Updated: Cambridge Chronicle and City Councilors Condemn Protected Speech

Posted October 27, 2015 5:45 PM ET; Last updated October 28, 2015 7:45 PM ET



"'based on this information, that’s not something we want to be a part of,' said Councilor Marc McGovern," a social worker in diversity saturated, conformist Cambridge, MA. He says he works with the most vulnerable population. Who is more vulnerable in Cambridge, MA than a person who holds different views than the majority, 10-20 years ago or even at present? There is no support for offensive speech, called hate speech, which is protected by the US and the Massachusetts Constitutions, in this allegedly tolerant city. There is also no compassion from this politically motivated social worker who shows lack of support for the Constitution he swore to protect. Under the Civil Rights statute of Massachusetts MGL Ch. 265, Sec 37, intimidating a person in the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right is a felony. Stormfront promotes nationalism, not supremacy. Notice the Chronicle's neutral recognition of a black separatist organization, whose forum was attended by most of the city council and school committee candidates in Cambridge last week. Use of the word supremacism, may more properly be applied to the Cambridge chapter of black separatists and nationalists who ran that candidate forum.




[From updated version]
[Councilor Mazen said] we didn’t know about the offensive views from his past and condemn those views in the strongest terms, I am confident that he has become a promoter of diversity now

Here is a public official condemning protected speech, violating his oath of office. That can be intimidating, and a chilling effect on a civilian. The Councilor mentions diversity, without defining what he means. Certainly he does not mean diversity of opinion. Few persons in Cambridge support diversity of opinions. The comments by Mr. Sanzone show he does not assert his right to express his unpopular opinions, opinions protected by the US and Massachusetts Constitutions. He appears to be intimidated by the reactions of Cambridge politicians and voters who disagree with his ten-year-old expression. His fear and intimidation is not unique. Many people fear being called racist, homophobe, Islamophobe and sexist if they express their opinion on contemporary controversial issues. It shows that the prevailing doctrine in this nation is to censor speech which may offend some person, or hurt his feelings. That is what the protection of the First Amendment and the concept of free speech is all about. Speech you like does not need protection. Shameful that so very few understand that. And fewer who do, refuse to stand up and assert their right to hear unpopular speech. Yet they seldom disagree with hateful and misguided expression that is published by mainstream publications calling for the deaths of Americans, Israel, Jews, and Christians. Is there a lack of critical thinking ability in this nation among voters, and elected officials?


* * *

[From article]
“We were welcoming him to the slate, but, based on this information, that’s not something we want to be a part of,” said Councilor Marc McGovern, a Unity Slate member.



http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151026/NEWS/151026521/?Start=1
UPDATED: Cambridge council candidate resigns after past online hate speech revealed

By Amy Saltzman
asaltzman (at) wickedlocal.com
Posted Oct. 26, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Updated at 1:16 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

SNL Did Not Broadcast Comedy Sketch About Ferguson MO

Leslie Jones as Tricia Darby, Rise And Smile‘s traffic copter correspondent. Her facial reactions are priceless!
http://decider.com/2014/12/08/snl-never-aired-ferguson-sketch/?_ga=1.125781705.212440808.1402078759

‘SNL’ NEVER AIRED THIS CONTROVERSIAL SKETCH ABOUT FERGUSON
By Mark Graham
December 8, 2014 // 3:50pm

Teachers Fear Teaching About Christmas and Jesus

Mr Bolton said the Band Aid single, Do They Know It’s Christmas? would be better renamed for school children as ‘Do They Know What Christmas Is?’


[From article]
Fear of ‘offending’ different faiths means pupils are not being taught the true meaning of Christmas in schools, according to a BBC presenter.
Roger Bolton, of Radio 4’s Feedback programme, said that some secular teachers are also ‘unsympathetic to religious education’.
As a result, many pupils are not learning the crucial fact that Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus.
A lack of understanding of Christianity is also preventing youngsters from gaining a proper understanding of religious imagery in literature and drama as well as European art.
This ‘ignorance’ in schools is being compounded by broadcasters’ reluctance to tackle ‘faith issues’ in children’s programmes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853750/Teachers-scared-teach-Jesus-Fear-offending-faiths-prevents-children-learning-true-meaning-Christmas-BBC-presenter-claims.html#ixzz3KQUutnB6

Teachers ‘scared to teach about Jesus’: Fear of offending other faiths prevents children1 learning true meaning of Christmas, BBC presenter claims
Radio 4's Roger Bolton criticised teachers who dodge subject of Jesus
Believes approach is preventing kids from understanding religious imagery
Said the Band Aid single better named 'Do They Know What Christmas Is?’
By SARAH HARRIS FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 20:44 EST, 28 November 2014 | UPDATED: 09:22 EST, 29 November 2014

Ignoring The Elephant In The Room

[From article]
“At any given moment,” wrote George Orwell in 1948, “there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact.” Today that fact is family disintegration: 41 percent of American children are born to unmarried women, including nearly half of first births, 53 percent of Hispanic children and 72 percent of African American children. In 2015, these facts will be discussed in connection with the 50th anniversary of the Moynihan Report.
[. . .]
Moynihan knew he was handling dynamite — he had only 100 copies printed, all marked “For Official Use Only” — but was stunned by the way discussion was shut down by accusations of “racism” and “blaming the victim.”

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102613.php3#.UnG_Id00jDo

Jewish World Review
October 26, 2013
Santorum wants to fix what ails the GOP
By George Will

Ignoring Racist Violence Will Lead To A Race War

[From article]

Social dynamite can accumulate among whites as well as among blacks. White extremist hate groups already exist, though they are a fringe, as the Nazis were once a disdained fringe in Germany. It was the people's loss of confidence in the respectable institutions of society that gave the Nazis their chance for power.
The blind and dishonest political correctness of our media and educational institutions on racial issues today can eventually forfeit the confidence of Americans and give similar extremist groups their chance to ignite a race war in the United States. And once a race war starts, it can be virtually impossible to stop.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102313.php3#.UmhwaLzFZ4M

Jewish World Review
Oct. 23, 2013/ 19 Mar-Cheshvan, 5774
Race-Hustling Results: Part II
By Thomas Sowell

BBC Self Censors Fearing Muslim Violence

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/05/bbc_justifies_self_censorship.html

May 08, 2012
BBC Justifies Self Censorship in the Face of Threats of Violence
Snapshot
CAMERA Blog

Pravda, Czech Paper, Voice of Russia Question Silence of US Media On Obama's Birth

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/

EX-COMMUNIST NATIONS EXPOSE OBAMA 'FRAUD'
Amid U.S. media blackout, foreign press sounds alarm on 'largest scandal in American history'
March 29, 2012
by CHELSEA SCHILLING


* * *
[From article]
"Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama's concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,".

Except for Barack Obama.

The second reason for Obama's concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
[. . .]
Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed "JustiaGate".
[. . .]
Justia erased "Minor v. Happersett" along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance."

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged
March 7, 2012
By Dianna Cotter
Pravda

* * *
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/pravda-asks-what-happened-to-american-media/

PRAVDA ASKS: WHAT HAPPENED TO AMERICAN MEDIA?
Accuses U.S. press of 'deliberately hiding evidence' of Obama's 'fraud'
by CHELSEA SCHILLING
March 9, 2012

Palin Seeks Freedom to Express Her Views as a Citizen

Gov. Palin is saying what Richard Nixon observed while he was President. He said, "The strongest person in America is a citizen, because he has rights." It is also true that elected officials cannot speak their minds because they fear offending voters, contributors, and special interests. All politicians moderate their public expression. Citizens have a right to expression criticizing elected officials. It is not the office that "shackles" officials it is self censorship which is worse than censorship by others. How many decisions do elected officials make that are dictated by others? All? Most? Some? Many? Obama and many journalists respect credentials, which have no correlation with truth, integrity or common sense. Citizens can speak their minds without fear of losing votes or campaign contributions. Under current government corruption citizens only fear unlawful retaliation by the criminals, who run the government.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/palin-unshackled-same-thing-happened-when-she-quit-alaska-governor?page=0,0

Palin unshackled: Same thing happened when she quit as Alaska governor
Craig Medred |
Sep 30, 2011
Alaska Dispatch

Canada Cancels Film About Iran After Threats

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/National+Archives+cancels+screening+Iranian+documentary+after+threats/4128848/story.html

National Archives cancels screening of documentary on Iran after threats
Sarah Boesveld,
National Post [Canada]
Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011

Will Obama Eliminate Press Freedom Thru Tax Law?

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/103373-obama-vs-press-freedom

Obama vs. press freedom
By Dick Morris
The Hill
June 15, 2010 05:22 PM ET

Censorship by Scientists

Censorship by Scientists

[These are excerpts from a previous article by Lauren Cox who wrote an article about conspiracy theories.]

“Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington D.C., agrees with Kempner on this point.

‘This notion of the chilling effect hits across the federal government,’ said Grifo. ‘It's not just the folks who are being funded by federal funds, it's career scientists as well.’

Grifo said her group has noticed the influence of politics can dissuade scientists from studying anything, including wildlife, when economics or ideologies are at stake.”

[My comment posted on ABCNEWS.com]
Censorship of science has a long history. The greatest example is when Copernicus observed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Galileo recanted his support for Copernicus when he was threatened. St. Bruno was executed. At the same time psychiatry replaced the Church as censor of unpopular or new knowledge, which denies the current dominant paradigm. What makes matters worse is that psychiatry masquerades as science when it is no more than personal opinion. Psychiatric illnesses are created by consensus not science. These unscientific illnesses are used to discredit proponents of unpopular ideas. See related article

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1

What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?
As Conspiracy Communities Grow, Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions
By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 12, 2008

conspiracy theories. The entire article is an example of psychiatry censoring an unpopular category of ideas.

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Pervasive Abusive Silence

Pervasive Abusive Silence

Stephen Roberson says, "it would have been far better if [the surgeons
general] had shown the courage of their convictions while still in their posts
[...] the American people have a right to expect people in positions of
authority to speak the truth, even if these individuals have to risk
professional setbacks by doing so." ("The unhealthy silence of our surgeons
general," Letter, Boston Globe, July 13, 2007)
Why is this paradigm limited to surgeons general? Much of the cynicism
among voters derives from the failure of all public officials to reveal
wrongdoing by their colleagues for fear of losing their jobs. Fooling
journalists is the goal not keeping the public informed.
Six months after being elected the new Governor, the new Attorney General
and the Middlesex District Attorney remain silent about any wrongdoing by the
many local and state officials under their jurisdiction. Are they unaware of the
misconduct? If aware and keeping silent they have become part of the problem
that existed before they were elected. Business as usual is the dominant
paradigm in Massachusetts. Why is the Globe silent too?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

The unhealthy silence of our surgeons general
Letter
Boston Globe
July 13, 2007

WHILE IT is heartening to hear three former surgeons general -- Richard Carmona,
C. Everett Koop, and David Satcher -- finally speaking out about having been
censored by their respective administration officials, it would have been far
better if they had shown the courage of their convictions while still in their
posts (Ex-surgeon general accuses Bush officials of censorship," Page A2, July
11).

What would they have lost by speaking up when it mattered, over the president's
objections if necessary? Their jobs?

Whether we're listening to the secretary of state, the head of the CIA, or the
surgeon general, the American people have a right to expect people in positions
of authority to speak the truth, even if these individuals have to risk
professional setbacks by doing so. A private in the US Army risks more than that
every day; is it right that we expect so much less from our senior government
officials?

STEPHEN J. ROBERSON
Holliston