Posts

Posted on

Broward Deputies vote ‘no confidence’ in Sheriff Scott Israel

Last week I pointed out this vote was coming. Today, a union representing Broward County Sheriff’s Deputies announced the results of their “no confidence” vote in Sheriff Scott Israel. Those results were overwhelming, with 85% saying they had “no confidence” in the Sheriff. From the Sun-Sentinel:

A deputies’ union said Thursday afternoon that it has “no confidence” in Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. The union revealed the results of a vote, which indicated 534 out of 628 who voted said they had no confidence in the sheriff.

Jeff Bell, the president of the Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association, said the union’s “members have displayed great courage to come out and vote under threat of retaliation and reprisal from the sheriff.”…

Bell added, “Amazing leadership starts from the top, and there is no amazing leadership here. We are a ship out at sea with no power — adrift.”

Sheriff Israel dismissed the results of the vote hours before they were revealed, suggesting deputies were merely upset that he had denied them a 6.5% raise:

While many deputies were upset over the Sheriff’s handling of the Parkland shooting, CNN’s Rosa Flores reports the last straw for some was his appearance on CNN in which he praised his own “amazing leadership.” Here’s her report:

Governor Rick Scott says he is waiting on the results of a Florida Law Enforcement investigation which he ordered back in February. Under Florida law, Gov. Scott does not have the ability to remove Sheriff Israel from office, but he can suspend him and refer the case to the state Senate which does have authority to remove him. A local news report last month claimed Israel had already vowed to run for office again in 2020 even if he is removed from office now.

The post Broward Deputies vote ‘no confidence’ in Sheriff Scott Israel appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Posted on

Federal judge rules Berkeley must face lawsuit on discrimination against conservative speakers

A federal judge has ruled the University of California, Berkeley, must face a lawsuit that it discriminated against conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter, Courthouse News reported. The court dismissed some of the plaintiff’s claims, but allowed others to stand.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney found Wednesday that the plaintiffs presented an adequate argument that the university “used an overly broad events policy to charge excessive fees and impose other unreasonable restrictions on conservative speakers,” according to the report.

Chesney took issue with a section of the policy that allows the university to impose stricter rules based on an event’s “complexity,” according to the report.

She rejected, however, the allegation that the university deliberately tried to squelch conservative viewpoints. She found that some liberal events did not carry the same security issues when compared to conservative speakers.

Also, Chesney dismissed a claim for punitive damages, the report states.

What is the background?

Young America’s Foundation, a conservative youth organization, and Berkeley College Republicans sued University of California President Janet Napolitano (the former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) and other school officials in April 2017, Courthouse News reported. The lawsuit claims the college unconstitutionally suppressed conservative speech on campus.

The lawsuit was filed shortly after the college cited safety concerns and cancelled an event with conservative commentator Ann Coulter, CNS reported.

College organizers offered to reschedule the event at a venue that was off-campus and during a week when classes were not held, according to the report.

Another complaint in the lawsuit involved “exorbitant” security fees for events that included appearances by Shapiro in September 2017 and conservative writer David Horowitz in April 2017. According to the lawsuit, both events were cancelled because of the expensive security fees.

Chesney found the university charged a much higher ($9,162) security fee for the Shapiro speech than it did for events featuring Supreme Court Justice and Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor in the same venue, the report said.

In contrast, liberal speakers such as former Mexican President Vicente Fox and former Clinton White House official Maria Echaveste, were allegedly given the opportunity to speak as a central campus location during afternoon and evening hours, according to the plaintiffs.

“We’re very pleased that our lawsuit against UC Berkeley officials in their individual and official capacities is moving forward,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Harmeet Dhillon. “We look forward to litigating these issues.”

How did Berkeley respond?

“We are pleased that the court carefully considered the issues and upheld the Major Events Policy that the campus adopted last year,” Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of UC Berkeley’s Office of Communications and Public Affairs, said in an email to Courthouse News.

Mogulof also maintained the university was justified in charging the fee, as it had spent more than $800,000 on security expenses for Shapiro’s visit.

“The campus strongly contends that the fees charged were lawful and appropriate, and this ruling does not conclude otherwise,” Mogulof said.

Settlement talks are expected to begin on June 5 with a magistrate judge.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

Near Detroit, this impromptu lineup of truckers help save the life of a man contemplating suicide

Near Detroit, this impromptu lineup of truckers help save the life of a man contemplating suicide
This is an extraordinary story – not only of the quick thinking and compassion of police officers but also of the compassion of a random bunch of truck drivers, who had no idea when they set out last night that they would ever be part of something like this.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Posted on

Pro-lifers blasted as ‘pale faces’ at open-mic; Muslim pro-lifer says she was denied chance to speak

Pro-life students were blasted as “pale faces” during an open-mic event — ironically titled, “Speak Out for Justice” — at the University of Minnesota-Duluth while a pro-life Muslim student said she was repeatedly denied the chance to speak, Campus Reform reported.

Student Advocates for Choice member Reilly Manzer ripped into a host of other enemies during Saturday’s event, the outlet said, including “white supremacists I have to call my peers,” those who believe “all lives matter” — which he called “honky nonsense” — as well as the “I-don’t-see-race people” and those who “scream” at him for “kneeling during the national anthem.”

But Manzer had a special message — accented with a couple of F-bombs — for those who oppose abortion.

“I’m f***in’ tired of the pale faces of the pro-life group that compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust and then go and complain to the university that they’re being discriminated against because people call them the f*** out,” Manzer was heard saying on video.

Campus Reform said Manzer declined to comment to the outlet about his words, which also included a mention of “white fragility,” a takedown of those who disagree with toppling statues of southern Civil War figures — as well as a call to “rise up and rip white supremacy from its roots.”

Here’s the clip. (Content warning: Some strong language):

A Muslim student reportedly wanted to speak as well, but there was a little problem…

Ayah Abuserrieh, a Muslim pro-life student, told Campus Reform she wanted to get behind the mic as well and tell the crowd how her faith informs her support for the pro-life cause.

But she told the outlet that “when I came up to the open-mic, they told me ‘no’ twice. Other students were allowed to speak about things that made them uncomfortable…and I wanted to speak about the harassment that cultural minority groups face on campus.”

Abuserrieh — a prominent member of the Muslim Students Association, College Republicans and Bulldog Students for Life — added to Campus Reform that the open-mic organizers “didn’t even know what I wanted to say” when they denied her request to speak.

She also called Manzer’s characterizations of pro-life students “gross and ridiculous,” the outlet said.

“The idea that the pro-life movement is related to white supremacy…it’s ridiculous that people actually believe that,” Abuserrieh told Campus Reform. “Bulldogs for Life and College Republicans are some of the most inclusive groups on campus. There’s never been a time where [I] — as a Muslim person of color — [have] felt uncomfortable whatsoever.”

This writer’s perspective

Could it be that if the open-mic organizers balked at Abuserrieh’s repeated requests to speak, they did so because they know who she is and what she stands for — and that she’s a “person of color” — and didn’t want to risk seeing that pro-life “pale faces” narrative dismantled before their eyes?

As Campus Reform noted, given Abuserrieh is a prominent member of the Muslim Students Association, College Republicans and Bulldog Students for Life, she wouldn’t seem to be an unknown quantity on campus.

One also wonders: If Abuserrieh were a well-known member of liberal groups on campus and staunchly pro-choice, would she be denied a chance to speak at an open mic that touted “justice” in its title?

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

Internet Star Ken Bone Says Son Was Suspended From School For Going To A Gun Range

Ken Bone, the man who became Internet famous for asking questions during one of the 2016 Presidential debates (and for wearing a now-iconic red pullover), says his son was suspended from school pending an investigation after Bone posted a photo of him and his son getting time in at the gun range.
On Thursday, Bone reposted the photo, noting that his son was now facing an inquiry from school officials.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

UN Official: ISIS Trying To Foment Another Wave Of Mass Migration To Europe

Via Daily Mail:

ISIS leaders fleeing the Middle East are planning to drive migration from Africa in a fresh bid to send jihadists into Europe, a senior UN figure has warned.

The militants are joining forces with fanatics in Africa’s Sahel region, according to David Beasley, head of the UN World Food Programme and a former Republican governor of South Carolina.

He warned terror factions could then exploit the area’s food crisis to push millions from the region in a migration wave that could dwarf the exodus from war-torn Syria in 2015.

‘My comment to the Europeans is that if you think you had a problem resulting from a nation of 20 million people like Syria because of destabilisation and conflict resulting in migration, wait until the greater Sahel region of 500 million people is further destabilised,’ Mr Beasley said.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

‘Don’t Make Us Feel Guilty!’ Diamond & Silk Explode At Demeaning Dem In House Hearing On Censorship

Via BPR:

Outspoken Trump supporters, Diamond and Silk, brought their fiery personalities to the House Judiciary Committee as they gave a passionate argument about Facebook censoring their content.

The social media personalities, whose real names are Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, have been locked in a months-long inquiry as to why there was a drop in engagement on their Facebook page.

The women, who became popular because of their enthusiastic support of Trump during and after the election campaign, were outraged when Facebook finally informed them: “The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.”

On Thursday, Hardaway and Richardson testified before the House Judiciary Committee, getting heated at one point when Rep. Hank Johnson questioned their argument and their motives.

The Georgia Democrat made it clear he was irritated that the committee was spending its time discussing the issue, and hearing the women, when there are more pressing matters of importance in the country – like investigating Russian collusion in the 2016 election and gun control, to name a few Democratic talking points.

He confronted the women on why they were “bashing Facebook” after making a “ton of money” on the platform, telling them condescendingly that they were being given a “tremendous platform with this hearing to make a ton of money when it’s over.”

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

Broward Deputies Union Votes ‘No Confidence’ In Sheriff Israel

Via Fox News:

A union of deputies in Florida on Thursday announced it has “no confidence” in Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.

The Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association said a symbolic vote among its members, initiated last week, indicated 534 of 628 officers in the union voted they had no confidence in the sheriff.

The association, a chapter of the International Union of Police Associations, cited the national criticism surrounding Israel and his office following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14.

Israel, in response to the announcement of a vote, said union boss Jeff Bell was trying “to use the Parkland tragedy as a bargaining tactic to extort a 6.5 percent raise” from the sheriff’s office, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

Bell told the newspaper that “amazing leadership starts from the top, and there is no amazing leadership here,” adding that members of the union “have displayed great courage to come out and vote under threat of retaliation and reprisal from the sheriff.”

The sheriff has stood by his leadership of the policing agency and its response to the school shooting, which left 17 people dead.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

Reports: Facebook Now Bans ‘Automatic Watch’ Posts Because It Thinks They’re Guns

During Mark Zuckerberg’s recent testimony in front of Congress, one message from the social media juggernaut kept being pushed: “Trust us.”

Americans — and especially conservatives — had nothing to worry about, Zuck insisted. The platform may have made some mistakes, but Facebook is committed to being balanced and censorship-free. At least that’s what the CEO claimed.

Now, reports are surfacing about Facebook’s screening process being so strict and anti-gun that even innocent posts are being blocked. Case in point: The platform is apparently now banning information about “automatic watches” because it thinks they’re assault weapons.

On the “WatchGang” wristwatch enthusiast group, users have run into bizarre censorship. They are reportedly unable to post completely legal watch classified listings, because someone at Facebook has marked them as weapons.

“I have posted and reposted 6 or 7 different sale posts,” watch enthusiast Howie Boyd explained to the group. “In the last few days none of them show up to the group.”

Boyd was trying to sell a vintage model watch that is popular with collectors. Like many high-end watches, the timepiece is called “automatic” because it doesn’t require hand winding or a battery, but is mechanically powered by wrist movement.

“(Facebook) told me that it was because my Orient King Diver was an automatic weapon,” Boyd said.

Is Facebook doing enough to regain the trust of users?

Maybe it’s the same algorithm that “accidentally” flagged conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk as “dangerous.” First black bloggers, now wrist watches! It’s a dangerous world.

Other users confirmed they were having the same problem. “It did it to me too,” said Kevin Brown of Facebook’s censoring. “Leave automatic out of the posting title and you should be fine.”

For the record, here is what an “automatic watch” looks like. This is what social media censors are apparently terrified could wreak mayhem and murder throughout America.

RELATED: Zuck, FB Execs Use Shock Tool to Erase Incriminating Messages They Send 

(Photo by Hydragyrum via Wikimedia commons)

One one hand, this is currently just an inconvenience and clearly not the end of the world. No platform is perfect, and it’s possible that Facebook is actively working to fix the problem.

On the other hand, there are some chilling implications to this “ban almost everything” approach.

Is a car with an “automatic transmission” being treated as a weapon by Facebook, too? After all, cars actually kill far more people than rifles, and it’s unlikely anyone has ever been murdered by a vintage wristwatch.

How many other topics and users are being censored without their knowledge? Since many of these “flags” are not immediately detectable until other users notice that posts are not appearing, there could be dozens or hundreds of everyday topics that are currently being banned by Facebook. We just don’t know.

Perhaps the must troubling realization, however, is that gatekeepers at Facebook seem to be incredibly out of touch with the real world.

Presumably somebody made the decision that an “automatic watch” is a weapon. What does this say about their knowledge — or lack thereof — about firearms, everyday objects like watches, or the world in general?

In other words, there are strong indications that the people hired by Facebook to police other people’s speech may be either clueless or biased.

Did they hire batches of millennials who have never seen an automatic watch? Considering the social media giant’s secrecy about its moderator staff, it’s difficult to know how far this general ignorance goes.

We’d love to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt, but there’s no getting around the fact these content flags are strange and borderline creepy.

The company could instill much more confidence in its platform and its even-handedness if it was more transparent about how content is blocked, and how this decision making process works. The age of social media is definitely strange.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct