in which the justices said that the First Amendment right to free speech was not infringed by limiting protestors or sidewalk evangelists from coming within eight feet of a woman or clinic worker.

The decision has been criticized by many judges over the years and Vitagliano’s case will go straight to the Supreme Court, if accepted, to challenge its earlier decision, according to Goodrich.

“[W]e challenged that under the free speech clause and the court said, there’s a lot of criticism of Hill, but only the Supreme Court can overrule its own decisions,” Goodrich said. “So we’re about to take on the Supreme Court and say, ‘Here’s the vehicle you’ve been waiting for to set your free speech jurisprudence straight.’”

All three attorneys expressed that while they could never predict how the court will rule in any given case, the justices’ record over the past decade has indicated a strong stance on protecting the rights of religious Americans.

“It’s really interesting, if you look at the last decade, or a little more, since 2011, the Supreme Court has heard 25 cases involving religious freedom issues and 24 out of 25 have been in favor of the religious freedom side,” Goodrich said.

“When religion flourishes, culture flourishes too,” Bursch told the DCNF. “The court has been [protecting] that because the language of this the US Constitution, is so plain and so broad in protecting those rights, and that going all the way back to our founding, the protection of religious liberty and free speech has been so strongly a tradition in our country, that the court is reluctant to curtail that in any way, even though government officials seem to be doing that with increasing frequency.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The result, the second time in a row that the state of Colorado has been caught, and scolded, for its “hostility” to Christianity, now should be applied to other similar cases, according to ADF.

In 303 Creative, the justices said the right to free speech means Colorado’s leftist governor, Jared Polis, and the state Democrat machine there, could not require Lorie Smith, a web designer, to promote same-sex weddings with her website business.

Earlier, the justice blasted Colorado for its actual “hostility” to Christian baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That followed one state official actually likening Christians to Nazis.

Now the ADF, which fought at the high court on behalf of Jack Phillips and Lorie Smith, is recommending that appeals courts use the new precedent to end other cases being pursued against Christians.

The organization reports, “In the first case, Chelsey Nelson Photography v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, ADF attorneys filed a supplemental brief Thursday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit asking it to affirm a lower court order that blocked a Louisville law from forcing photographer and blogger Chelsey Nelson to communicate messages that contradict her beliefs.

“In the second case, Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James, ADF attorneys filed a supplemental letter brief Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit asking it to allow Emilee Carpenter, a New York photographer and blogger, to create messages consistent with her faith.”

Those rulings, if released by the appeals judges, would align with the Supreme Court ruling.

“Free speech is for everyone. As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in 303 Creative, the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe,” said ADF lawyer Bryan Neihart. “That ruling makes clear that nondiscrimination laws like Louisville’s can remain firmly in place, but the government cannot misuse those laws to compel speech. The U.S. Constitution ensures Lorie Smith, Chelsey Nelson, Emilee Carpenter—and indeed, every American—can speak consistent with her convictions.

“Now we urge the 6th Circuit and 2nd Circuit to uphold this freedom and follow Supreme Court precedent so that Chelsey and Emilee can speak freely without being threatened by the government with steep fines and penalties.”

Nelson and Carpenter, like Smith and Phillips, confirm that they serve everyone and anyone, including clients who identify as LGBT.

But they limit the messages they express to ones they support.

In Nelson’s case, the city of Louisville threatened her and tried to force her to create messages about marriage she does not believe. A district court judge rejected the city’s contentions, but the city appeal to tried to impose its censorship plan.

“In Carpenter’s case, ADF attorneys are asking the 2nd Circuit to uphold the photographer’s First Amendment rights and reverse a district court’s ruling that concluded the state of New York and a local district attorney can force her to create photographs and blogs inconsistent with her beliefs. New York’s laws threaten Carpenter with fines of up to $100,000, a revoked business license, and up to a year in jail,” the report said.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer and the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis, says she is receiving a barrage of hate mail following the 6-3 ruling in her favor on June 30.

“Especially in the last week, despite the victory last week, I do continue to face horrific attacks, people saying they hope I would be raped; they want to burn my house down; they know where I live, and they want to come kill me and my family,” Smith commented about the “loving liberals” and how they are treating her following the SCOTUS decision.

“Our security team is monitoring all of the comments that come in very, very closely to determine the best way to protect Lorie and to take action consistent with the threat,” added Kellie Fiedorek, Senior Counsel and Government Affairs Director at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a public interest law firm that represented Smith throughout her case.

“We cannot share any more about the internal conversations we are having, but it is deeply disheartening to see Lorie experience vicious harassment and death threats over her stand for all Americans’ free speech and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that just affirmed both those who agree and those who vehemently disagree with Lorie have the right to say what they believe without fear of government punishment.”

As usual, hateful LGBTs are threatening rape and death on others for their support of free speech

In case you missed it, the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis dealt with concerns that Smith brought up about the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s attempted use of an anti-discrimination statute to try to force her to create websites that support things she does not believe in, including same-sex “marriage.”

At one point in her career, Smith actually left her highly productive corporate web design and digital marketing position to start her own company, known as 303 Creative.

Concerned that Colorado had previously sought to abuse the same statutes to force baker Jack Phillips to design cakes and other bakery items for LGBTs engaged in sexual perversion, Smith was encouraged to file her own case after the High Court ruled in Phillips’ favor in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Just like it did against Phillips, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission tried to go after Smith for refusing to violate her own conscience, which is her right not to be forced to do under the United States Constitution.

“Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion in Smith’s favor. “It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

“In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

The latest news about the leftist crusade against free speech and the First Amendment can be found at Libtards.news.

Sources for this article include:

• TheEpochTimes.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

Hell has frozen over.

O’Keefe posted about the amicus brief sent to federal court urging them the 1st Amendment rights of reporters are protected.

BREAKING: ACLU Letter to federal court SIDES with our journalism in the Biden Diary case following the FBI raid of myself, reporters Eric Cochran and Spencer Meads’ home. ACLU cites “undisputed” facts.

“Amici urge this Court to affirm that the First Amendment protects a… pic.twitter.com/OsicPu6xmd

— O’Keefe Media Group (@OKeefeMedia) June 6, 2023

Following the 2021 raids, the ACLU condemned the actions while also taking swipes at O’Keefe and Project Veritas. This new filing is far more absolute in their understanding of the 1st Amendment rights held by O’Keefe et al.

Journalists are allowed to published stolen documents as long as they were not involved in the theft, as O’Keefe and the ACLU have highlighted.

According to FISM.tv:

During the early hours of Nov. 6 the FBI barged into O’Keefe’s apartment in Mamaroneck, New York, where they proceeded to search the residence for over two hours and ultimately seized two of his phones.

The FBI investigation into Veritas, centers around a diary belonging to Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden, which the organization purchased the publishing rights of from a tipster. Veritas eventually turned the diary into law enforcement after they were unable to verify its contents.

The Biden DOJ had good reason to want to keep the diary under wraps. It revealed plenty about Joe Biden, not only as a bad father but as a child sex offender. It was in her diary that Ashley Biden mentioned, “showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate).”