Prager recently visited Martha MacCallum for a chat about the film where he discussed his concerns about the threat to free speech in this country today [...]]]> Author and radio show host Dennis Prager has been doing interviews for the upcoming national release of the documentary No Safe Spaces that he produced with Adam Corolla.

Prager recently visited Martha MacCallum for a chat about the film where he discussed his concerns about the threat to free speech in this country today that starts with what young people are taught. As he remarked, “The university has substituted indoctrination for education.”

The Left fears unrestricted speech from conservatives and moderates, so it has trained a victim class of overly sensitive liberal young people by posing any disagreement as an attack on their superior values and probably racist in some way.

Unfortunately the demand for politically correct speech doesn’t stop at the campus; instead the silly and distracting rules of the left have permeated our society up and down.

The Fox News segment begins with part of the movie trailer, then gets to the interview at around 1:35 in the video following:

MARTHA MacCALLUM: Dennis Prager joins me now. Radio host of the Dennis Prager Show. Dennis, great to see you. Thank you for being on tonight.

DENNIS PRAGER: Great to be with you. Thank you.

MacCALLUM: So, I mean, just watching that trailer. And I watched, you know, pieces of the film today. It is so disturbing that we’ve gotten to a point where you can’t have these discussions on college campuses, which is exactly the place that you should be having them. When Art Laffer gets shut down — you know, the designer of the Laffer curve and the Reagan economy — you just have to wonder, what is so deeply upsetting and controversial about Art Laffer?

PRAGER: What’s deeply upsetting is that the man is not on the Left. That is all it takes. It’s unprecedented in American history that there is a such a large percentage of young people — or, of that matter, old people — who believe the First Amendment needs to be changed. And those are the polls. About 50 percent of millennials believe that the First Amendment should be modified to ban hate speech. But of course, the whole point of free speech is that what you consider hate speech is irrelevant. What I consider hate speech is irrelevant.

When I was a kid, Nazis — real Nazis — what I mean “real” is not people who were called Nazi by the Left because they don’t agree with them. I’ve been called “Nazi,” and I’ve devoted my life to Judaism and to the Jewish people, and write a Torah commentary, and built a synagogue. And I’ve been called a Nazi. Google has an email that declares Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Prager U — my website, Prager University — Nazis.

But real Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, where there were Holocaust survivors, because they’re such cruel human beings, these Nazis. Jewish groups and liberal groups all said, “Of course. In America, even real Nazis can march in a Jewish neighborhood.” That’s America.

It’s changed, and that’s the first time in American history that this is the case. And it started at the university. That’s what this film is about.

MacCALLUM: You say that it’s dangerous to send your kids to American universities.

PRAGER: That it’s what to send your kid to university?

MacCALLUM: That it’s dangerous.

PRAGER: What was the word? Oh, “dangerous.” Well, I have a very good motto on this. Sending your child to college is playing Russian roulette with their values. And I mean it. I’m not happy about it. I love the life of the mind.

I went to Columbia. I love intellectual work. I read and I write. But the university has substituted indoctrination for education.

MacCALLUM: What do you think — you know, we talk about triggers a lot, right? Triggers that send people into safe spaces. But what do you think triggered this? You know, when you try to sort of trace back the anthropology of how we got here, where do you think it begins?

PRAGER: Well, my theory is that there is a huge distinction — a gulf — between liberal and left. Liberals and conservatives agree on far more than liberals and leftists do. But liberals don’t want to acknowledge this because they’re afraid to.  But this emanates from the Left. The Left, from Lenin to the present-day university anywhere on earth has never countenanced free speech. So, wherever it gains power — and there’s nowhere it has more power than at the university — it suppresses free speech because it can’t deal with free speech. We might actually prevail if we’re allowed to speak.

MacCALLUM: Yeah. I mean, if you — you know, if you are — if you feel strongly enough about your arguments, you should never be afraid to have someone present the other side because you shouldn’t worry that they’re going to able to poke holes in it because you feel so strongly about what you believe.

I want to ask you about something that happened today. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito wrote an opinion that he was defending — National Review went after a climate scientist named Michael Mann for his hockey stick theory. And National Review said, essentially, that the methodology that he used was debunked, in their opinion, in their analysis. And they tried to get that overturned, and the Supreme Court said they’re not going to hear that case. And Alito wrote a very passionate defense of freedom of speech on this. What are your thoughts on that?

PRAGER: It’s depressing to think that, if this did go to the Supreme Court, it wouldn’t be 9-0, as I said I have no issue — I mean, obviously, I don’t agree on everything liberals believe, but they’re my allies. And liberals need to understand, we are your allies on free speech. That’s why there are so many liberals in our documentary because this is a unity between us. This is a very serious thing that is happening. If so many young people think, “Oh, well, what I think is hate speech, that should be banned” — 2,000 demonstrators against Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley last week? I mean, my God. They can have the furthest radical leftist show up and we don’t do that.

MacCALLUM: Yeah. Dennis Prager. “No Safe Spaces” is the film. I recommend everybody watch it. Thank you very much.

PRAGER: December 6th, goes national. Nosafespaces.com.

The current controversy started [...]]]> On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue to pillory basketball star LeBron James as deeply ungrateful for all the opportunity America has given him. LeBron has supported the corporate line of the National Basketball Association in cowering to the anti-free-speech policies of Red China, and he has done so enthusiastically.

The current controversy started with a tweet from Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey supporting the struggle of Hong Kong to maintain its freedom under the “one country, two systems” agreement to autonomy guaranteed by Beijing in 1997. But Hong Kong is showing a resistance to authoritarian government that scares Beijing.

Below, the message tweeted by Morey, now deleted as being unacceptable to Red China.

Basketball is an American creation, invented in Springfield Massachusetts, but the NBA has adopted ChiCom values of human repression and blocking free speech. The Chinese people like basketball, and NBA teams tour there, making big money. The population of over a billion makes NBA eyes open wide at massive profits to be made, and dumping American principles of free speech seems an acceptable cost to the sports CEOs.

Tucker focused on the NBA and LeBron in his show opener, but he also discussed the increased control the ChiComs have over what we Americans see in our own media, such as movies from Hollywood.

Red China is a real threat to American freedom of speech in the globalized economy, we are late in learning.

Washington should quit immigrating the unfriendlies also. The communist Chinese are famous for stealing American technology and there’s no reason to continue making it easy for them.

TUCKER CARLSON: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. Thirty years goes pretty fast. Thirty years ago, it was the fall of 1989, believe it or not — it seems like yesterday.

And at the time, if you can remember that far back, America seemed unbeatable. Our chief rival, the Soviet Union, had just collapsed. Our economy and military strength dwarfed those of every nation on the planet. America in 1989 was the uncontested leader of the world free and otherwise.

But just three decades later, that advantage has evaporated completely. Instead of expanding and solidifying our power, we’ve wasted it. And as a result, we’re now in the race of our lives against a country that in 1989 was so poor that many of its people could not afford meat or electricity — China. And at this rate, China will beat us.

So the question is, how did America fall so far so fast? And the answer is simple, bad leadership. The people who benefited the most from this country cared about it the least. They were also the quickest to sell it out to foreign powers for profit.

That’s obvious now, thanks to people like LeBron James. James, of course, is one of the most famous athletes in history, but he started off at the very bottom. He was born to an impoverished 16-year-old mother in Akron, Ohio. He never went to college.

And yet, thanks to hard work and remarkable skill, James’s endorsement income alone now exceeds $15 million a year.

If there’s anyone whose life is a tribute to America, to its decency, to its endless opportunity, it’s LeBron James.

In return, he showers America with contempt. Just yesterday, James was asked to comment on the NBA executive who issued a one-line statement in supportive democracy in Hong Kong. Here’s how LeBron James responded:

LEBRON JAMES: I don’t want to get into a word or sentence feud with Daryl — with Daryl Morey, but I believe he wasn’t educated on the situation at hand. And he spoke, and so many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually.

So just be careful what we tweet and what we say, and what we do, even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that, too.

CARLSON: So freedom of speech is just fine says LeBron James, as long as you don’t do anything crazy with it, like I don’t know, obliquely bleakly criticize the Chinese Communist Party. No, that’s out of bounds. It might harm people spiritually.

It also might potentially make LeBron James slightly less rich. And of course, that’s the real problem with it. Think we’re being unfair? Think that’s an unfair interpretation of what you just saw?

Well, according to ESPN, LeBron James has been adamant in his defense of Chinese fascism. Even off camera, watch this.

DAVE MCMENAMIN, ESPN SENIOR WRITER: Adam Silver got up and addressed the players and LeBron James is one of the players who got up and spoke and said, hey, what are we doing here? Daryl Morey made these statements? You know, damn well, if a player made the same similar statements and cause such war ramifications for the league, there’d be some sort of league recourse, there would be repercussions that the player has to pay.

You know, potentially, this tweet could cost the NBA hundreds of millions of dollars, which could come out of the players’ pockets. And so that’s the double standard that was being addressed in that meeting.

CARLSON: In other words, any American who questions China ought to be punished. That’s LeBron James’s view. That’s what he’s demanding, in fact.

The Chinese Politburo must not be criticized, and yet there’s a very different standard that James holds for his own country and his own President. Watch this:

JAMES: That he has kind of used sport to kind of divide us. I would never sit across from him.

CNN ANCHOR DON LEMON: You would never — you won’t talk to him?

JAMES: No. I’d sit across from Barack though.

CARLSON: Yes, that’s the American president he is talking to. Well, if you read James’s Twitter feed, you won’t be surprised to learn any of this quote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” he tweeted once. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Okay, well, obviously, things that matter does not include throwing Muslims in concentration camps in China or the oppression of more than a billion people in China.

So what does matter to LeBron James and his friends in our ruling class?

Well, the first thing they care about is popularity and that’s what they’re delighted to weigh in politically, when it’s fashionable in West Los Angeles bashing the administration or protesting the National Anthem or re-tweeting and supportive transgender rights or whatever.

Their friends call them brave when they do this, which is one of the indications it’s not bravery, it’s conformity, which is the opposite usually.

The other thing that James and the rest care about, of course, is money. When you criticize Beijing, it might cost you money. Here’s a perfect example.

LeBron James is both starring in and producing an upcoming film called “Space Jam 2.” The movie is expected to do big business in China, if it’s released there. And James can’t risk that.

The rest of Hollywood made the same decision many years ago. We used to see occasionally movies that criticize the dictatorship of China or took the side of Tibet. Remember Richard Gere, whatever happened to him? But not anymore. In fact, that’s unimaginable.

You can’t imagine a major Hollywood picture taking the side of Tibet or Hong Kong, or the Dalai Lama or human rights in China, the world’s largest country. No. Instead, studios now grovel for Chinese funding. And if China appears in films at all, it’s always in a positive portrayal.

Meanwhile, Russia, which is a completely an irrelevant country, most of the time is subverting our democracy. That’s what they tell us. This is what corruption looks like.

It’s sad to see the NBA crumble under the big [...]]]> Professional basketball is now a global business worth billions of dollars, and the Chinese population of 1.4 billion consumers is very desirable. Chilling on traditional American free speech principles in order to enter that market is an agreeable deal for NBA executives, we are learning.

It’s sad to see the NBA crumble under the big money offered by the Red Chinese. Basketball is the only sport I enjoy watching, and I used to attend Warriors games here in northern California before tickets required a bank loan.

Remember when the global marketplace was promoted as being wholly beneficial for everyone? It’s easy to believe if you forget about culture.

The position of the Beijing communists is not hard to see. President Trump has smacked them around pretty well, unlike his predecessors, and the Chinese aim now is to smack back.

In the current global struggle, Red China would like to embarrass the United States in any way it can, and humbling the sport invented in Springfield Massachusetts by erasing the free speech connected with it works for them.

As Tucker Carlson remarked during his Tuesday show, the purposeful enrichment of China by American business has not created democratic institutions there. As he summed up, “Instead of exporting American freedoms to China, our ruling class instead imported Chinese authoritarianism here.”

TUCKER CARLSON: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. We live, as you may have noticed, in the age of woke capital. They’re not just selling products, they are selling something more than that, and you see it everywhere.

You see it in every movie, every commercial, every press release from the diversity division of your local HR department. The message is always the same. Companies aren’t just soulless profit seekers, they are more than that. They have values. They have principles. They care. They care probably more than you do.

Once upon a time, corporate America flattered its customers. Now, they dare you to be as virtuous as they are. But is that real? Are they actually virtuous? Or is all of this a cynical pose? We will let you decide.

Consider this, last Friday, Daryl Morey, the general manager of the Houston Rockets basketball team, sent what seemed like a noncontroversial tweet. He wrote this, quote, “Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.” End quote. That’s it.

Now China, as you may have seen on television, is now trying to crush Hong Kong and it’s not hard to pick a side. China, it is rarely noted, but it is true, is a racist ethno-state that bans dissent and murders its political opponents. You think every American would stand with Hong Kong without even thinking about it. But not the NBA.

The NBA is on China’s side. So Morey was forced to delete his tweet. He may in fact lose his job over this. The NBA issued a statement making it clear that under no circumstance do they support Hong Kong or human freedom.

Today, basketball Commissioner Adam Silver emerged to clarify. He repeated the refrain of every person who opposes free speech. Sure, you’re free to say what you think, but you aren’t safe from the consequences.

NBA COMMISSIONER ADAM SILVER: The long-held values of the NBA are to support freedom of expression. Daryl Morey as the general manager of the Houston Rockets enjoys that right as one of our employees. What I also tried to suggest is I understand that there are consequences from that exercise, in essence, his freedom of speech, and, you know, we will have to live with those consequences.

CARLSON: Oh. So, it’s that hard to say that we support freedom against the fascist government of China. Apparently, it is. Steve Kerr is the coach of the Golden State Warriors. On the question of American politics, Kerr, you may have noticed, has no problem speaking his mind. He embraces the hard left social policy that suddenly is so fashionable among rich people. He doesn’t hesitate, for example, to demand the stricter gun laws for the rest of us.

In the words of one fawning media outlet — and there are many — Kerr speaks truth to power. All right. So what truth was Steve Kerr ready to speak to China? Well, none, it turns out. Not a single truth to the government of China.

Choosing between freedom and fascism turns out to be a really confusing choice. Who knows what the right answer is? As Kerr pointed out, it’s really above his pay grade.

WARRIORS COACH STEVE KERR: It’s a really bizarre international story, and a lot of us don’t know what to make of it, so this is something I’m reading about just like everybody is, but I am not going to comment further.

CARLSON: Yes, not going to comment further. It’s a bizarre international story. In other words, Steve Kerr is a phony. He is brave when the crowds applaud, but when money is at stake, he shuts up and obeys like the cowardly little corporate stooge that he is. It is hard to imagine how a man like that can look himself in the mirror at night, and yet he is not alone — hardly.

There are countless Steve Kerr’s in corporate America, all of them happy to sell out their country and lick the boots of their Chinese masters for pay. Activision Blizzard — that’s a major video game company — just banned a top player from one of its games because he gave an interview supporting the demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Just last year, right outside of Washington, the hotel company Marriott fired one of its employees. Why? For liking a tweet that recognized Taiwan as a country. That’s it. That tweet offended China. So Marriott did the bidding of the fascists and fired him. That actually happened.

This is common, by the way. In Hollywood, pandering to China is so common, so flagrant that the show “South Park” produced an entire episode mocking it:

CARTOON MAN: For this movie to really make money, we need to make sure it clears the Chinese sensors, you know, we want those Chinese viewers.

STAN MARSH: Ah, seriously?

CARTOON MAN: It’s okay. There’s plenty of other things to talk about with your story. How about what kind of things were you into when you were younger?

BUTTERS: Well, I always liked Winnie the Pooh.

CARTOON MAN: Okay — no, no, no, no, that’s definitely off limits. Winnie the Pooh is illegal in China because some Chinese students said he looked like the Chinese president.

STAN MARSH: Now come on. That’s ridiculous.

CARLSON: It may be ridiculous, but South Park was banned in China after the episode you just saw. You’ve got to respect its creators for making the episode anyway. And Comedy Central for airing it.

Most companies in America, we are sad to say, would never do that. Why? You know why? China has 1.4 billion people. Companies want access to that market. If it’s a choice between supporting the United States, our country and our people or getting rich from China, it is no contest from any company.

For decades, neoliberals assured us that it was our duty to embrace free trade with China, as the rest of us sat passively by, they allowed China to steal our technologies, snatch up our properties in our cities, driving up rents, decreasing the rates of homeownership and destroying millions and millions of course of our manufacturing jobs.

Making a communist country vastly rich would be worth it, they assured us because China inevitably — these things are always inevitable — would become much freer and more democratic as well. That was inexorable, because capitalism always leads to democracy.

Remember that? They would nod as they said it. They were lying. It turned out to be completely false. Instead of exporting American freedoms to China, our ruling class instead imported Chinese authoritarianism here.

Thirty years later, ordinary Americans are poor, wages haven’t moved, and all of us are less free. But China and our neoliberal elite are a lot richer. It turns out that fascism, whatever you think of it is pretty good for business. That ought to worry you.

Democrat 2020 candidate Joe [...]]]> Liberal governments might want to be less revealing about the sort of America they envision after they have smashed the Trump administration and overwhelmed the Republican electorate with illegal alien voters. A basic value like free speech (Item #1 in the Constitution) is troublesome to leftists and is already under attack.

Democrat 2020 candidate Joe Biden recently demanded that TV networks stop booking Rudy Giuliani which gives a hint about what sort of president he would be regarding the First Amendment.

Similarly, D-candidate Kamala Harris has called for Twitter to suspend the president’s account because of his tweets against the mysterious unnamed “whistleblower” who has accused him of impeachable acts.

These Democrats are picky about the sort of speech they would permit.

On Monday, Tucker Carlson discussed the decision of New York City to ban certain words and phrases — one being “illegal alien” which is the correct legal term. Badthink persons who utter the truth about foreign invaders will be punished severely with a quarter-million-dollar fine.

As Tucker observed, “This is how it begins” — fascism, that is.

(Spare video)

TUCKER CARLSON: New York City is a sanctuary city and that means federal immigration law is ignored there, so the officials do their best to protect illegal aliens, even the criminals from deportation.

New York has created its own category of immigration laws that target not people who are here illegally, but people who are born here like you.

For example, a new decree from the New York Human Rights Commission says that ordinary people can be fined up to a quarter of a million dollars if they use language that illegal immigrants don’t like.

Some of the banned words include asking employees to speak English, threatening to call ICE on illegal building tenants or even using the phrase “illegal alien” which is an official U.S. government phrase, by the way, in a quote, “derogatory way.”

Seth Barron is Associate Editor at City Journal. He joins us tonight.

Seth, the First Amendment, I think it’s right in there in the Bill of Rights. But it’s not operative in the biggest city in the country now?

EDITOR SETH BARRON: Well, it’s still there. But you know, they’re working on it, Tucker. They are working on it.

As you know, the left, they want to control language, because if you can control language, you can control thought, you can control behavior. Now, technically speaking, the new guidance that the Human Rights Commission put out really pertains mostly to, you know, housing, employment and public accommodations. But that’s not how they’ve put it out there.

They have put it out, as you said that using the word “illegal alien”, in a very broad context, is illegal and could get you fined.

CARLSON: But I don’t understand. I mean, how can — I mean, the First Amendment has been interpreted repeatedly by the Supreme Court and definitively in 1967 to protect all speech, except imminent calls to violence. So how in the world does New York get around that?

BARRON: Well, they would say that this is implicit discrimination. So if you’re an employer, and you want to, you know, make sure that your employees or applicants are truly citizens, or truly have work authorization that that would be a kind of a disparate impact.

It’s a wide ranging assault, I will agree with you there.

CARLSON: It’s fascism. So what if I take the train up to New York tomorrow and just stand in Times Square with a bullhorn using the phrase “illegal alien”?

BARRON: That would probably actually get you in trouble because part of the law does cover — I can’t remember exactly what the term, it is like threatening intent or something, basically, discriminatory intent. So yes, if you’re posing any kind — if someone could interpret that as a threat to their safety or a threat of violence, then you could get in trouble.

CARLSON: Right. So this is how it begins. The left conflating speech with violence. I don’t agree with what you’re saying, therefore, I feel threatened, therefore, you’re not allowed to exercise your First Amendment right. I mean, that’s authoritarian.

BARRON: You’ve heard the Drop the I Word campaign. I mean, this has been going on for a while and they have been pushing it. They want the word “illegal alien” stricken from vocabulary, even though as you pointed out, it’s part of the Federal Code.

CARLSON: We should fight this and I don’t care if every HR department in every big company in America signs onto this, which of course they will, we should fight back. Because what’s at stake here is the most basic of all freedoms, which is the freedom to think what you want.

BARRON: Agreed.

CARLSON: Yes. Agreed. Seth, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

One person testifying was Dennis Prager, whose website PragerU has suffered many instances of censorship by Google with no explanation.

PragerU takes on liberal shibboleths, such as the “Nation of Immigrants” myth, which may [...]]]> On Tuesday, a Senate committee held a hearing titled Google and Censorship through Search Engines, a topic long overdue for investigation.

One person testifying was Dennis Prager, whose website PragerU has suffered many instances of censorship by Google with no explanation.

PragerU takes on liberal shibboleths, such as the “Nation of Immigrants” myth, which may anger the far left. (Actually, we are a nation of citizens.)

The educational five-minute videos are aimed at a young audience to fill in the historical gaps left by the liberal education establishment, but the restrictions placed on some items are nonsensical: Mr. Prager learned from the first witness, a spokesman from Google, that the video about the Ten Commandments was put under restriction because it mentioned murder — negatively, of course, but those algorithms are strict!

Seriously, you would think that a major web publisher like PragerU would get responsible human attention.

DENNIS PRAGER: I will take just a moment because my opening comment is under five minutes just to respond on the issue of the Ten Commandments video that was a placed on the restricted list by Google; the representative from Google mentioned that a reason that it would be on the restricted list was that it contains mentions of murder, so I was thinking, I have a solution that will I think appeal to Google. I will re-release it as that the Nine Commandments. That should solve the problem of including murder in my discussion of the Ten Commandments.

And as regards the swastika, yes, there is a swastika; it is again in the commandment of do not murder wherein I show that murder — there are people who believe murder is all right even today, and I use the swastika and the hammer and sickle as two examples. I would think we would want young people to associate the swastika with evil; that was why I had a swastika.

It is an honor to be invited to speak in the United States Senate, but I wish I were not so honored. Because the subject of this hearing — Google and YouTube’s (and for that matter Twitter and Facebook’s) suppression of internet content on ideological grounds — threatens the future of America more than any external enemy.

In fact, never in American history has there been as strong a threat to freedom of speech as there is today.

Before addressing this, however, I think it important that you know a bit about me and the organization I co-founded, Prager University, PragerU as it often referred to.

I was born in Brooklyn NY. My late father, Max Prager, was a CPA and an Orthodox Jew who volunteered to serve in the US Navy at the start of World War II. My father’s senior class thesis at the City College of New York was on antisemitism in America. Yet, despite his keen awareness of the subject, he believed that Jews living in America were the luckiest Jews to have ever lived.

He was right. Having taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College, written a book on antisemitism, and fought Jew-hatred my whole life, I thank God for living in America.

It breaks my heart that a vast number of young Americans have not only not been taught how lucky they are to be Americans but have been taught either how unlucky they are or how ashamed they should be.

It breaks my heart for them because contempt for one’s country leaves a terrible hole in one’s soul and because ungrateful people always become unhappy and angry people.

And it breaks my heart for America, because no good country can survive when its people have contempt for it. I have been communicating this appreciation of America for 35 years as a radio talk show host, the last 20 in national syndication with the Salem Radio Network, an organization that is a blessing in American life. One reason I started PragerU was to communicate America’s moral purpose and moral achievements, both to young Americans and to young people around the world. With a billion views a year, and with more than half of the viewers under age of 35, PragerU has achieved some success.

My philosophy of life is easily summarized: God wants us to be good. Period. God without goodness is fanaticism, and goodness without God will not long endure. Everything I and PragerU do emanates from belief in the importance of being a good person. That some label us extreme or “haters” only reflects on the character and the broken moral compass of those making such accusations. They are the haters and extremists.

PragerU releases a five-minute video every week. Our presenters include three former prime-ministers, four Pulitzer-Prize winners, liberals, conservatives, gays, blacks, Latinos, atheists, believers, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and professors and scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford and a dozen other universities.

Do you think the secretary-general of NATO, or the former prime-ministers of Norway, Canada, and Spain, or the late Charles Krauthammer, or Philip Hamburger, distinguished professor of law at Columbia Law School, would make a video for an extreme or hate-filled site? The idea is not only preposterous; it is a smear.

Yet, Google, which owns YouTube has restricted access to 56 of our 320 five-minute videos and to other videos we produce. “Restricted” means that families that have a filter to avoid pornography and violence cannot see that video. It also means that no school or library can show that video.

Google has even restricted access to a video on the Ten Commandments, as we have seen. Yes, the Ten Commandments.

We have repeatedly asked Google why our videos are restricted. No explanation is ever given. But, of course, we know why. Because they come from a conservative perspective.

Liberals and conservatives differ on many issues. But they have always agreed that free speech must be preserved. While the left has never supported free speech, liberals always have. I therefore appeal to liberals to join us in fighting on behalf of America’s crowning glory – free speech. Otherwise, I promise you, one day you will say, “first they came after conservatives, and I said nothing, and then they came after me. And there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Thank you.

Below, the face of America’s Pol Pot: in 2015 communication professor Melissa Click at the University of Missouri called for “muscle” to eject a badthink student [...]]]> Free speech has been in decline for years on American campuses as extreme leftist censorship has taken hold. Speaking one’s mind in the most basic ways is now verboten.

Below, the face of America’s Pol Pot: in 2015 communication professor Melissa Click at the University of Missouri called for “muscle” to eject a badthink student journalist from her protest zone — she was later fired.

President Trump recently pledged to cut federal funding to universities if they don’t support free speech, which will set up major ideological stresses, as Victor Davis Hanson pointed out in a discussion with Tucker Carlson. But there is big money involved, so the academy will be forced to adjust somewhat by using weasel words but certainly with no change of heart.

Audio version:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars.

TUCKER CARLSON: That was the President over the weekend at CPAC. American colleges once had the freest speech in the world and that was directly related to the fact they were the best in the world. Now American higher education is increasingly dominated by fascists who tolerate but a single set of ideas. The President’s executive order presumably will seek to change that. It’s unclear exactly what it will say. Well, obviously we’ll follow it.

In the meantime, Victor Davis Hanson is a college professor himself. He is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of the new book, “The Case for Trump,” which is out tomorrow. He joins us tonight.  Professor, thanks very much for coming on. Congrats on the book.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Thank you very much, Tucker.

CARLSON: So what do you think this executive order is likely to say? What should it say?

HANSON: Well it’s trying to restore some balance on campuses and it functions, I think at two levels. Politically it sort of forces the parents of free speech and that’s what the Democratic Party says they are going back to the Berkeley free speech era and the ACLU.

It says you have to be for free speech, but if you’re going to follow Trump’s executive order, that you have to be for Trump. They can’t be for Trump, but anything Trump says, he’s for they’re against. But to be against Trump is against free speech, so how do they square that circle?

I think the way they do it is through Orwellian language, so what they mean is free speech is hate speech because you could be cruel to some group and censorship is called trigger warnings, segregation as safe spaces and having some skepticism that man-made global warming is sort of creationism or denialism.

So in their way of and I’m saying they’re going to make these efforts, Tucker, because there’s $26 billion dollars at stake in federal support for higher education, so they’re going to be for free speech. It’s just not what you and I and most Americans call free speech.

CARLSON: So, I am a little bit confused. So obviously, higher education is destroying the country. It’s feeding this poison into the bloodstream making young people hate themselves, hate the country, not educating people and leaving everyone in debt, so it’s a disaster. Why wouldn’t the President unilaterally to the extent he could you just shut down federal funding for it until they do this and a lot of other things to make it a serious sector once more?

HANSON: They will and I think he will try to do that and I’m thinking, I’m hoping he’s successful like you are, but I think what they’re going to say is, “Oh we believe in free speech,” but people who want to engage in free speech say mean things, so we can’t let them hurt people and we believe — we don’t believe in censorship, but Mark Twain can be insensitive, so we’re going to trigger warning or not read certain passages or we believe in integration of course in the Civil Rights Movement, but we feel that it’s too hurtful for people so they have separate racially segregated dorms and that’s how they operate.

They change the language and they think that by changing the language, they change reality, so then they come back to Trump and they think, we solved the problem. We can beat for free speech and we can be against Donald Trump because that isn’t really free speech. It’s trigger warnings and micro aggressions and safe spaces and denialism. That’s what they do and I don’t think they’re going to be able to pull it off, but they’re in a very bad predicament, Tucker.

This is the party of the left that is going to have to oppose a motion to ensure free speech.

CARLSON: Well, it’s bewildering to those of us over 40; I hope they push this really hard. Professor, thank you for joining us tonight and again, congrats on your book.

As [...]]]> The left’s censorship is a worsening problem these days, since the liberal overlords of Silicon Valley and beyond demand that the little people to conform to their globalist open-borders worldview. Liberal censors insist, for one thing, that their foolishly idealized view of diversity be obeyed as gospel, even when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

As a result of the harassment, critics of sharia and its parent ideology political islam have gotten a lot of trouble. Not only are their lives in danger because of murderous jihadists — Dutch freedom fight Geert Wilders has required 24/7 security for years — but critics who cite chapter and verse of the koran’s commands for violence against infidels often have their sources of financial support shut down.

Arguably top on that list is author Robert Spencer who has been informing the free world about the threat of aggressive sharia for years through his many books and website JihadWatch.org.

Robert Spencer appeared with Tucker Carlson a year ago about being dropped by PayPal.

Lurking in the background and pulling strings is the fake hate spotter the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that has parlayed bogus accusations against honorable people into a multi-million-dollar empire. These days, the left is working to impoverish conservatives by cutting off normal means of making donations such as Paypal.

Robert Spencer described his struggles in a recent video that was derived from an article in PJ Media:

Robert Spencer: The Left Moves Fast to Silence Me, By Robert Spencer, PJ Media, August 27, 2018

First Alex Jones was banned by nearly all the social media giants. Then Twitter banned Gavin McInnes. Then Facebook blocked Dennis Prager’s Prager University videos, although it later backtracked and apologized. Then Patreon and GoFundMe banned me, and make no mistake: you may dislike Jones, McInnes, Prager, and me, but this isn’t over. The Left is moving quickly now to silence all dissent, and there is no telling who could be next. It could be you.

Patreon started the ball rolling when they deleted the account I had started to raise funds to renovate an old TV studio, which I had hoped to use for Jihad Watch videos. Patreon gave me no explanation for banning me other than that MasterCard had demanded that they do so, and the only explanation from MasterCard was published in Breitbart News:

A Mastercard spokesperson responded to a Breitbart News request for comment with the following statement. “As part of our normal process, we share information about websites that may have illegal content with the acquirer — or merchant’s bank — that connects them to our network to accept card payments. The acquirer would then review the site for compliance with legal requirements and our standards. They would then determine what action to take. In this case, the acquirer advised us that they decided to terminate acceptance.”

What “illegal content”?

Which website — Patreon or Jihad Watch? All I had at Patreon was a video stating my hopes to rebuild the studio, and a notice about an upcoming livestream. At Jihad Watch, all we have are news articles, almost all from mainstream news sources, with commentary. To what “illegal content” is MasterCard referring?

It is not (yet) illegal in the United States to criticize Islam and to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. It is, however, illegal to do so under Sharia. Is MasterCard operating according to Sharia blasphemy laws now?

Shortly after that, I started a GoFundMe page to make up for the loss of Patreon. But after a few days, GoFundMe canceled my account and refunded all the donations. GoFundMe sent me this explanation:

It seems you’re using WePay [GoFundMe’s service to pay those who receive donations] for one or more of the activities prohibited by our Terms of Service …

WePay is unable to process payments related to Hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime, or items or activities that encourage, promote, facilitate, or instruct others regarding the same.

There was, of course, no further explanation.

It’s very clear what’s going on. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims that I am a “hate group leader,” and that’s that: when the SPLC says “jump,” Patreon and MasterCard say “how high?”

Indeed, the SPLC’s infallibility in such matters is taken for granted by all the social media giants as well. This is despite the SPLC’s massive admission of error in the Maajid Nawaz case, in which they paid a $3.3 million settlement to a Muslim reformer they accused of being an “anti-Muslim extremist” (which is what they call me). The SPLC’s far-Left political agenda, in lumping legitimate groups in with the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis in order to discredit and destroy them, is also obvious.

But GoFundMe, like Patreon and MasterCard, allowed me no appeal, no discussion, no questioning of the SPLC’s fiat.

And of course, it isn’t just the SPLC. It is now taken for granted by large segments of the American population, and by innumerable people elsewhere, that to oppose jihad mass murder of innocent civilians and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others is “hate” — or as GoFundMe puts it, “Hate” with a capital “H.”

I remember how flabbergasted I was in 2003 when I was on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann and Ibrahim Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR, and Hooper called me a “hatemonger.” I thought, “It’s ‘hate’ to oppose jihad terror? That will never fly.”

But it has. And the outcome will be that more and more people will be afraid to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression for fear of incurring these charges, and this discrimination and libel.

I’m going to be doing what I can to challenge GoFundMe’s uncritical acceptance of the SPLC’s smear of me, and the likely same uncritical acceptance by MasterCard/Patreon. But the SPLC has hundreds of millions of dollars and I don’t. And many who don’t realize how vulnerable they are will applaud what is happening to me because they don’t realize or believe how easily the same tactics can and will be turned on them. But they will be.

This is getting very serious. It won’t stop with me. After my adventures with Patreon and GoFundMe, MasterCard and Visa stopped processing donations for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, with which I am affiliated, although they backtracked after an outcry.

Despite this small victory, it is clear that the Left is moving quickly to silence all dissenting voices in the run-up to the 2018 elections. The freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society, and it is rapidly being destroyed in the United States. Not only are Horowitz, and me, and Jones, and Prager, and McInnes being silenced — the pressure on the credit card companies shows that the Left is now trying to make sure that we cannot make a living, and will be quite literally destroyed, personally as well as professionally.

There will be more victims. This totalitarian action needs to be stopped quickly, or it will destroy all who are not doctrinaire Leftists — and, without any doubt, the United States as a free society.