53percenter's Blog

As The Gateway Pundit was first to report — Marjory Stoneman Douglas student Kyle Kashuv was ignored by the liberal mainstream media because of his pro-Second Amendment beliefs after the horrific mass shooting at his Parkland school.

It did not fit in with the liberal media narrative.

Killer Nicolas Cruz, who was on the FBI radar, murdered 17 students and faculty members while police and a security guard waited outside the building.

Kyle Kashuv is a conservative student from Parkland, Florida. In an interview with The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra Fairbanks in February 2018, he stated that his right-wing views have led to him being “hated” by his fellow students and labeled an “enemy of the movement.”

But this did not deter the young Second Amendment advocate.

In March 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas anti-gun students Cameron Kasky and David Hogg bragged about hanging up on the US President following the mass shooting.

But Kyle picked up the phone when the president called and went to the White House.

First Lady Melania Trump later met with Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School junior Kyle Kashuv at the White House.

Kyle Kashuv was then admitted to Harvard.  He is one of the top students in his class.

Harvard also admitted leftwing Parkland activist David Hogg despite his average performance in school and his less than impressive test scores.

 

On Monday Kyle Kashuv announced Harvard had rescinded his acceptance over some offensive tweets when he was 16.

 

Kyle Kashuv had this to say on Twitter: Harvard rescinded my acceptance. Three months after being admitted to Harvard Class of 2023, Harvard has decided to rescind my admission over texts and comments made nearly two years ago, months prior to the shooting. A few weeks ago, I was made aware of egregious and callous comments classmates and I made privately years ago – when I was 16 years old, months before the shooting – in an attempt to be as extreme and shocking as possible. I immediately apologized. After I issued this apology, speculative articles were written, my peers used the opportunity to attack me, and my life was once again reduced to a headline. It sent me into one of the darkest spirals of my life. After the story broke, former peers & political opponents began contacting Harvard urging them to rescind me. Harvard then sent this letter stating that Harvard “reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission” and requested a written explanation within 72 hours… After receiving Harvard’s letter revoking my acceptance, I responded by asking for the opportunity to have an in-person meeting to make my case face to face and work towards any possible path of reconciliation.

Harvard responded by declining my meeting request.

2/ A few weeks ago, I was made aware of egregious and callous comments classmates and I made privately years ago – when I was 16 years old, months before the shooting – in an attempt to be as extreme and shocking as possible.

I immediately apologized.

Here is my apology: pic.twitter.com/eI38ziiQE8

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 17, 2019

4/ After the story broke, former peers & political opponents began contacting Harvard urging them to rescind me. Harvard then sent this letter stating that Harvard "reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission" and requested a written explanation within 72 hours. pic.twitter.com/RfEQCvjgDX

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 17, 2019

6/ I also sent an email to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to seek guidance on how to right this wrong and work with them once I was on campus. pic.twitter.com/3M1UEXXeQm

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 17, 2019

8/ Somewhat ironically, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion sent me this response regarding my apology:

“Thank you for your email. We appreciate your thoughtful reflections and look forward to connecting with you upon your matriculation in the fall of 2020…" pic.twitter.com/YUX67QW3KE

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 17, 2019

10/ Harvard deciding that someone can’t grow, especially after a life-altering event like the shooting, is deeply concerning. If any institution should understand growth, it’s Harvard, which is looked to as the pinnacle of higher education despite its checkered past.

— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 17, 2019

The post Harvard Rescinds Acceptance to Second Amendment Advocate Kyle Kashuv – After Far Left Twitter Mob Harasses School appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Facebook is making a desperate attempt to push a Pollyanna philosophy on its users. This might backfire. In a June 14 blog post, Facebook announced an update to its policy.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

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

If you have yet to figure it out, “Teen Vogue” should be as far from your daughter’s hands as possible. Over the years, “Teen Vogue” — which is targeted to teenage girls — has posted scores of outrageous, over-sexualized left-wing content, including the promotion of prostitution (a.k.a. “sex work”), a how-to on obtaining an abortion without parental consent, and an explicit guide on anal sex.

via Daily Wire

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

A private corporation that runs a public "forum" is not bound by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled Monday morning.

The case, which nominally concerns a public access channel in New York, has attracted attention as a potential vector for regulation of social media firms facing charges of viewpoint bias.

The basic details of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck are mundane. New York City designated Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a private nonprofit corporation, operator of a public access channel. Respondents DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a film critical of MNN, which MNN agreed to air. The corporation subsequently removed their film and suspended the pair, claiming that they had made threats against MNN employees. Halleck and Melendez sued, claiming that MNN had violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The case made its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where it got interesting. Normally, to assess a First Amendment claim, a court would first determine whether or not the alleged violator was a state actor. But in this case, taking its cues from an opinion of now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Second Circuit instead ruled that, while MNN was a private entity, its fulfillment of certain roles made it a "public forum," and therefore subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.

The question before the Supreme Court, then, was whether or not what the Second Circuit had done was legitimate. Or, as Halleck and Melendez put it in their initial filing, "whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court’s state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability."

"Under what circumstances," they ask, "can a private entity (here a private operator of a public access channel) be deemed a state actor, subject to claims under the First Amendment?"

This question concerns more than just the operator of a Manhattan public access channel. Many major social media sites—Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and so forth—operate as platforms for discussion, and thereby claim no legal responsibility for the content published on them. But if the First Amendment can be enforced against a private entity serving as a public forum, then these sites risk similar lawsuits.

This concern was enough to motivate amicus curiae briefs from both the Internet Association, a trade group representing a number of major tech firms, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the preeminent digital rights advocacy organization. The latter argued stridently against the idea that the mere operation of a public forum could qualify an otherwise private firm a state actor subject to the First Amendment.

"Certainly, the mere fact that something is either labeled a ‘public forum’ or operated by a private entity as a space generally open for communication by others does not automatically transform that private entity into a state actor," the EFF’s brief reads in part. "Internet users’ rights are best served by preserving the constitutional status quo, whereby private parties who operate private speech platforms have a First Amendment right to edit and curate their sites, and thus exclude whatever other private speakers or speech they choose."

A majority of the Court appeared to agree. Writing for his conservative colleagues, Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that MNN was categorically acting as a private actor, not a state actor. Because MNN does not cross that threshold into state action, he argued, whether or not it fulfills a role as a public forum is irrelevant to whether it is bound by the strictures of the First Amendment.

"[M]erely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function," Kavanaugh wrote, "and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints."

The dissenting opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and joined by the court’s left, leaves more leeway for possible First Amendment obligations for public forums, insofar as they are acting on behalf of a government agency. Specifically, Sotomayor argued, "By accepting [an] agency relationship [with New York City], MNN stepped into the City’s shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other."

This leaves unclear what, exactly, constitutes a public forum subject to the First Amendment. Sotomayor notes that "this Court has not defined precisely what kind of governmental property interest (if any) is necessary for a public forum to exist." Her dissent, and the majority ruling as well, is silent on the question of public fora that, while private firms, rely on a government-created resource, i.e. the internet, in their model.

Still, the majority’s ruling seems to preclude the application of the First Amendment to private actors like Twitter or Facebook. This is all the more significant because many prominent figures on the right—especially president Donald Trump—have invoked free speech norms to criticize perceived attacks by social media giants on conservatives. Today’s ruling means such an argument, at least in the courts, is unlikely to get very far.

The post SCOTUS: Private Firms Not Bound by First Amendment appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

Teen Vogue is a vile publication that no parent should be getting for their teens. Here’s an example, but far from the first one. Yes, sex work is real work! https://t.co/v9T3b7eBj6 — Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) June 16, 2019 Meanwhile: Teen magazine graduating from anal sex promotion to straight up prostitution. https://t.co/rsK3m4RiiE — Amanda House (@AmandaLeeHouse) […]

via Weasel Zippers

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

Earlier this month, a young Coptic woman from Shosha, in the Minya province of Egypt, reappeared in her village after a two-month disappearance. But she returned in a different state: Married to a Muslim man and pregnant with his child.

via Daily Wire

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

33% of likely voters say President Trump has made life better for African Americans.
When Obama left office in 2099 only 13% of likely voters said he made life batter for African Americans.

This is not the first time Trump has seen his numbers climb among African Americans.
A VoterLabs poll in May found that 29% of female African Americans approve of President’s Trump.

Rasmussen reported:

With unemployment for black Americans at an historic low, voters continue to believe President Trump has been better for young blacks than President Obama. But voters also still feel the government could do more and don’t think Trump’s rotten relationship with black members of Congress helps.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters think life for young black Americans has gotten better since Trump’s election. Slightly more (36%) say life is worse for young blacks now, while 22% rate it as about the same. These findings have changed very little from a year ago. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

By comparison, in July 2016, Obama’s final year in office, just 13% said life for young black Americans had gotten better since the election of the nation’s first black president.

The post The First Black President: Twice as Many Voters Say TRUMP Better for Blacks Than Barack Obama appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

It took CNN host Jake Tapper three attempts to get a straight answer from Robert "Beto" O’Rourke on whether it should be a crime to illegally cross the United States border with Mexico.

The line of questioning from Tapper was based on a few months old policy proposal by Julian Castro, who wants to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings and begin treating them as civil offenses. O’Rourke was asked whether he agrees with Castro that laws making it a crime to cross the border should be repealed, but failed to come to a conclusion.

"I don’t know if it should be repealed but we should acknowledge that most of those arriving at the border now, especially from Central America, are at the most desperate and vulnerable moment and they pose no threat or harm to this country," O’Rourke began, before detailing one of his policies for how to deal with the border.

Tapper followed up in an attempt to "get a straight answer" on the question, but was again side-stepped by O’Rourke, who answered by saying he thinks drug smugglers and human traffickers need to be detained.

"I think what I’m saying is that in the vast majority of cases, there is no need to incarcerate or to detain migrant families and especially children," O’Rourke said. "But if somebody is attempting to smuggle human beings into the United States, if they are attempting to cross illegal drugs into this country, I want to make sure that we have the legal mechanism necessary to hold them accountable and to detain them to make sure they do not pose a threat to this country or to our communities."

Tapper followed up a third time with O’Rourke, who insisted he had already answered the question.

"Yeah, I’ve answered the question," O’Rourke said. "I do not think it should be repealed but I’m trying to get to the heart of the issue, which is to treat people humanly, and that we improve our security not through walls and through cages, but by making sure that those who are at the most vulnerable who are trying to follow our asylum laws are able to do that."

CNN credited O’Rourke for coming out against decriminalizing border crossings, without mentioning the effort Tapper exerted to get an answer from O’Rourke.

O’Rourke has advocated for removing existing wall on the border.

The post O’Rourke Asked Three Times Whether Crossing Border Should Be a Crime appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

via American Thinker Blog

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

President Donald Trump will reportedly kick off his 2020 re-election campaign at a rally Tuesday evening in Florida, and people are already lining up for what they hope will be a momentous event.

via Daily Wire

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