POLICE STATE: Three Christians Charged in NJ for ‘Intimidating’ Homosexual Salon Owner by Preaching ‘Homophobic Rhetoric’

BY MICHAEL MARCAVAGE

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2021/02/24/three-christians-charged-in-nj-for-intimidating-homosexual-salon-employee-by-preaching-homophobic-rhetoric/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Three Christians in New Jersey were charged with violating the state’s anti-bias intimidation statute, specifically for “shouting homophobic rhetoric directly in front of Allure Salon,” based on the citing officer’s wording, after the trio preached to the salon owner and an employee who are both openly homosexual.

Kombe Sefelino, Daniel Stephen Courney and Lydia Ortiz were all charged under two different sections of the state’s “bias intimidation” statute during an outreach outside of the notorious Metropolitan Medical Associates abortion facility, also known as “The Englewood Center for Women,” in Englewood, NJ.

The Allure Salon is nearby Metropolitan Medical Associates—a facility where late-term abortions occur. In an expose published by Priests for Life in 2018, the facility was caught on tape explaining how they will murder healthy babies “up until 24 [weeks]” if it is “something that you want.”

Christians, as well as others, have been gathering outside of the facility for years to oppose abortion and to engage in other speech activities. In January, Sefelino, Courney and Ortiz had spread out on the sidewalks nearby to effectively communicate the word of God and gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible in the area which happened to be outside of the salon.

According to one of the citing officer’s summons’, the Christians “targeted … the owner, Rogelio Molina, who is homosexual” by preaching against homosexuality. On another citation, a salon employee, John Cacella, was written as the “target” of “homophobic rhetoric.”

N.J. attorney Demetrios Stratis, who is representing the Christians in the proceedings, told Christian News Network that his clients were there to be a voice for the voiceless and to preach the word of God to all, not just homosexuals. He explained that his clients’ delivered “a message of love” for Molina and Cacella’s souls and that only by repentance and faith can men be saved from the wrath to come, and he also cited that their actions were legally protected First Amendment activity.

The charging Englewood police officer, marked as “P. O Layne” on one of the summonses wrote:

“Within the jurisdiction of this court, with the purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity, specifically by, on numerous separate occasions, shouting homophobic rhetoric directly in front of Allure Salon, targeted at the owner, Rogelio Molina, who is homosexual, in violation of N.J.S. 2C:16-1A(1), a crime of the fourth degree,” a summons reviewed by Christian News reads.

According to Stratis, if they are convicted of this fourth-degree charge, they can each be sentenced up to 18 months in prison.

The citation further documented N.J.S. 2C:33-4A under New Jersey’s harassment law, which is what enabled the anti-bias charge.

“Within the jurisdiction of this court of this court, with the purpose to harass another, make or cause to be made a communication or communications in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm, specifically by, on numerous separate occasions, shouting homophobic rhetoric directly in front of Allure Salon, targeted at the owner, Rogelio Molina, who is homosexual, in violation of N.J.S. 2C:33-4A, a petty disorderly person offense,” the summons states.

Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor & Bias Officer Vered Adoni

Stratis said that he spoke to the prosecutor assigned to the case—identifying her as “the head of the Bias Crimes Unit in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office”—and attempted to reason with her by explaining that his clients do not solely focus on homosexual sin. Stratis said that he told her that all sin “prevents us from having a relationship with Jesus Christ.” However, according to Stratis, the prosecutor fully intends on moving forward with the charges as homosexuals are a “protected class” under the statute.

In a call to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, a representative stated that Vered Adoni is in charge of the “Bias Unit” and is an assistant prosecutor. Christian News Network, however, was unable to reach anyone for comment by press time.

A hearing date has been set for March 4.

 

Protecting American Children from Today’s Educational Activists

A healthy way to begin defending our children from leftist indoctrination.

BY JASON D. HILL

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/protecting-american-children-todays-educational-jason-d-hill/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A friend of mine told me an apocryphal story that left me with a cold shudder. He is an old-fashioned left-leaning "liberal" and a strong advocate of public education. All his children attend public schools. In fact, he is vehemently opposed to the idea of promoting private schools on the premise that its implementation will result in a more stratified society because, he believes, poor whites and blacks will be disproportionately disqualified from attending such institutions.

In good faith, he has always entrusted his children’s education to what I had typically referred to as Government Schools. He was confident that his children would receive a robust education from K-12 grade.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, he was forced to monitor the classroom activities of his children. Unemployment had left him more time to inconspicuously sit-in -- especially on the classes of his 6th grader son.

He was shocked, one afternoon, to come upon an assignment being conducted during an English class in which all the white students in the zoom online course were required to place their arms beside a brown paper bag. How his 6th grader had acquired a crisp brown paper bag was a mystery to him. The teacher asked them if they noticed a difference in color between their skin and the brown paper bag. All of the white students nodded, and some verbally assented. The teacher asked them if the color of the bag looked close to the color of some of the students identified as black in the class. His son peered at the zoom screen and raised the icon button identifying his acknowledgement. The teacher then announced with full moral rectitude and intransigence the following:

If your skin color is different from the color of the paper bag, then you are part of a problem in America known as systemic racism that does irreparable harm to all black and brown people in America. Further, if your skin color is different from the brown paper bag and you are identified as white you enjoy something called white privilege which means you are practicing racism every day without knowing it.

Each such student that had a different color than the brown paper bag bore collective guilt. The teacher then went on to ask the class if they had ever heard the term, “Reparations.”

Out of some sense of visceral, atavistic paternal protection, my friend slammed down his son’s computer and told him to go to his room for a while. He said he stood with his fingers pressed into the metal cover of the computer, shaking with incredulity.

I explained to him that guilt implied wrong-doing and that because his son at age twelve had committed no egregious harm against any black person that he would eventually grow to feel a burgeoning sense of resentment. Over time, as his mind grew more focused and the charges against him repeated had been codified into a cultural norm, he would feel that he was the real cause of all harms directed at black people. I said that something evil and sinister was going to take root in his son’s psyche.

My friend grew alarmed. But I pressed on. His son, I told him, would grow to feel resentment towards black people. It would be mild at first; a contemptuous discharge fueled by a growing sense of his superiority and empowerment that he, by the power of his whiteness, could cause so much harm and that he, by that same magical power of whiteness, could alleviate the misery and suffering of blacks. I told him it would not end well, His son’s curriculum would include a phalanx of black and white progressive nihilists who would call for the annihilation of “whiteness” which, his mind would come to understand as: the annihilation of all white people from the earth including himself. His son, I told him, runs the risk not just of becoming a racist, but of a white supremacist. Becoming a white supremacist, he will come to believe, will be his only default position from which to protect his life from the early stages of assault being waged against it -- starting with the seemingly benign comparison between his skin color and that of a brown paper bag. And all this from white liberals masquerading as anti-racists.

Be careful how you proceed with his education, I warned him. It is not too late for you to assume responsibility and assert control of his mind by extracting him from one of our many national security threats destroying our American civilization: our Government schools on the tertiary level, and our nation’s universities. The decision is yours.

Doubtless, readers have been keeping up with reports of how our public schools have become inundated with what is becoming known as “Culturally Responsive Teaching.” Teachers are required to implement “action civics” in the classroom, leading students in activism on behalf of various causes.

A school district in San Diego conducted a “white privilege training” for its white teachers who were told they were racist for being white, and for upholding racist ideas and policies. They were made to feel ashamed for teaching on stolen Native American land.

Seattle Public Schools also held racially charged teacher-training sessions that accused them, unequivocally, of murdering the souls of black children every day through systemic institutionalized, anti-black, state-sanctioned violence. They, too, were told they were natural racists because of their mere possession of white skin, and that they had to self-consciously reject their “whiteness.” Any objection to their indictment of being racists, they were told, no matter how well-argued or factually grounded, would be dismissed as a reflex of their whiteness, as “lizard brain,” which was proof of their white fragility.

These stories come on the heels of decolonized courses in which Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer, and other classics are expurgated from curricula in high schools and colleges in the United States (I cannot keep up). The idea first started by Rutgers that grammar is racist has been extrapolated on to the disciplines of science and math -- they, as well, are racists disciplines, we’re being told.

It is obvious that today’s cultural activists are guilty of massive child abuse in our classrooms. They have criminalized independent thinking, logic, reason, and so, have ended up conceptually breaking the minds of our children. They have usurped the purpose of education from one of learning to one of, ultimately, Marxist indoctrination and the destruction of the values that undergird American civilization. They are using children as political pawns, weapons of mass destruction, and objectified instruments in their war against the United States of America.

They have declared war on this country’s children and their precious minds -- openly, vulgarly, and with full forethought of malice.

It is time to apply an intransigent and implacable counterassault against their efforts. We know where they are and who they are.

The battle is, first, a philosophical one. We must proudly defend our first principles and our unassailable constitutive values that define America: our free market system of capitalism, our sacred Constitution and its Bill of Rights, a philosophy of individualism, reason, and American exceptionalism.

To destroy this movement, we must, first, abolish public education, that is, all government schools from K-12 to our public universities that have become national security threats and indoctrination centers for anti-American, and Marxist, and post-modern ideologies. They have to be shut down. Your tax dollars cannot fund these institutions any longer.

A future secretary of education and philosophically-minded future leaders must prepare for the complete eradication of the Department of Education. Education must be placed back in the hands of parents, and morally speaking, ought to be privatized. If as the New Cultural Leaders say, state teachers are racists -- then, alright, they must all be fired.

Private learning institutions should no longer receive any funding from the federal government, or from any state governing agencies that mandate an activist curriculum.

This is a contentious position to hold. I am willing to entertain the idea of issuing school vouchers for the use of a child’s private school tuition. This is also a more divisive issue among reasonable people, as it involves the use of public funds to pay for a child’s education. Some will argue, therefore, that vouchers still involve the state’s role in education. A safer alternative, it seems to me, and one predicated on the moral principle that people are responsible for the procreative choices that they make -- not society -- is to implement a unilateral tax credit for education for all parents. All one would have to do to qualify is to have a child or children that one wishes to educate in a private school. One would not be taxed on the portion of one’s income that is needed to send one’s child to school. This would certainly dis-incentivize more people from having more children than they can afford to educate. Among competing private schools in a free market, it simply would not be in the fiscal interests of private educators to leave broad swaths of people outside the system. We have seen where the emergence of private online universities has provided a plethora of opportunities for those whose income levels do not permit easy entrance into traditional, high-tuition universities, to receive an education.

I think a conversation about the two possibilities outlined is a healthy way to begin rooting out the existence of government schools from our republic.

To fight a war, one must start at the root by defeating the adversary’s strategies and methods. Strategies will follow as I continue to write on this topic. For now, I simply want those brown paper bags destroyed, those government schools closed forever, and American children given back to the safety of their parents. They are innocent. The future is theirs. And they deserve a shot at making something magnificent of it, and of their minds.

Jason D. Hill is a professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression. Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.

sarah corriher: Denise McAllister Depersoned By Conservative Inc

Hey guys. I have a new video. I interviewed Denise McAllister, which is something that I've been wanting to do for some time, for she is able to expose the hypocrisy of 'canceling' by mainstream figures within conservatism. Also, for those who are interested, I do publish updates to my Telegram channel (https://t.me/TheCrusaderGal) and there is a discussion group attached to it, where you are welcome to join the chat.

Cancel culture is widely condemned by conservatives, but some of the biggest names in the conservative movement collaborated together to disappear Denise McAllister after she criticized homosexuals - the 'protected group' of the conservative establishment. The supposed 'leaders' of the conservative movement don't actually care about conservative values in the least. McAllister blows the whistle on the fact that people like Ben Shapiro (Daily Wire), Ben Dominich (The Federalist), and even Fox News aren't what we think they are.

Watch on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/sarahcorriher/view/denise-mcallister-depersoned-by-conservative-inc-6037b5ccfc8de253219a64a6

Watch on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@SarahCorriher:6/Denise-McAllister-Depersoned-By-Conservative-Inc:f

Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/ByNx1EzPW9o

--
Sarah Corriher
SarahCorriher.com
+1, (336) 528-4120

__________________________________________________________________________

MICHELLE MALKIN INTERVIEWS DENISE MCALLISTER: 

Church & State: Sexual Identity | Denise McAllister

Biden Gets Helping Hand from UN in Bringing Trump-Deported Illegals Back to America

UN Helping Biden Bring Trump-deported Illegals Back to America

Biden Gets Helping Hand from UN in Bringing Trump-Deported Illegals Back to America

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/un-helping-biden-bring-trump-deported-illegals-back-to-america/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden administration is being aided by the United Nations in its effort to bring previously deported migrants back into the United States to have their asylum cases adjudicated.

Under the Trump administration, the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” required that foreign nationals who entered the country illegally be relocated to Mexico in order to await the resolution of their cases. Biden ended the program upon entering office.

The Democrat instead wants would-be migrants in such circumstances brought back into the country, and the UN is helping him do it.

“Hundreds of migrants signed up on Friday within hours of the launch of a U.N. website that allows migrants with active cases to register remotely to be processed at the U.S.-Mexico border,” reported Reuters. “The United States and the United Nations are evaluating the locations of migrants and costs associated with possible flights and land transportation within Mexico.”

According to the outlet, the United States, Mexico, and international organizations are attempting to devise ways to register migrants, transport them to the border, test them for the coronavirus, and “get them to their U.S. destinations.”

The Biden administration has even considered paying for flights to bring migrants back into the country.

Dana Graber Ladek, chief of mission for the UN’s International Organization for Migration in Mexico, said that “Nothing is in place yet. Right now we’re still exploring all of the possibilities.”

Biden’s policies have led to a growing number of unaccompanied minors crossing the country’s southern border.

The newspaper El Sol de Mexico notes:

Human smugglers working in the region have also been telling would-be migrants to attempt the journey now, saying the new administration would prove more lenient than its predecessor.…

The Biden administration has also discontinued the practice of sending children back to Mexico or their home countries if they were traveling with an adult who wasn’t a parent. The change is in line with immigration law, which forbids the government from quickly deporting unaccompanied children — defined as any child not traveling with his or her parent. But the change has sent more children to HHS shelters as well.

Reports from U.S. Customs and Border protection officials also show an increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children crossing the southern border. Border Patrol agents apprehended 5,871 unaccompanied minors in January 2021, up from 4,995 in December 2020 and 3,076 in January 2020.

Shelters for illegal-alien minors are running out of space, per the Wall Street Journal. Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, told the Journal, “They’ve seen very large growth in a very short period of time. The closer you get to 100% capacity, the harder the system is to manage.”

Biden took a number of steps to move his immigration agenda forward immediately upon entering office. In his first day in the White House, he halted construction of the Wall, gutted President Trump’s travel ban, and placed a 100-day moratorium on deportations (although a federal judge indefinitely blocked the latter).

Democrats have introduced Biden’s amnesty plan in Congress. If signed into law, the program would immediately give green cards to millions of illegal aliens considered farmworkers, as well as to those enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and those who hold Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

All other illegal aliens who do not fall into the above categories would be given TPS before being allowed to apply for a green card and eventually receive American citizenship within an eight-year period.

Along with the amnesty would come increases to the number of immigrants allowed under visa categories, swelling the amount of legal immigration to the United States.

Amnesty has received support from the corporate wing of the Republican Party. Billionaire GOP mega-donor Charles Koch wrote in a recent op-ed that the two major parties should “come together” to give legal status for those who have broken federal immigration law to come into the country without permission.

“Whether it’s a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers who were brought to America as children, improving the visa system or improving border security, lasting progress will require congressional action by both political parties,” Koch argued. “And getting Congress to step up depends on the American people speaking out.”

The American people should speak out — not for amnesty, as Koch says, but against it.

Amazon removing books it deems “hate speech”

They don't want you to think critically, they don't want you to read and now they are removing books they deem "hate speech". How long until the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are ruled hate speech or terrorist manifestos?

https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/79344/democrats-letter-demands-cable-providers-account-for-misinformation-and-lies-from-rightwing-media.html

Forget critical thinking, they don't even want you to read!

So, not only do the people who control the media and government not want you to think critically, apparently they would prefer altogether if you weren't able to read. In this video I cover the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization document "Education for Sustainable Development toolkit".

This document was published October 2006 and talks about "sustainable education" which according to the authors essentially means more education is a bad thing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210219203251/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000152453

What if the “Conspiracy” is Real? A disturbing glance at the powers-that-be.

"In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority."

BY JOSEPH HIPPOLITO

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/what-if-conspiracy-real-joseph-hippolito/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a matter of just five days, two separate incidents demonstrated the collusion used by the powers-that-be to control thought.

On Feb. 5, Mike Lindell, who founded MyPillow, released a two-hour documentary, "Absolute Proof," providing detailed evidence of fraud during the Presidential election. On Feb. 10, the House of Representatives' impeachment managers showed a video of the bedlam at the Capitol on Jan. 6, bedlam they accused President Donald Trump of inciting.

Once Lindell released his documentary, Google and Wikipedia attempted to manipulate his search results and biography, respectively. Two days after the impeachment managers released their video, David Schoen, one of Trump's defense attorneys demonstrated how the video deliberately misrepresented his client. Trump's trial ended the next day in acquittal.

Both cases show the determination of Big Government, Big Tech and Big Media -- at the very least -- to promote narratives that advance their unified interests and agendas. In the process, those three entities -- along with Big Business, Big Academia, Big Whatever -- will try to destroy anyone who opposes those narratives. 

As FrontPage Magazine reported in "People of the Lie," organizations ranging from businesses to foreign governments to federal agencies to charitable foundations use "astroturf" to influence opinion. "Astroturf" provides the illusion of a grassroots campaign while hiding its artificial nature. The strategy involves creating various kinds of written and video content -- including blogs, social media accounts, video channels, online comments, letters to the editor -- often through third parties.

"Special interests have unlimited time and money to figure out new ways to spin us while cloaking their role," said Sharyl Attkisson, who won five Emmy Awards for CBS News. "Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to those interests than traditional lobbying of Congress. There's an entire industry built around it in Washington.

"The whole point of astroturf is to try to give the impression there's widespread support for or against an agenda when there's not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you're an outlier when you're not."

One way special interests manipulate opinion is through "fact-checkers." As the Columbia Journalism Review's Tim Schwab reported, PolitiFact and USA Today used their "fact-checkers" to defend Bill Gates "from 'false conspiracy theories' and 'misinformation,' like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing Covid vaccines and therapies," he wrote.

But Gates' own tax records reveal such investments. Moreover, PolitiFact's and USA Today's parent organizations -- the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively -- receive money from Gates' foundation.

Schwab's reporting reveals a second technique: derision and defamation.

"Hallmarks of astroturf include use of inflammatory language, such as ‘crank,’ ‘quack,’ ‘nutty,’ ‘lies,’ ‘paranoid,’ ‘pseudo’ and ‘conspiracy,’ " Attkisson said. "Use of the charged language tests well. People hear something’s a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it."

Lindell's updated Wikipedia biography provides numerous examples. In discussing his efforts to reveal election fraud, Wikipedia claims "Lindell promoted a conspiracy theory, popular with Trump supporters, that falsely claimed that voting machine companies Smartmatic and Dominion conspired with foreign powers to rig voting machines to steal the election from Trump."

In addition, “Lindell was among those who advanced the false conspiracy theory that people associated with Antifa were responsible for the attack, saying they had probably ‘dressed as Trump people,’” Wikipedia claims. But as FrontPage Magazine reported in “Capturing the False Flag,” the evidence favors Lindell’s opinion.

Wikipedia also claimed Twitter "banned Lindell for perpetuating the unfounded claim that Trump won the 2020 election," and that his documentary was "filled with false claims about the election."

Lindell asserted Wikipedia even maligned his character to the point where his Christian foundation to help drug addicts is losing support.

"They've called employees and friends that I've had for 15, 20 years," Lindell said. "In churches, people are hesitant. What kind of person is he, really? Is this really for us? It's damaging, very damaging."

"They can put up anything they want. They're their own boss. They're a monster."

Google, meanwhile, directly attacked Lindell's ability to make money.  On the day Lindell released "Absolute Proof," Google inserted "all these crazy stories," he said, to bury his website in the search algorithm. The search engine also raised the price every time he clicked on his name from 5 cents to $1, he said, until Google prevented him from clicking on his name.

"After taking $20,000 of my money, Google said, 'You don't get to buy this anymore,' " Lindell said. "They shut it off. That's unheard of for your own name, It's an anti-trust law violation, for sure."

Trump and his supporters know the politics of personal destruction well. The Establishment ridicules them as "traitors" and "domestic terrorists," yet lauds agitators from Antifa and Black Lives Matter as "peaceful protestors" whose anger justifies their violence. The Establishment branded protestors who breached Capitol security Jan. 6 as treasonous to link them to Trump, whom the House's impeachment managers accused of inciting insurrection.

But when Schoen spoke Feb. 12, he used the managers' own video against them. Trump's lawyers took parts of that video, which contained shots of the Capitol chaos and edited versions of Trump's comments that day, and compared it to Trump's complete remarks in their full context.

"Words matter, they told you, but they selectively edited the President's words over and over again," Schoen said. "They manipulated video, time-shifting clips and made it appear the President's words were playing to a crowd when they weren't."

More importantly, Schoen showed how impeachment managers altered tweets to make them say what the managers wanted them to say.  A photo in the New York Times showed Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead manager, examining two tweets. In one, Trump retweeted a statement expressing support. In the other, that supporter thanked Trump and reiterated her support.

But the timestamp on both tweets showed "2020," not "2021." Worse, the supporter's account in the photo showed a blue checkmark indicating verification -- which does not appear in the original account. 

"The hatred that the House managers and others on the Left have for President Trump has driven them to skip the basic elements of due process, and fairness, and to rush an impeachment through the House, claiming, 'urgency,' " Schoen said. "But the House waited to deliver the articles to the Senate for almost two weeks, only after Democrats had secured control over the Senate."

That hatred also motivates Big Media and Big Tech to indulge in "fake news," as Trump calls it. Though he made the term popular, "liberals were first to heavily promote use of the phrase referring to conservative disinformation and right-wing websites," Attkisson said.

In September 2016, a non-profit group, First Draft, announced "a partnership to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports," Attkisson said. "The goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff, to prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in internet searches."

As Lindell and many others know, the powers-that-be determine what "chaff" is. Facts and proof just get in their way. 

So, who created First Draft? Google, through its parent company, Alphabet, whose executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, ranked among former President Barack Obama's major donors. In 2016, Schmidt "devoted himself," Attkisson said, to helping Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"His company funded First Draft around the start of the election cycle," Attkisson said. "Not surprisingly, Hillary was soon to jump aboard the anti-fake news train. Her surrogate, David Brock of Media Matters, privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook to join the effort."

For information consumers, the lesson is clear.

"Be aware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities, and organizations surrounding it rather than addressing the facts," Attkisson said. "Most of all, astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers.

"In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority."

While questioning those who question authority -- risking potentially devastating lawsuits in the process -- colluding interests from disparate fields inadvertently pose a powerful question:

What if the "conspiracy" is real?

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PRESIDENT JD Greear Says He’d Rather Unite With Those Who Pervert the Gospel Than Those Who Defend It

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2021/02/23/jd-greear-says-hed-rather-unite-with-those-who-pervert-the-gospel-than-those-who-defend-it/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In case you missed it, JD Greear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention addressed the Southern Baptist Executive Committee last night with a sermon decrying “white supremacy” and all those who oppose Critical Race Theory. If you can stomach it, the sermon can be watched here and begins around the 51-minute mark.

During the sermon, Greear decried his critics who accused him of being liberal and then gave a rundown of his conservative credentials; he said that he believes homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals left a packet on his doorstep of pamphlets of people who have committed suicide because of his anti-homosexuality position. Yet, in 2019, Greear preached a sermon on Romans 1 and concluded that God believes other sins — such as boasting — are more egregious than homosexuality.

Greear then went into a tirade against people who believe that Critical Race Theory, a secular Marxist ideology that is opposed to the gospel, and labeled them as “pharisees” and called them “demonic.”

“We should mourn when closet racists and neo-Confederates feel more at home in our churches than do many of our people of color,” he said. “The reality is that if we in the SBC had shown as much sorrow for the painful legacy that racism and discrimination has left in our country as we have the passion to decry CRT, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.”

Of course, those “neo-Confederates” he is referring to would be the most vocal anti-Marxist critics in the denomination. Those would include men like Tom Ascol and Tom Buck, even Voddie Baucham. And, of course, it would include the countless journalists out there covering the stories including Reformation Charlotte, Capstone Report, Worldview Conversations, and Protestia, among many others.

If Greear were after unity, he’d denounce the heresy that is swarming the denomination and call for unity around the truth. Instead, Greear labels those who defend biblical doctrine as “pharisees” and calls on the denomination to repudiate them.

“Brothers and sisters, in the 1980s, we repudiated the leaven of the liberals, a leaven that threatened to poison the gospel,” he said. “Are we now going to repudiate the leaven of the Pharisees, which can choke out the gospel just as easily?”

Greear also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Jesus’ issue with the pharisees when said that the pharisees in the New Testament had correct doctrine, but that their problem was that they opposed Jesus. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that the pharisees had correct doctrine — Jesus’ problem with them is that they were false teachers, just like those who push Critical Race Theory.

Critical Race Theory Costs Staffer at Smith College Her Job

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/02/20/critical-race-theory-costs-staffer-at-smith-college-her-job-n1427045;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A staff member at Smith College, Jody Shaw, resigned her position as a student support coordinator because of the “hostile atmosphere” at the college. It appears that Ms. Shaw ran afoul of critical race theory fanatics who forced her to “participate in racially prejudicial behavior as a condition” of her employment.

Shaw, being a normal, intelligent, woman rebelled. She blew the whistle on the racialists at Smith College in a scathing video she posted to YouTube.

Bari Weiss is also covering this disturbing story.

“I ask that Smith College stop reducing my personhood to a racial category. Stop telling me what I must think and feel about myself,” she said. “Stop presuming to know who I am or what my culture is based upon my skin color. Stop asking me to project stereotypes and assumptions onto others based on their skin color.”

This is the essence of critical race theory. In order to make “progress” in “combatting racism,” everyone is reduced to a stick figure. It’s so much easier to define individuals when you identify them as members of a specific group, with specific beliefs, biases, prejudices,

In her resignation letter to the university president, she didn’t pull any punches.

Every day, I watch my colleagues manage student conflict through the lens of race, projecting rigid assumptions and stereotypes on students, thereby reducing them to the color of their skin. I am asked to do the same, as well as to support a curriculum for students that teaches them to project those same stereotypes and assumptions onto themselves and others. I believe such a curriculum is dehumanizing, prevents authentic connection, and undermines the moral agency of young people who are just beginning to find their way in the world.

Ms. Weiss catalogs the damage this ideology/theology is doing to people in all walks of life, of all colors.

We all know that something morally grotesque is swallowing liberal America. Almost no one wants to risk talking about it out loud.

Every day I get phone calls from anxious Americans complaining about an ideology that wants to pull all of us into the past.

I get calls from parents telling me about the damaging things being taught in schools: so-called antiracist programs that urge children to obsess on the color of their skin.

I get calls from people working in corporate America forced to go to trainings in which they learn that they carry collective, race-based guilt — or benefit from collective, race-based virtue.

I get calls from young people just launching their careers telling me that they feel they have no choice but to profess fealty to this ideology in order to keep their jobs.

Almost no one who calls me is willing to go public. And I understand why. To go public with what’s happening is to risk their jobs and their reputations.

We need more Jodi Shaws in the world. The problem is that it takes otherworldly courage to speak out, to demand change. I daresay Ms. Shaw’s life will never be the same. And given her stand was made on a college campus, any career she was hoping for in higher education is probably ruined. She’s probably lost some friends over her stand. Her life has been changed forever.

It’s important that we realize that this didn’t have to happen. Small-minded, even ignorant people see salvation in controlling the minds and lives of others. Is it a mass delusion that they believe they are actually “fighting racism,” that they’re doing this for white people’s own good? Or are these the same efforts at control that have been around since humans created civilizations?

It’s a contagion that no one seems capable of stopping. Perhaps it’s good enough now that enough of us speak out and fight for what we know in our bones is right.

Disney Reacts to the Gina Carano Backlash

Disney and Lucasfilm canceled Gina Carano (who played Cara Dune in "The Mandalorian") for an Instagram post in which she claimed that people shouldn't spread hate over politics (because convincing people to hate their neighbors is the first step in convincing them to kill their neighbors). Following Gina being fired, #CancelDisneyPlus trended on Twitter, and today, Gina is trending as the most popular celebrity on the planet, according to IMDB. Let's see how Disney reacts to the news.

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:

https://ratherexposethem.org/2021/02/12/gina-carano-fired-from-disneys-the-mandalorian-for-comparing-cancel-culture-to-nazi-germany/

BY DAVID WOOD-Acts17Apologetics:

Universities Demonize and Disavow Christian Self-Sacrifice and Altruism

AKA, “the Crusades

BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/universities-demonize-and-disavow-christian-self-raymond-ibrahim/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The Indiana-based University of Valparaiso is scrapping its Crusader mascot, nickname, and logos—because they convey “hate”  and are not “inclusive” enough.  According to the university’s Feb. 11, 2021 statement:

Interim President Colette Irwin-Knott of Valparaiso University (“Valpo”) announced today that it will retire its existing mascot, the Crusader.…  The Crusader imagery related to the Crusades has been embraced and displayed by hate groups including the Ku Klux Klan.  “The negative connotation and violence associated with the Crusader imagery are not reflective of Valpo’s mission and values, which promote a welcoming and inclusive community,” Irwin-Knott said, … [adding] “Valpo is and always has been a faith-based institution, and we want to make sure our symbolism is in alignment with our beliefs and speaks to the core values of the Lutheran ethos.”

In the coming month, a committee will be established “to engage the campus community in considering and adopting a new mascot.”

The statement further justifies its action by adding a reminder that Valpo is only doing what schools and other institutions all throughout America are doing:

Valpo’s decision is in line with athletic teams across all levels – from interscholastic to professional sports programs – that are replacing offensive mascots with less divisive symbols. With this decision, the university is following the same course as virtually all other universities that carried the Crusader as their mascot or a symbol for their school.

To be sure, this sort of betrayal of the West’s heritage is not without precedent and is hardly limited to college campuses, AKA, hotbeds of political correctness, and Western guilt/self-hatred. In November 2019, the owners of a famous New Zealand rugby team scrapped their longtime logo—a Crusader—to show how “woke” they were vis-à-vis Muslims.

Nor is it just “militant” expressions of Christianity (vis-à-vis Islam) that are being flushed down the memory hole to appease Muslims, but mere expressions of Christianity.  As one memorable example, in 2004, “Spanish football giant Real Madrid … dropped the Christian cross affixed at the top of its official crest after signing a sponsorship deal with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi.”

Meanwhile, Muslim nations, such as the home of Islam itself, Saudi Arabia (AKA “US friend and ally”™), proudly depict scimitars on their national flags, with the words, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”—words that have gotten countless people, past and present, slaughtered for not reciting.  No non-Muslim seems to be offended or concerned by that, but Westerners are rushing over themselves to change the logos and flags of, not nations, but schools or teams of men who play with balls—lest they appear too militant, too “mean.”

That, in a nutshell, sums up how the West and Islam see themselves and respond to one another.  While Islam venerates its violent, jihadi past—and, wherever possible, seeks to relive it—the West is constantly disavowing its Crusader heritage.

And what exactly were the Crusades?  They were a militant, no-nonsense response to more than four centuries of jihadi aggression against and conquests of Christian and European territory.  The particular Muslim invasions (between 1071 and1095) that occasioned the First Crusade saw hundreds of thousands of Eastern Christians (Armenians, Syriacs, and Greeks) slaughtered or enslaved by Muslim Turks acting in the name of jihad.  As the contemporary Byzantine princess, Anna Komnenos wrote,  “cities were obliterated, lands were plundered, and the whole of Rhomaioi [Anatolia] was stained with Christian blood.”

Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r.1081 to 1118), Anna’s father, recounted his people’s travails in a letter addressed to his friend, the “Count of Flanders and to all the princes of the whole kingdom, lovers of the Christian faith.”  In it, he lamented how the Turks “pillaged daily and constantly raided, with Christians being murdered and mocked in various indescribable ways.”  Not only did the Muslim invaders “defile the holy places in innumerable ways, [and] destroy them,” but they would “circumcise Christian boys and youths above Christian baptismal fonts, pour the blood from the circumcision into the fonts in mockery of Christ, force them to urinate on it, and then drag them around the church and force them to blaspheme the name and faith of the Holy Trinity.  Those who refuse are subjected to various punishments and eventually killed.” As for Christian women, the Muslim invaders

took virgins and made them public prostitutes....  Mothers were violated in the presence of their daughters, raped over and over again by different men, while their daughters were compelled, not only to watch but to sing obscene songs and to dance. Then they changed places, and the suffering, which is painful and shameful to speak of, was inflicted upon the daughters, while the filthy activity was adorned by the obscene songs of the unfortunate mothers….  When the female sex was not spared (an action which might be excused since it is at least in accord with nature), they became worse than animals, breaking all human laws by turning on men. Their lust overflowed to the point that the execrable and profoundly intolerable crime of sodomy, which they committed against men of middle or low station, they also committed against a certain bishop, killing him.

It was this—concern for fellow Christians—that prompted the First Crusade when it did; and it is this that is making contemporary Western Christians fall over themselves to disavow anything associated with the Crusades.

After describing some of the aforementioned atrocities at the Council of Clermont in France on November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II cried out, “Who is to revenge all this—who is to repair this damage, if you do not do it?”  The Christians present cried “God wills it!” and the First Crusade was born. 

Soon they would set off to provide succor to their Eastern coreligionists while sacrificing much in the process: rather than gain anything from the First Crusade, most who took the cross lost—and expected to lose—everything, from their estates in Europe to their lives in battle against Muslims.

This is ironic in light of the university’s recent statement. In it, Irwin-Knott declares that “At Valpo, we strive to seek truth, serve generously and cultivate hope. We do not believe having the Crusader as our mascot portrays these values.”

Actually, it was the First Crusaders who lived up to “these values.”  They did “strive to seek the truth” by ascertaining—and accepting and acting on—what Islam was doing to Christians in the East, and they did “serve generously and cultivate hope” for those same Christians: The sources contain numerous accounts of Armenians and other Eastern Christians falling on their knees and tearfully thanking their Western coreligionists for liberating them from the Islamic yoke.

Such are the contradictions that we are regularly expected to swallow nowadays.  For, and contrary to all the glib talk of “Valpo” and its interim president, it is in fact Western universities that do not “strive to seek truth”—especially those truths that stray from the “official” narrative—nor do they “serve generously and cultivate hope” for the billions who suffer from politically incorrect causes around the world, chief among them those many millions who suffer under Islam.

Note: Historical quotes in this article were sourced from and are documented in the author’s book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West

_____________________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST: 

INDIANA: VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY DROPS CRUSADERS NICKNAME & MASCOT TO BOW TO THE MUSLIMS

https://ratherexposethem.org/2021/02/14/indiana-valparaiso-university-drops-crusaders-nickname-mascot-to-bow-to-the-muslims/

 

 

Indiana: Valparaiso University drops Crusaders nickname & mascot to bow to the muslims

"ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION & VIOLENCE"?

CULTURAL JIHAD BY THE ELITE "EDUCATED"

IN IGNORANCE AND/OR DENIAL OF HISTORICAL FACTS, A PRIVATE LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY REPUDIATES THE DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY FROM THE MUSLIM INVASION OF EUROPE

WHAT WOULD MARTIN LUTHER HAVE SAID ABOUT THIS DEFERENCE TO "NATIVE POPULATIONS" AND MUSLIM JIHADISTS?

Student president Kaitlyn Steinhiser:

[email protected] 

UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: 

[email protected]

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/218393;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Crusades took place long before, centuries before, the Ku Klux Klan existed. Changing this nickname and mascot is another sign of the acceptance of the idea that Westerners should be ashamed of the Crusades. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS proves otherwise. It demonstrates from primary sources that the Crusades were not a gratuitous imperialistic venture, but a late and small-scale defensive reaction to 450 years of imperialist jihad aggression that had conquered and Islamized what had been half of the Christian world, and threatened the life of the Christian empire, the Byzantine empire.

The West continues its cultural self-abnegation in the face of the chimera of “Islamophobia,” a propaganda neologism designed to make people ashamed of defending themselves and their homeland against a newly aggressive and emboldened Islamic jihad.

“Valparaiso changing Crusaders nickname and mascot after criticism, hate group use,” by Ryan Young, Yahoo Sports, February 11, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):

Valparaiso is done with its nickname.

The Indiana university announced Thursday that it is ditching the Crusaders nickname, mascot and logos — something that had been adopted and embraced by various hate groups throughout history.

“The negative connotation and violence associated with the Crusader imagery are not reflective of Valpo’s mission and values, which promote a welcoming and inclusive community,” interim president Colette Irwin-Knott said, via The Assocaited [sic] Press. “This is the decision that best reflects our values and community.”

Valparaiso’s student senate and faculty senate each passed resolutions that called for the name change, and the university’s alumni board of directors supported the change, per the report….

The Crusades were a series of wars between Christians and Muslims in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries used to secure control of holy sites and land in Europe and the Middle East. Various hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, have used crusaders symbols and words ever since.

“The Crusader does not [represent the university] effectively,” student president Kaitlyn Steinhiser said, via The Associated Press. “Valpo is and always has been a faith-based institution, and we want to make sure our symbolism is in alignment with our beliefs and speaks to the core values of the Lutheran ethos. At Valpo, we strive to seek truth, serve generously and cultivate hope. We do not believe having the Crusader as our mascot portrays these values.”

CATHOLIC JESUIT Fordham UNIVERSITY Should Not Abuse Its Status as a Private Institution to Censor Free Speech

By THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD

SEE: https://fordhamobserver.com/60528/opinions/fordham-should-not-abuse-its-status-as-a-private-institution-to-censor-free-speech/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Dec. 22, 2016, the last day of the fall semester, then-Dean of Students Keith Eldredge sent an email that incited four long years of legal action and fees. In the email, the dean denied by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) request to form a club after the United Student Government had already approved it. 

The dean wrote that he “cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country, when these goals conflict with … (the) values of the University,” all the while without specifying what values SJP contradicted.

In response, the members of SJP went to court, using a New York state law (article 78) that allows students to challenge a decision at a private school if the decision was contrary to the institution’s own rules, which SJP felt was the case.

The court’s decision demonstrates how profoundly Fordham’s label as a private institution has enabled it to restrict the rights of the student body.

On Dec. 22, 2020 — exactly four years after Eldredge’s letter — the New York State Appellate Court overturned the 2019 ruling and held that Fordham was actually within its rights to deny the club. The court added that SJP’s political activism could potentially be disruptive to student life and as a result, they are still fighting for recognition to this day.

The court’s decision demonstrates how profoundly Fordham’s label as a private institution has enabled it to restrict the rights of the student body. By silencing the political opinions of SJP, especially at a university where other partisan clubs exist, the Fordham administration has shown a concerning lack of support for the diversity of student opinions on campus.

Discussions and support for SJP’s case and cause have extended past campus and onto social media. The Instagram page @fordhamsjp provides its audience of 954 followers with updates on the court case, general information on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and resources for other human rights movements. Its new posts receive hundreds of likes from the Fordham community and beyond, as the ongoing legal battle has brought the club national recognition.

@lc_sinners, a popular Instagram meme page that caters to Fordham students, has also backed SJP by posting multiple memes about Fordham’s censorship of the club, particularly attacking Fordham’s flimsy “private institution” excuse for silencing students. 

As student journalists, we at The Observer feel that free speech is crucial to the well-being of the university community. The student body cannot be expected to grow and learn in an environment where the only ideas that are permitted are those that the administration deems acceptable.

While Fordham is a private university, it still received $19.6 million in 2018 of a total of $933.5 million and $2.5 million in 2019 in government grants. When any private university receives federal funding, however minuscule, it should abide by federal law. Therefore, its students and their free speech should be protected from actions like those that Eldredge has started against SJP.

As long as this continues, it will suppress those student voices that are unsuitable for the image it wants to project.

When discussing freedom of speech at a private institution like Fordham, we would be remiss in not mentioning the case of Austin Tong. In a similar action to SJP, Tong attempted to challenge a disciplinary action in court, but his case was dismissed since it was decided that the university administration had reasonable grounds to believe that Tong’s behavior was hate speech. His case shows that SJP’s case is not the only target of Fordham censorship; however, his comments online sparked reactions of fear and condemnation within Fordham that SJP has not received.

Tong’s behavior was criticized heavily by many in the university community, and many people expressed “fears for their own safety.” Contrary to Tong, SJP has garnered a wide array of support from the Fordham community.

It is clear that Fordham has hidden behind its status as a private university — meaning that the vast majority (nearly 88%) of the revenue for the university comes from tuition and fees alone — and it abuses that power to play fast and loose with its First Amendment allowances. As long as this continues, it will suppress those student voices that are unsuitable for the image it wants to project.

As the first of its kind, SJP’s case has set the precedent for all of New York state’s private universities. College students in this state or anywhere should not be silenced for expressing their political views in a peaceful and nondiscriminatory manner, yet their freedom of speech is now in danger because of Fordham’s actions.

Moreover, all students are paying for the duct tape that Fordham is putting over SJP’s mouth. The legal fees for the SJP trial were included in our tuition bills, a shockingly improvident and uncompassionate use of money during a time when it could have been used to alleviate financial hardships wrought by COVID-19.

Is this use of funds, power and time truly in line with Fordham’s values?

________________________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ABOUT FORDHAM CENSORSHIP HERE:

https://ratherexposethem.org/?s=FORDHAM

______________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://fordhamobserver.com/52547/news/sjp-students-for-justice-in-palestine-face-fordham-in-court-once-again/

 

 

Student lawsuit over Fordham dismissal alleges university ties to Chinese Communist Party

CATHOLIC MORAL RELATIVISM & DECEPTIVE DEALINGS WITH COMMUNIST CHINA

Austin Tong claims that Fordham tried to 'silence' him

BY PETER AITKEN

SEE: https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawsuit-fordham-alleges-university-ties-chinese-communist-party;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York college student who was threatened with expulsion over two social media posts has sued the school and his lawyer is now alleging it may have tried to hide ties to the Chinese Communist Party, according to legal documents.

Fordham University threatened to expel Austin Tong, a Chinese-born senior, for two social media posts from June. In a written response to Fordham’s motion to dismiss his suit, Tong’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, alleged that Fordham has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and that university officials have been “extraordinarily dishonest" in disclosing their dealings with the foreign nation.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TAKES HOME TOP HONORS, DEPAUW UNIVERSITY THE WORST IN FREE SPEECH POLL

During an appearance on "The Ingraham Angle," Tong said he believed the university took issue "with anything they disagree with and they want to silence any voice they don't like and that's really what happened and they silenced me because they don't like what I said."

One of Tong's posts featured a photo of a former St. Louis police captain who was killed in a June riot, with the comment, “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites.” A second post depicted Mr. Tong holding an unloaded rifle and the phrase “Don’t tread on me” – a reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre.

The second post is the one that ultimately led to the university’s threat to expel him. Fordham’s letter to Tong on June 8 informed him that he was guilty of violating university policies on “bias and/or hate crimes” and “threats/intimidation."

Fordham requested an apology for the posts, but Tong responded with the lawsuit.

Paltzik’s argument regarding alleged ties to China's Communist Party appears to be based on a letter from the Department of Education that informed Fordham it was seeking information on a possible discrepancy in foreign funding disclosure.

“It is the Department’s experience that Fordham’s extensive international operations are very likely concurrent with substantial foreign source gifts and/or contracts, despite the dearth of disclosures by Fordham,” the letter read.

SURPRISING PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS FIND VIOLENT CENSORSHIP 'ACCEPTABLE' TO SOME DEGREE

“As a result, the Department is concerned that Fordham’s reporting may not fully capture all qualifying gifts, contracts, and/or restricted and conditional gifts or contracts from or with all foreign sources.”

Despite attempts to dismiss the suit, Fordham has found itself facing federal investigations for allegedly accepting undisclosed foreign gifts from China as well as for violating its own free-speech guidelines in contravention of federal law.

Fordham’s mission statement claims, "Fordham strives for excellence in research and teaching and guarantees the freedom of inquiry required by rigorous thinking and the quest for truth."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A court filing argues that Fordham Department of Public Safety agents visited Tong at his family’s home on Long Island and interviewed him, with one agent saying that the posts were “not threatening to me.”

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fordham Letter by Campus Reform on Scribd:

 

 

JESUIT CATHOLIC FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: TRUMP DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION INVESTIGATING WHY CHINESE-AMERICAN STUDENT AUSTIN TONG PUNISHED FOR FIREARM PHOTO ON INSTAGRAM

Seventeen Seventy Five Gadsden Flag

Fordham student says school wrongfully penalized him for social media posts

BY HANK BERRIEN

SEE: https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-administration-investigating-university-that-punished-chinese-american-student-for-firearm-photo-protesting-tiananmen-square-massacre;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In June, a Chinese-American student at Fordham University, Austin Tong, posted a photo of retired St. Louis police officer David Dorn, who was killed after defending a friend’s store from looters. The photo was accompanied by a note citing the “nonchalant social reaction” to Dorn’s murder. In addition, Tong posted another photo of himself holding a Smith & Wesson rifle pointed toward the ground with the photo captioned “Don’t tread on me #198964,” in reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989. That photo included emojis of the American and Chinese flags.

Tong had also posted statements including, “freedom comes from a strong and armed populace” and “Violence against any citizen should not be tolerated, and The Second Amendment protects us from that.”

The photos triggered the university to put Tong on probation.

Now the Trump administration’s Department of Education has launched an investigation into Fordham University. One department official told Campus Reform, “Of course, this raises questions about the influence of the Chinese government on American colleges and universities.”

The Department of Education sent a letter to Fordham University, which stated in part:

On the night of June 4, 2020, allegedly due to “multiple student complaints related to [Mr. Tong’s] social media posts,” including the claim that his posts were “grotesque” and “racist,” Fordham dispatched two uniformed public safety officers to visit Mr. Tong at his parent’s home in Long Island, New York. … Mr. Tong allegedly told the officers he purchased the rifle so his family would have protection from the threat posed by ongoing riots and social disorder in New York City …

Fordham deemed Mr. Tong’s constitutionally protected speech “a security threat” (emphasis added). Fordham apparently was concerned because “in referring to Black Lives Matter protests, [Mr. Tong] stated that he was ‘aware of the chaotic situation that needs me to keep (sic) family safe.’”

On July 24, the Dean of Students informed Tong that he was on probation because his social media posts violated university policy. He would need permission from the dean of students to enter the campus; he would need to undergo “bias training,” and he would need to compose an apology.

The university informed Tong he would have to complete his courses online. The university added that the sanctions were non-appealable.

Those actions prompted Tong to sue the school, claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated.

In its letter, the Department of Education noted:

In its Demonstration Policy, Fordham promises prospective students, their parents, and other potential consumers in the market for education certificates ‘[e]ach member of the University has a right to freely express their positions and to work for their acceptance whether they assent to or dissent from existing situations in the University or society. Fordham further promises not to infringe on students’ right “to express [their] positions” and engage in “other legitimate activities.”

However, Fordham fails to warn prospective students, their parents, and other potential consumers in the market for education certificates of their liability to potential discipline for the lawful off-campus expression of thoughts and constitutionally protected conduct that happens to be disfavored by Fordham’s education bureaucrats.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

 

CATHOLIC JESUIT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY REQUIRES SECURITY ESCORT FOR AUSTIN TONG WHO POSED WITH GUN ON INSTAGRAM

BY CHRISSY CLARK

SEE: https://freebeacon.com/campus/fordham-requires-escort-for-student-who-posed-with-gun/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A Fordham University student who was kicked off campus for posing with a legally owned firearm won't be allowed back without an escort.

Austin Tong, a rising senior who posted a picture of himself on Instagram holding an AR-15 rifle with the caption, "Don't tread on me," in commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre, said that a "KGB overseer" would have to escort him to and from classes if he wants to return to campus in the fall.

"Fordham graciously offered me a realistic historical simulation of being overseen by the Soviet secret police," Tong told the Washington Free Beacon. "This just exposes the sensitivity of Fordham and colleges on safe speech, resorting to extreme means to make sure students stay in line."

Tong filed a lawsuit against Fordham on July 23 alleging that the university violated its own free speech policies when it disciplined him for posing in "non-threatening social media posts on Instagram." The suit demands that the school lift the sanctions, which require him to leave campus indefinitely, apologize for the picture, and undergo implicit bias training.

Fordham argued that the photograph ran afoul of its commitment to combating bias and hate crimes. Tong, a Chinese immigrant, said he will not apologize for the photo because it does not pose a threat to his peers.

In response to the lawsuit, Fordham withdrew its restraining order against Tong pending the court's ruling. It also said that it would not require an apology note or implicit bias training before Tong's return to campus but claimed that it was reasonable to require him to be escorted by a public safety officer to and from his on-campus destination. In addition, Tong must seek permission 48 hours in advance of his arrival.

Fordham did not respond to requests for comment.

Tong told the Free Beacon that he will not return to campus despite the withdrawal of the restraining order. "I'm probably not going back to campus," Tong said. "I don't think [the school or my peers] want to see me either. Frankly, it's not safe."


THE CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: STUDENT AUSTIN TONG BANNED FROM FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, FIGHTS BACK TO SECURE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

After posting a picture holding a legally owned firearm to commemorate the 31st anniversary of Tiananmen Square, Fordham University proceeded to harass and eventually ban senior and Chinese immigrant, Austin Tong from campus, all for merely exercising his First Amendment right. This is his heroic story of fighting back against a very CCP-style tyranny present on American shores.

CHINESE IMMIGRANT AUSTIN TONG SUES JESUIT CATHOLIC FORDHAM UNIVERSITY FOR SANCTIONING TIANANMEN POSTS ON INSTAGRAM

Fordham University

BY CHRISSY CLARK

SEE: https://freebeacon.com/campus/chinese-immigrant-sues-university-for-sanctioning-tiananmen-post/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A Fordham University student kicked off campus for posing with his legally owned firearm filed a lawsuit on July 23 alleging the school violated its commitment to free expression.

Rising senior Austin Tong, a Chinese immigrant who posted the picture in honor of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, filed a lawsuit against Fordham, the school's president, and the dean of students. The suit alleges the university violated its free expression covenant with students by disciplining Tong for "lawful, constitutionally protected, and non-threatening social media posts on Instagram."

"Fordham's policies and rules, as well as basic First Amendment jurisprudence, make it abundantly clear that uncomfortable or unpleasant impact on a speaker's audience is not a proper ground to restrain the speech in question," the lawsuit reads.

The suit calls on the school to annul all disciplinary sanctions, admit that Tong's social media posts are a permitted exercise of free speech under Fordham's speech code, and award relief for the breach of contract between Fordham and Tong.

In its mission statement, Fordham guarantees the freedom of inquiry among other freedoms, but the explicit promise of free speech can be found in the school's demonstration policy.

"Each member of the University has a right to freely express his or her positions and to work for their acceptance whether they assent to or dissent from existing situations in the University or society," the policy reads.

Tong was told in a disciplinary letter from the university that he cannot return to campus and must complete his degree online while his peers return to campus. Tong cannot hold a leadership position on campus, must write an apology note to the school, and must complete a bias training or face suspension or possible expulsion.

The lawsuit alleges the sanctions against Tong are "damaging and humiliating" for the student as well as "draconian." The disciplinary actions force Tong to choose between his beliefs and a degree from his university of choice.

"These sanctions have placed Tong in an untenable position," the lawsuit reads. "He must either (1) abandon his principled beliefs, forfeit his right to lawful expression, and submit to Fordham's unconscionable discipline, or (2) face suspension or expulsion from Fordham, which would severely damage his future academic and employment prospects."

Tong told the Washington Free Beacon he believed he had a good relationship with dean of students Keith Eldredge before posting his Instagram photos. "Not even a Chinese university would do this to their students," he said.

The university did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"The end result is that Tong and other students who do not adhere to the political orthodoxy of Fordham's administrators are turned into outcasts," the lawsuit reads. "Other individuals who wish to speak out with potentially unpopular but good faith viewpoints are discouraged from exercising their right of free expression."

Tong's lawyer Brett Joshpe said he could not comment on the pending litigation, but said there will be additional claims for "the massive damages caused."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fordham University Punishes Pro 2A Student

BY JOE SILVERSTEIN

SEE: https://www.thecornellreview.org/fordham-university-punishes-pro-2a-student/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
On June 4th, Austin Tong shared a picture of himself holding a legal firearm to commemorate the anniversary of the Tienanmen Square protests.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBB08GDlFNX/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Austin Tong, a rising senior studying business at Fordham University, was recently banned from campus after posting an image of himself holding a legally purchased rifle. In a previous post, Mr. Tong also shared a picture of David Dorn, with the caption, “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites.” Dorn was a retired police officer who was murdered while protecting a local store during a riot in June. Many have criticized Black Lives Matter for failing to protest the death of David Dorn, who was African American. These two posts were made on June 3rd and June 4th.

In a letter composed on July 14th, Keith Eldredge, the Dean of Students at Fordham University, notified Mr. Tong that a student conduct hearing had found the posts to be in violation of the university’s policies regarding “bias and/or hate crimes [and] threats/intimidation.” As a result of his alleged transgressions, Mr. Tong was barred from serving as an officer in any student groups, banned from campus, and instructed to complete the remainder of his degree online. Additionally, Austin was ordered to complete mandatory implicit bias training and write a letter of apology. He has refused to do so. 

 In an interview on The Joe Silverstein Podcast, Brett Joshpe Esquire, who is representing Mr. Tong stated, “He’s not going to be forced into issuing an apology when he did absolutely nothing wrong.” Mr. Joshpe went on to emphasize the importance of protecting freedom of speech in academia. “[College campuses] are supposed to be places where vigorous debate can happen… It is precisely the controversial topics that need to be protected vigorously and college campuses are exactly where those debates should be taking place.”

The case of Austin Tong is not an isolated incident. Increasingly, we have seen conservative students, faculty, and organizations systematically targeted in higher education. At Cornell University, Professor William Jacobson became the target of a smear campaign after criticizing Black Lives Matter.  In an unprecedented move, Eduardo M. Peñalver, Dean of Cornell Law School, harshly criticized Jacobson for his extramural political speech. Petitions, student boycotts, and allegations of racism quickly followed. Similarly, at Binghamton University, the College Republicans were suspended after tabling to promote a forthcoming event featuring Dr. Arthur Laffer. The university claimed the College Republicans were in violation of university and Student Assembly policies and publicly rebuked the group in a statement. However, the administration failed to take punitive action against violent agitators who assaulted and threatened the conservative students. 

Since Fordham is a private university, they do not have the same first amendment obligations as their public counterparts. However, they do have a responsibility to adhere to their own published policies regarding freedom of speech. Consequently, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP filed an Article 78 Petition alleging that Fordham acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of its own policies. “We are prepared to fight for people like Austin Tong, who are prepared to fight for themselves.” 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

TONG VS. FORDHAM LAWSUIT:

SEE: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=avKDhKs0whNNB2DJEulcUA==&system=prod

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOSHPE, MOONEY, PALTZIK LLP LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY:

SEE: https://www.jmpllp.com/#contact

________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION LETTERS & ARTICLES:

SEE: 

https://www.thefire.org/fire-letter-to-fordham-university-july-17-2020/

https://www.thefire.org/advice-to-fordham-ignoring-fire-will-only-get-you-scorched/

https://www.thefire.org/fordham-student-on-campus-probation-for-instagram-photo-holding-a-gun-memorializing-tiananmen-square-massacre/

https://www.thefire.org/fordham-university-named-one-of-americas-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-after-banning-students-for-justice-in-palestine/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FORDHAM OBSERVER NEWS, LINCOLN CENTER CAMPUS, MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY:

SEE:

https://fordhamobserver.com/49644/opinions/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-austin-tong/

https://fordhamobserver.com/48725/news/student-pledges-lawsuit-against-university-disputing-disciplinary-actions/

EXCERPTS FROM SECOND ARTICLE ABOVE WHICH ARE SUPPORTIVE & NOT SUPPORTIVE:

"Numerous users expressed support for Tong, commenting that the university infringed on his right to free speech without reasonable cause. Conservative news outlets Campus ReformThe Epoch Times and The Glenn Beck Program have also reported on Tong’s case, which Tong praised on July 16 on Instagram."

"An equally large number of users opposed Tong, commenting that the posts provoked fear and were insensitive amid the Black Lives Matter movement, which has led and amplified a widespread outcry against violence."

"“Austin, I am extremely disappointed that you are actively utilizing your platform to invalidate the BLM movement rather than using your time to facilitate conversations about the issues at hand/trying to raise awareness,” Carrie Kinui, Fordham College at Lincoln Center ’21, commented on Tong’s post of Dorn." 

 

 
 

NYC CATHOLIC JESUIT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY THREATENS STUDENT WITH BAN FROM CAMPUS, EXPULSION FOR POSTING PICTURES OF HIS LEGALLY ACQUIRED AR-15 RIFLE~STUDENT WILL SUE Fordham University: Student Charged With Hate Crime for Posing With Gun

Fordham's Austin Tong: NRA-ILA-This is What Keeps America Free

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/07/this-what-keeps-america-free/#axzz6TUWMkFMo;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In response to a public expression of lawful political speech, “safety officers” 
come to the person’s home at midnight to interrogate him. He is accused of intimidation, making 
threats, hate crimes, and disorderly conduct. He is found guilty and his punishment includes exclusion 
from the community, suspension of his academic privileges, a ban on taking leadership roles in campus
 organizations, mandatory meetings with appropriate officials to learn about correct ways of thinking 
and speaking, and the presentation of a formal written apology, to be submitted in draft form “for 
approval.”

Readers would be excused for assuming that this occurred in some backward, repressive dictatorship or totalitarian regime, but these troubling events took place at an American University.

Austin Tong, a senior at Fordham University in New York State, posted two messages on his Instagram account. The first, on June 3, was a comment about the “nonchalant societal reaction” to the killing of David Dorn, a black, retired St. Louis Police officer. His second post, a day later, was a photo of himself holding his lawfully owned AR-15 rifle at his off-campus home. This was captioned, “Don’t tread on me,” followed by the emojis of the American and Communist Chinese flags and a hashtag “commonly used by Chinese citizens to avoid censorship of online discussion of the Tiananmen Square massacre.”

Mr. Tong is a Chinese-American who arrived in the United States as a six-year-old immigrant. He explained that his second post was made to commemorate the 31st anniversary of the suppressed 1989 Chinese Democracy Movement.

According to Mr. Tong, the university “sent safety officers at midnight to interrogate me all over a simple picture of a lawfully owned gun.”

Keith Eldredge, Fordham University’s Dean of Students and Assistant Vice President, followed up by advising that he was initiating an investigation for bias/hate crimes, threats/intimidation, and disorderly conduct, based on these “posts on social media related to the current racial issues in the country and political issues in China, including one in which you were holding an automatic weapon.”

Fordham University – a private educational institution that is not bound by the First Amendment – nonetheless professes its commitment to free speech and expressive rights. For example, its mission statement “guarantees the freedom of inquiry required by rigorous thinking and the quest for truth.”

The university’s Demonstration Policy opens with the following: “By its very nature, the University is a place where ideas and opinions are formulated and exchanged. Each member of the University has a right to freely express their positions and to work for their acceptance whether they assent to or dissent from existing situations in the University or society.” Similarly, Fordham’s policy on “Bias-Related Incidents and/or Hate Crimes” claims the University:

Values freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas. The expression of controversial ideas and differing views is a vital part of University discourse. Although the expression of an idea or point of view may be offensive or inflammatory to others, it may not constitute a hate crime or bias-related incident. While this value of openness protects the expression of controversial ideas, it does not protect or condone harassment or expressions of bias or hate aimed at individuals or groups that violate the Student Code of Conduct. 

Regardless of these high-minded affirmations, the University concluded that Mr. Tong’s posts – devoid of threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, or harassment – violated the university rules on “Bias and/or Hate Crimes” and “Threats/Intimidation.”

A July 14 2020 letter from Keith Eldredge (copied to the “Department of Public Safety”) outlined the sanctions. Mr. Tong would be barred from the campus for the duration of his degree program. He was banned from representing the university or running for any student office or position. He would be required to attend instruction and complete activities on “implicit bias,” including a meeting with staff of the “multicultural affairs” office. He would have to submit a mandatory “apology letter,” to be approved by the university and a failure to comply would result in the university suspending or expelling him.

Perversely, the social media backlash to these innocuous posts has itself resulted in threats, intimidation, and potential bias/hate crimes against Austin Tong. It will be interesting to see whether Fordham University will enforce the same rules and policies against the activists from the university that “flooded the comments section” of his posts.

In the same way that the “quest for truth” supported characterizing his firearm indiscriminately as an “automatic weapon,” the university’s commitments to “freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas” protected Austin Tong, who was “forcibly silenced, faced verbal and assaulting harassment from mobs, and subjected to Soviet-style interrogation and punishment.” Despite this, and the possibility that his academic career will be marred indefinitely due to these disciplinary actions, he has been steadfast in his defense of his constitutional rights.

In a video for the NRA, Austin Tong describes his decision to purchase a gun, adding that “[h]ere in America, we have our right to keep and bear arms. This is what keeps America free.”

Actually, Austin, it is patriots like you – who fight to protect our constitutional freedoms – that keep America free.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org


Student Charged With Hate Crime for Posing With Gun

#AustinTong #SecondAmendment #DavidDorn #FreeSpeech #CancelCulture Student Austin Tong plans to sue Fordham University for suspending him over two Instagram posts. The first was a picture of retired St. Louis Police Captain David Dorn, a black man who was killed during riots over the death of George Floyd while responding to an alarm at a pawn shop. Tong wrote, 'Y'all are hypocrites,' in reference to how little media attention Dorn's death received. The second post shows Tong holding a rifle with the caption "Don't tread on me" and the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre, June 4, 1989, when thousands of mostly young student pro-democracy protestors were arrested or gunned down by the Chinese government in Beijing. Tong, who was born in China and whose family immigrated to the United States when he was 6 years old, explained in a comment that the date has significance for his family and many others with Chinese roots as an important day for democracy, and that he is glad to live in the United States where the right to bear arms is protected. Both posts received backlash from students, who tagged the University and demanded action. Tong says soon after, Fordham University Dean of Students Keith Eldredge notified him that he was in violation of the school's code of conduct “relating to bias and/or hate crimes” and for “threats/intimidation”. According to Tong, Eldredge said, "Your intentions may not be harmful but your impact was harmful." Tong is now suspended, must submit an apology to the University, and undergo diversity training by the end of July. TIME STAMPS: 1:00 Austin explains his posts 5:00 University officials show up at Austin's house to question him 11:00 Austin responds to backlash 6:40 Dean of Students calls Austin and explains conduct violations he will face 17:00 Austin says school shootings were never mentioned as a reason to discipline him for his post 19:25 Austin explains his plan 26:00 How cancel culture polarizes people

Austin Tong, a 21-year-old rising senior at Fordham University, has filed a lawsuit against the school after he was penalized over two social media posts

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/07/student-charged-hate-crime-posing-gun/#axzz6TDJgNfYg;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Austin Tong was an average college kid working on his degree from Fordham 
University in New York City when, last week, he posted a couple of pictures on Instagram that made 
him the target of an irrational Internet mob and a scurrilous university investigation. The pictures 
he posted – which nearly got him kicked out of school – were of a retired police captain who was 
recently killed by looters, and one of him holding an AR-15.

His posts prompted a hateful reaction from intolerant “keyboard warriors” who despise the police and the Second Amendment. Fordham University officials then opened an investigation and charged him with intimidation, making threats, disorderly conduct, and a hate crime – all for posting a picture of himself with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm and one of a slain police officer.  Now he has been banned from campus, asked to write a letter of apology, and told he must complete implicit bias and multicultural sensitivity training in order to graduate with his degree.

Today is the deadline for Austin to make his decision. He plans on saying no. And, if the university wants to kick him out, he says they’re going to have a legal fight on their hands.

Stories similar to Mr. Tong’s are happening all over America. The NRA will stand and fight for every citizen’s rights. Please consider joining or donating today to support Mr. Tong, and the NRA cause.

Here are five quick questions and answers from new NRA member Austin Tong.

You were born in China and immigrated to the United States. How did that happen? 

America is the land of opportunity and I think everyone around the world knows that. My parents, who came first, wanted to make a better life for themselves and their family. They knew America was a free country and people come here because of everything the country has to offer. That’s why we moved to New York.

Have you always been interested in firearms? 

I’ve always had an interest, mostly thanks to video games, but I never really thought about buying one before. But after recent events I thought it would be a good way to keep me and my family safe.

I’ll admit I wasn’t always a believer, but as time went on, I began to appreciate the rights we have as Americans more and more. And that’s how I got into trouble – because I expressed that appreciation.

What was it like to receive a midnight visit from the Fordham Safety Officers?

Well, I posted the pictures, received the backlash, and a few hours later received a call from the officers saying they were a few minutes away and wanted to talk. I looked out my door and saw them standing outside my home. One came in and one stayed with the car. It was basically about 20 minutes of questions about the firearm, why I posted the pictures, and what I was trying to say.

I’m a good guy, a good person, so while I was a little shook by the visit I knew I’d done nothing wrong. I knew people would probably criticize the post, but I wasn’t expecting the level of backlash, the death threats, the calls for expulsion, or that the entire school would get involved. I was shocked, appalled, and disappointed. But I didn’t do anything wrong and that’s why, if they carry through with their threats, we’re going to sue.

We’ve read about the horrible comments you received, including the death threats, but have all the reactions been negative? 

No, not at all. There were a ton of nasty comments after the initial post but once the word really got out, where the NRA really helped a lot, I started hearing from the media, other Instagramers, and people from the firearm community.

That’s why I’m doing this. At first this was my case by now I think of it as the country’s. I don’t know what’s going to happen when I don’t comply with Fordham’s demands. I don’t’ know what’s going to happen to my future but after receiving all those messages from people around the country and around the world – people from all backgrounds and political parties – I knew I had to do more. They were telling me their stories, similar stories, how they were silenced or too scared to share their stories. That should never happen – not here in America.

That’s why I’m doing this. That’s why I’m standing up. When there’s no free speech then America isn’t America anymore. That’s what drives me. It’s empowering what the NRA did, what people across the country have done, and I think we’ll have a great case for protecting free speech.

Did the reaction from Fordham officials surprise you? 

It did because the guy who charged me, the dean of students, he knows me. And the safety officers said I wasn’t a threat or being intimidating. They said there’s nothing wrong with me yet they’re still trying to kick me out of school.

I’m shocked and surprised because they know me. They know who I am. And I expected more from this esteemed university.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chinese immigrant student, 21, sues Fordham University after he was banned from campus over 'Don't tread on me' post in which he held an AR-15 to commemorate anniversary of Tienanmen Square

  • Austin Tong, 21, filed a lawsuit against Fordham Univsersity after they penalized him over two social media posts
  • One showed a picture of David Dorn, the 77-year-old retired officer who was shot dead during by a looter after protests in St. Louis, Missouri
  • The other was a photo of Tong holding a rifle to commemorate the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre
  • Fordham University determined Tong had violated school policies with bias and hate crimes that were classified as 'Threats/Intimidation'
  • Tong, a Chinese immigrant and Black Lives Matter supporter, wrote that both posts were made 'love for this country'
  • School officials enacted several penalties, including a ban from campus, school office and possible expulsion if Tong violates probation 
  • BY LAUREN EDMONDS