Your Right To Armed Protest and Free Speech (Video)

Your Right to Armed Protest and Free Speech video by Gun Owners of America.

Summary:

Today on the Minuteman Moment, Ben highlights how Gun Owners of America is boldly defending both your First and Second Amendment rights.

From fighting for your ability to lawfully carry at peaceful protests, to protecting 3D-printed gun files as protected free speech—GOA refuses to let politicians force Americans to choose between speaking freely and defending themselves. 

These rights are inseparable, and GOA continues to take the fight to the courts and Capitol Hill with a no-compromise stance.

 

I have To See It To Believe It!

 

The tide is turning.
Free speech is becoming cool again. https://t.co/BcFwiqI1K7

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 7, 2025

Democrats Seek To Abolish The First Amendment

The Democrats and their media and social media toadies (think Mark Zuckerberg) have been hell-bent on censoring or "fact-checking" viewpoints contrary to theirs.

They are not even trying to hide it.

They are determined to undermine or, perhaps, destroy the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

The Washington Examiner has posted an article on how the radical Left is seeking to abolish the First Amendment.

It begins with:

When a political movement’s only guiding principle is an insatiable lust for power, the free exchange of ideas becomes public enemy No. 1. It should come as no surprise that the party that booed God at its national convention and has largely replaced faith with the perverse worship of the state feels that the ends always justify the means.

From author Fran Lebowitz suggesting that President Joe Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court to regime journalists openly calling for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, Democrats have become increasingly comfortable with publicly displaying their radicalism. In their minds, the enemy is not poverty, inflation, or threats by foreign enemies but freedom itself. As the Left attempts to remake America into a totalitarian, multicultural nightmare, the first two amendments to the Constitution are the only bulwarks standing in its way.

Democrats have been thoroughly defeated on the Second Amendment front. A majority of people can now legally defend their families without a permission slip from the state, and the tens of millions of AR-15, AR-10, and AK-47-style rifles in civilian hands all but guarantee that the gun confiscation plans of authoritarian Democrats are doomed to fail. 

For a variety of reasons, the First Amendment is more difficult to defend. The public has grown accustomed to censorship by the state. Democrats successfully used a coordinated, unconstitutional censorship campaign to win the 2020 presidential election, and they view the continued perversion of the First Amendment, or its outright elimination, as the path forward toward achieving their communistic goals. 

It is imperative that the voters must vote out of office as many radical Democrats as they can and defeat Kamala Harris this November.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Hands NRA Major First Amendment Victory

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for Second Amendment's rights under the First Amendment in National Rifle Association v, Vullo.

Sounds complicated? Actually it's not. 

From the Washington Examiner:

Since the minute it was ratified, the First Amendment has been as clear as water on one thing: Government officials may not use their power to punish or abridge political viewpoints.

That’s the whole point of the “speech” part of the amendment.

Because power-hungry functionaries keep refusing to abide by that bright-line rule, the Supreme Court periodically steps in to remind us. That’s what it did on May 30 in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, when all nine justices ruled that Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, improperly pressured insurance companies and banks to deny the NRA access to their services.

The case wasn’t complicated. Vullo found a minor infraction in insurance that Lloyd’s of London and Chubb Limited had underwritten, through which the NRA provided its members access to insurance. Vullo then told Lloyd’s officials she wouldn’t penalize the company if it agreed to stop underwriting all firearm-related policies and substantially scaled back its NRA business.

Then, in a guidance letter to all entities regulated by her department, Vullo specifically discouraged them from doing business with the NRA and to consider “reputational risks” involved in doing so. In a joint press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Vullo went even further, “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue their arrangement with the NRA.” Vullo’s department entered consent decrees with Lloyd’s and Chubb in which the latter agreed to not provide insurance through the NRA, even if otherwise lawful.

Vullo also made clear to Lloyd’s that she wanted to hobble all gun groups, and that (to quote the case syllabus) “she would ‘focus’ her enforcement actions ‘solely’ on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, and ‘ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.'”

Vullo’s actions were obviously coercive. If all the facts as presented in this case are found to be accurate when the case goes back to lower courts, then Vullo “used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners.”

All nine justices rightly considered this case not according to their like or dislike of the NRA, but as a matter of First Amendment protection. The unanimous decision was written by left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, even though her jurisprudence consistently approves of gun control. The unanimity indicates how strong a First Amendment case this was, and of how important that amendment is. 

To read more, go here. 

Gang of Biden Staffers Who Stifled Speech On Social Media

The censorship of social media posts at Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites by the Biden Administration is no surprise to those of us who had been censored and shadow-banned.

But a recent lawsuit against the Biden Administration led a federal judge to "out" the Biden staffers who conducted violations of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

The Washington Times reported (some snippets):

A federal judge who excoriated the Biden administration for pressuring social media platforms to censor Americans’ speech shined a light on a group of obscure but powerful White House staffers who leaned on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites to remove posts and ban users whose content they opposed.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, acting on a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by two states and a group of plaintiffs, said the case “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Court documents show that while top Biden administration officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci sought publicly and privately to censor social media posts over COVID-19 content, the task was more extensively carried out behind the scenes by a select band of staffers. 

The effort began almost as soon as Mr. Biden entered the White House with a Jan. 23, 2021, email from Clarke Humphrey, then the digital director for the administration‘s COVID-19 response team.

Mr. Humphrey emailed Twitter officials at 1 a.m. on Mr. Biden’s third day in office and asked them to remove a tweet posted a day earlier by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that suggested, without evidence, that the death of Hank Aaron, 86, could be tied to the coronavirus vaccine. 

The job of policing social media appeared to fall mostly to Mr. Humphrey’s White House colleague, Rob Flaherty, who recently left the administration, reportedly to take a job in President Biden’s reelection campaign.

While Mr. Flaherty strong-armed Twitter and Facebook to cooperate with the White House, another staffer, Andy Slavitt, ramped up the effort by threatening the social media platforms with federal action. 

Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media director, also helped carry out the White House‘s censorship scheme. 

To read the full article, go here. 

Musk vs. Schiff

 

Nothing more needs to be added.

Gun Control Groups Target Firearm-Related Speech

Each time the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down some liberal-generated gun law, another pops up and new tactics are employed by radical left anti-Second Amendment groups.

The latest tactic (which is really not an old one) is to target firearm related speech.

From the NRA-ILA:

Gun control advocates have renewed a longstanding plan to have the Federal Trade Commission (which regulates commercial speech) punish firearms manufacturers for how they advertise firearms. A petition filed with the FTC by several large firearm prohibition organizations claims that any suggestion firearms provide protection to their owners or make their homes safer is tantamount to false advertising. The petition also suggests that the use of patriotic, militaristic, or macho images and languages in firearm advertising – the same themes used to sell everything from beer to vehicles to sun glasses – is deliberately being used to appeal to insurrectionists and mass shooters.

While both accusations are so outlandish as to defy serious rebuttal – even the CDC has substantiated the pervasive reality of defensive gun use against crime – it remains to be seen if the FTC will nevertheless take the bait. Anti-gun members of Congress certainly have and recently held a hearing to try to give impetus to this political narrative of “illegal” firearm advertising.

Fortunately, the “social utility” of firearms isn’t up to some unelected bureaucrats at the FTC or any other federal agency. Any argument over the utility of arms for self-defense was settled in 1791 when their use for defensive purposes was enshrined in the constitution.

To read more, go here. 

Twitter: Cheers and Fears of 'Free Speech' Plan

It is interesting that the man who bought Twitter, Elon Musk, is an advocate for free speech. But the liberals are loudly wailing over this acquisition. Some celebrities are either leaving or threatening to leave the platform. 

It is obvious that the Left fears free speech as their bullplop can be challenged in a free forum.

I heard that Twitter has locked down the code so that employee holdovers can't sabotage Musk in the takeover and the filters are off. 

What's in store for Twitter under its new ownership? I would guess there may be more advertising so that Musk can recoup his $44 billion. Other than that, I would recommend a "wait and see" stance.

From Reuters:

NEW YORK, April 25 (Reuters) - Elon Musk clinched a deal to buy Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) for $44 billion cash on Monday in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

It is a seminal moment for the 16-year-old company, which emerged as one of the world's most influential public squares and now faces a string of challenges.

Musk, who calls himself a free speech absolutist, has criticized Twitter's moderation. He wants Twitter's algorithm for prioritizing tweets to be public and objects to giving too much power on the service to corporations that advertise.

Political activists expect that a Musk regime will mean less moderation and reinstatement of banned individuals including former President Donald Trump.  Conservatives cheered the prospect of fewer controls while some human rights activists voiced fears of a rise in hate speech. 

To read more, go here.

Twitter Set To Accept Musk's $43 Billion Bid

Above, liberal snowflakes are poised to have massive coronary arrests.

It appears that free speech will be coming to Twitter, if reports are accurate.

The New York Post reported:

Twitter is reportedly on the verge of accepting Elon Musk’s $43 billion bid to take the social network private, according to a report.

Twitter may announce it has accepted Musk’s offer later on Monday once its board has met to recommend the transaction to Twitter shareholders, sources told Reuters. The talks are fluid and the deal could still fall apart, the sources added.

The Monday report by Reuters sent shares of Twitter soaring by more than 5% in premarket trading on Monday. 

This'll send liberal snowflakes into cardiac arrest if the deal is completed.

To read more, go here. 

UPDATE:

He dood it! It's Musk's! 

Biden's DOJ Targeting Parents

Parents are being harassed by the Department of Justice for protesting against Critical Race Theory and mask mandates at school board meetings.

People are only exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. The actions by the Department of Justice is right out the totalitarian playbook

The New York Post reported:

Parents and politicians are slamming the Department of Justice’s decision to bring in the FBI to investigate a spike in “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” saying the Biden administration is likening their protests of “woke” policies such as Critical Race Theory — as well as mandatory mask wearing — to “domestic terrorism.”

“Dear @TheJusticeDept Merrick Garland and @FBI Director Christopher Wray,” Asra Nomani, vice president of investigations and strategy at Parents Defending Education, posted on Twitter. “This is what a domestic terrorist looks like? You are criminalizing parenting, and you owe the people of America a swift apology.”

She sarcastically signed the missive, “‘Domestic Terrorist,’ Asra Nomani.”

Nomani’s group has been researching how school boards across the US implement “woke” ideas into curricula, such as critical race theory. 

In recent months, dozens of parents have taken a stand in school board meetings against the teaching of Critical Race Theory in classrooms and to protest mask mandates, causing some to wonder what the FBI and DOJ are actually investigating. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has joined the fray by posting the above Tweet on Twitter.

To read more, go here.

Parler Coming Back!

The leftist Big Tech overlords tried to kill Parler, but they won't succeed.

It is coming back!

From their website:

 

The Evil Empire Strikes Back!

Above, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

The crackdown of civil liberties is coming. That’s what we told you yesterday. It didn’t take long. It’s here. And it’s unprecedented. Just days after Donald Trump called for breaking up the big tech monopolies in order to preserve democracy, the big tech monopolies have silenced him. - Tucker Carlson, Fox News.

Today's actions by left-wing Big Tech in permanently shutting down President Trump's Twitter account is not necessary surprising. It is not right nor fair. That was only the start.

Twitter is also banning other conservative voices.

What is surprising (at least to me) is that Apple has now booted Parler.com from its Apple app store. Right now, it still works on Google Chrome. I joined Parler earlier today.

YouTube is also banning conservative videos.

Since the Democrats will control the congress and the presidency, they feel free to do what they want without any penalty. 

I don't know who broke into the U.S. Capitol and rioted two days ago, whether it was pro-Trump protesters or Antifa, anarchists or a combination of each, but to ban the President from Twitter and accusing him of inciting the riots is beyond the pale.

We should start a fundraising effort for a massive class action lawsuit against these tech giants.

If you can, join Parler and Rumble (the alternative to YouTube).

The actions by Big Tech is nothing less than a totalitarianism crackdown on political opponents of the Democrat left-wing.

Poland: $2.2 Million Fines For Removing Lawful Free Speech

While our so-called conservative Republican Party dithers over infringements on our free speech rights by leftist Democrats and their social media masters, Poland is taking a different approach.

The Federalist posted: 

(Newswars)  A new law set to be passed in Poland would fine social media companies $2.2 million a pop for censoring lawful free speech.

While numerous western countries are seeking to impose heavy fines on the likes of Facebook and Twitter for failing to remove “hateful” content, Poland is taking a very different approach.

“Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law,” reports Poland In.

“In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic.”

We need this here!

To read more, go here. 

Spreely

A little while ago, I joined Spreely.

It is similar to Facebook, but without censorship. Spreely = Speak Freely!

I am at: https://www.spreely.com/ArmandVaquer.

If I know you, I'll approve your connection.

Rep. Frederica Wilson Wants To Prosecute People Who Mock Congress Members

Above, Rep. Frederica Wilson.

Rep. Frederica Wilson is either totally insane or is plotting to destroy our Constitutional free speech rights.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock members of Congress online should face prosecution. 

"Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable [sic]," Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Florida. 

"We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted," she continued. "You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America.

Well, if the Congresswoman doesn't want to be mocked, then she shouldn't be dressing like a rodeo clown.

To read more, go here. 

Facebook Thought Gestapo Strike At All Star Conservative League

The Facebook Thought Gestapo struck the Facebook page, All Star Conservative League.

They posted this on the page:

James Woods Issues Statement About Twitter

Actor James Woods says his days on Twitter "are in the past" for suspending him and deleting a post without his permission.

The Daily Wire reported:

"Twitter demanded that I rescind my tweet paraphrasing Emerson," Woods said in a statement to The Daily Wire. "It now seems they have chosen to delete that tweet from my account without my permission. Until free speech is allowed on Twitter, I will not be permitted to participate in our democracy with my voice. As long as Jack Dorsey remains the coward he seems to be, my Twitter days are in the past."

Mr. Woods, if you would like to have another platform, send your commentaries to me, I would be happy to post them here!

To read more, go here.

Free Speech and "Elderly"

Above, another reason to despise the United Nations.

A German woman was fined for liking a post on Facebook that was anti-immigrant.

It appears that Germans don't have free speech rights, even on Facebook.

Heatstreet wrote:

An elderly German woman was fined 1,350 euros for sharing and liking an anti-migrant joke on Facebook. 

The 62-year old woman, who lives in Berlin, has been identified as Jutta B. She had her home raided and was arrested by police for the ‘crime’ of sharing an image on Facebook captioned “Do you have anything against refugees?” 

The image, which was deemed offensive by the court, included answers such as “Yes, machine guns and hand grenades” and was shared by more than 500 people. One person who also shared the picture reported the elderly woman to the police.

Wouldn't our liberals love to be able to have Facebook posts they don't like have people prosecuted and fined? Thank goodness we have free speech protections.

But there's one thing that is, uh, offensive about the article. Note that the German woman is referred to as "elderly". She's only 62 years old! That's elderly?!

My "honorary sister" sent me the article and I made mention that the woman was our age. She noticed that as well and is "duly offended".

To read more, go here.