Back In The USSA! | Call Me Stormy

https://callmestormy.net/2021/09/18/back-in-the-ussa-2/?amp=1

Nearly half the U.S. public thinks those jailed for the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol are political prisoners, according to a Rasmussen poll. Thirty percent strongly agree, while 42 percent strongly disagree. Surprisingly, 45 percent of Democrats agree with with the assessment. With such sentiment penetrating our nation, how can a free republic move forward and survive?

Mayor Says Resign-It’s Porn! – The Marshall Report

https://diannemarshallreport.com/mayor-says-resign-its-porn/
Ohio Mayor tells school board members to resign or ‘be charged’ after a judge confirmed that their high school college-credit course was ‘child pornography’! Hats off to Mayor Craig Shubert of Hudson, Ohio, for taking action against the members of the city’s board of education! “It has come to my attention that your educators are…

‘Treason If True’: Trump Lashes Out At Gen Milley Over Claims Of China Dealings “Behind The President’s Back”

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/14/treason-if-true-trump-lashes-out-at-gen-milley-over-claims-of-china-dealings-behind-the-presidents-back/
‘Treason If True’: Trump Lashes Out At Gen Milley Over Claims Of China Dealings “Behind The President’s Back” Update (1906ET): President Trump has responded to claims that Milley had a back-channel with his Chinese counterparts and would warn them of any impending attacks. “If the story of “Dumbass” General Mark Milley…is true, then I assume…

NSW Supreme Court hears mandatory COVID-19 vaccine challenges – ABC News

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-09/supreme-court-hears-covid-order-challenges/100445878

Barrister Jason Harkess, acting for the plaintiffs in
one matter, revealed there would be “extensive arguments” about the
interpretation of the section of the Public Health Act under which Mr
Hazzard made orders.

“The presumption that the
Parliament would not have intended to give the Minister the power to
breach the right to bodily integrity without clear legislative authority
is likely to be the primary argument advanced by all three plaintiffs,”
he said…

Dr Harkess said two international experts, an immunologist and vaccinologist, would compile reports, making the “safety, efficacy and ultimate
reasonableness of compulsory vaccines” a central issue…

Australian Court Overturns Dismissal Of Anti-Israeli Professor – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/05/australian-court-overturns-dismissal-of-anti-israeli-professor/

Facebook

There is an important ruling on academic freedom out of Australia where one of the most controversial academic figures in the country secured a ruling from a federal court to overturn his dismissal by Sidney University. Professor Tim Anderson was fired after inserting a swastika in the middle of an Israeli flag and posting a picture of a lunch in which one of the guests wore badges that said “Death to Israel” and “Curse the Jews” written in Arabic. The lower court found that the academic freedom promised Anderson upon his hiring was unenforceable and largely aspirational. The ruling (below) found an enforceable standard, though this does not end the long controversy over Anderson’s status.

Anderson, a political economist, is an extremist voice in Australian political debates. He has criticized for pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli statements as well as remarks deemed anti-Semitic. He appears to have a tolerance for some of the most blood-soaked authoritarian regimes in the world with controversial visits to places like Syria and North Korea.

Anderson has been repeatedly accused to violent crimes in support of his views. In 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years for an alleged conspiracy to bomb the house of a far-right political figure as part of Ananda Marga, a socio-spiritual organization. After seven years in prison, he was released and later pardoned. In 1989, he was arrested again and convicted of three counts of murder for planning the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. However, that conviction was overturned on appeal in 1991.Despite his radical and allegedly violent past, Sidney University hired Anderson and, as part of the “Enterprise Agreement,” the university agreed to Clause 317 to “uphold the principle and practice of intellectual freedom in accordance with the highest ethical, professional and legal standards.”

That brings us to Anderson’s latest controversy. Anderson caused an outrage when he posted an image that included an Israeli flag with a swastika over it. It is a deeply offensive and disgraceful image. Anderson deserved to be roundly condemned for the posting but the Court correctly noted that this is still the expression of his view Israeli policies:

“Consider the PowerPoint presentation in more detail. It is the Israeli flag superimposed with the swastika which is the issue. Everything else in the PowerPoint presentation involves the expression of a legitimate view, open to debate, about the relative morality of the actions of Israel and Palestinian people. Dr Anderson is making a public comment asserting that the concept of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian people who attack Israel is false, in part, because of an asserted higher number of deaths of civilian Palestinians in Gaza from purportedly “precision attacks” by Israel compared to an asserted far lower number of deaths of people in Israel from purportedly “indiscriminate” attacks by Palestinians. He is including Israel within a long history of colonial exploitation by one political entity over another weaker entity or people. It does not matter whether this comparison may be considered by some or many people to be offensive or insensitive or wrong. As discussed, offence and insensitivity cannot be relevant criteria for deciding if conduct does or does not constitute the exercise of the right of intellectual freedom in accordance with cll 315 and 317.”

What is most notable for American civil libertarians is the references to academic freedom rather than free speech. In the United States, this would be viewed as a free speech question, particularly if committed by a state school. However, the construct is due to the contractual promise of academic or intellectual freedom afforded to faculty. That leaves an issue for renewed litigation as made clear by how the court addressed the lunch issue:

“277 The contrary submissions for the appellants are not persuasive. Insofar as the issue is one of connection to employment, it does not matter that Dr Anderson was not under any duty to post photographs or anything else on social media. He chose to do so in the described circumstances which create the sufficient connection to his employment. It does not matter that the posting of a social event does not “obviously” constitute public debate. The photo was made public and includes Mr Tharappel, an academic colleague of Dr Anderson’s at the University (see J [17]), wearing a jacket with the badge saying, in Arabic, “Death to Israel”, “Curse the Jews” and “Victory to all Islam”: J [220]. These are political comments connected with Dr Anderson’s academic work as an employee of the University. It does not matter that Dr Anderson was on leave or on about to be on sabbatical. He was still an employee of the University. It does not matter that the lunch photo was not captioned. The badge worn by Mr Tharappel spoke for itself. It does not matter that Dr Anderson made no comment about the badge. Dr Anderson chose to post the lunch photo on his Facebook account. It does not matter that in attending the lunch and posting the lunch photo Dr Anderson was engaging in a personal social activity. A person can be both engaging in a personal social activity and conduct themselves in a manner connected to their employment.

278 The question whether the University gave Dr Anderson a lawful and reasonable direction to remove the lunch photo depends on whether the lunch photo in fact constituted misconduct or serious misconduct which the primary judge did not decide. If it was in fact misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was lawful and reasonable. If it was not misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was unlawful and unreasonable.”

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as saying Anderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as sayingAnderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

Here is the opinion: NTEU and Anderson v University of Sydney [2021] FCAFC 159.

35 repatriated after Coast Guard stops Cuban migrants off Key West, Marathon – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale

Comment by tonytran2015: Why cannot Cubans claim to be political refugees?

https://wsvn.com/news/local/florida/35-repatriated-after-coast-guard-stops-cuban-migrants-off-key-west-marathon/

NZ terror attack: Ahamed Aathill Mohammad Samsudeen

Comment by tonytran2015: Why didn’t some person fleeing Sri Lanka go to any nearer countries such as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh ?

https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/terrorist-who-stabbed-6-people-in-nz-named-20210904-p58otd.html

…Samsudeen’s refugee status was granted on December 20, 2013 after a tribunal found he had a well-founded fear of facing harm if he returned
to Sri Lanka…

Another instance of FBI anti-Trump sentiments rocks Whitmer kidnap plot case

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/04/another-instance-of-fbi-anti-trump-sentiments-rocks-whitmer-kidnap-plot-case/
Agent who called former president ‘a piece of sh-t’ on social media precluded from testifying. Go to Source Author: {Just The News}… Read more

The complications from sex reassignment surgery are horrific – but in today’s trans-activist world, we can’t talk about this — RT Op-ed

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/533792-gender-reassignment-surgery-gruesome/

A culture of silence and fear stops people learning what really
can happen when you undergo ‘sex change’ operations. The trans lobby
tries to portray it as easy and straightforward – yet it’s anything
but…
There is an unspoken price
being paid for the fashionable transgender theories of our day. There
are unseen victims, invisible, though in plain sight. They are hidden
because their supporters believe too blindly, and their detractors write
them off, and their misery is facilitated by a lack of open discussion
and a censorship of the facts.

These victims get overshadowed by
the concerns of the general public who are caught in a culture war, by
the parents who lose children to this strange and manufactured dogma,
and by the disinterested innocents subjected to bewildering
pronoun-usage and terrible Netflix adaptations.



Also on rt.com
Parents shouldn’t have a ‘veto’ on children’s trans medical decisions? Should we let the kids smoke and drink too?

These hidden victims are the young transgenders
themselves, who are led to believe so strongly that they can ‘change
their sex’ that they undergo sex-reassignment surgery, only to find
themselves not just disappointed by the result, but horrified.

These
are true victims, in the sense that many of them suffer horrific and
irreversible physical damage and pain, which often leads to them
committing suicide.

You
may have heard of these high rates of suicide among transgender people.
What many people are not aware of is that this suicide problem is not
predominantly due to social rejection, bullying, or self-doubt. It is
due to the complex, unnatural, and somewhat shady nature of the surgery
involved in ‘sex changes,’ and its after-effects. I will focus in this
article on the male-to-female cases, as the list of complications in
these operations is long and harrowing.

It should go without
saying at this point that a person cannot really change their sex; it
comprises your genetic make-up at the molecular level (XX/XY genes). A
man who seeks to become a woman will never have a baby. The surgeon’s
knife is not a ‘magical’ transformation, it is a complicated cosmetic
operation, changing one’s outward appearance. It is a complex, fraught
rearranging of flesh.

Many young people today believe (and are
being taught) that they can elect their sex like they choose an item of
clothing, and go through with ‘surgery’ that will wholly transform them.
Often the result leads to disappointment, and there are many stories of
regret, and of (too late) reticence just before committing to the
operation. These stories are unfashionable to the ears of gender-theory
enthusiasts, who wish to forever believe that sex is a fluid and
insubstantial thing, and can be easily changed.

With male-to-female surgeries, post operative complications occur
at a rate of 32.5% (that is a one-in-three chance of complication),
and there is a re-operation rate of 21.7%. This is insanely high for any
kind of medical procedure, let alone considering this is an elective
surgery, and one that is performed, generally, on healthy, functioning
bodies. They now call it ‘gender affirmation surgery’ so that even the
language is deceptively adapted to sound positive and non-threatening.

In this sense, medical ethics and genuine concern (not virtue signalling) for these young people appears to be out the window.

GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING

It
is not often discussed (likely because it is not a topic for the
squeamish) exactly what are the common complications resulting from
modern sex-change surgeries. If you can bear it, I will attempt to
elucidate a few of the male-to-female complications, while seeking not
to be overly graphic. Those who are faint of heart may wish to stop
reading here.

The patient’s “neovagina” is partly constructed
from an inverted scrotum and penis, therefore any hair-bearing skin used
for the “neo-urethra” can cause
chronic infection and obstruction. In vaginoplasty, failure to perform
preoperative or intraoperative hair removal can lead to inaccessible
hair deep within the vagina. This can result in a hairball, which can be
a nidus for debris and infection.Infections are common and known to be
incredibly painful, according to sufferer accounts.

There
is no natural lubrication for a neovagina. In a procedure called
colovaginoplasty, a lubricant is sourced by opening up the abdomen and
using part of the colon to join the gap and make the vagina. The
lubrication comes from the bowel, and is constant (not based on
arousal). Post-op patient questions vary from, ‘Is it dangerous for my
partner to ingest this lubricant?’, to ‘Will I need to wear a pad
forever?’ (Often, yes).

Another complication
is known as a Rectoneovaginal Fistula, which is an ‘abnormal connection
between the rectum and neovagina’. The result is that the neovagina
begins to secrete fecal matter, resulting in permanent diaper-wearing.
There are many difficulties that can arise when you decide to open a new
hole in your pelvis that was not there naturally.

Sufferers have
complained about ‘never being able to have sex again’ – in some ways an
odd complaint after making the decision to castrate yourself. Another
common complaint is the necrotising of the neovagina, where the
constructed vagina (or portions of it) simply dies off.

The
surgery in general requires perpetual clinical follow-up and post-op
monitoring, as well as a lifetime reliance on estrogen and other
medication.

The wider trans community and the wealthy trans lobby
do not want any such negative information about transgenderism to get
out. They maintain that it is impossible to tell the difference between a
vagina and a negovagina, but this is not true. Many who undergo the
procedure learn the hard way that they have caused irreversible damage
to themselves, and their suicide rates are astronomical. There are many
stories of chronic pain and tissue necrosis that are either too graphic
to relay, and there is too much fear of censorship and legal threats
from the trans lobby for sufferers to speak out.



Also on rt.com
Tyrannical trans activists are trampling on free speech and democracy… and losing support in the process

The sad result of this is that many confused kids, often
encouraged by virtue-signalling parents and teachers, are being led down
the path that leads to these horrors. Nobody seems to care about the
realities that await them, that there is a very high chance their lives
will be ruined and they will suffer great pain and remorse. Yet the
gender theory activists still pretend that you can easily change your
sex with surgery.

These people require rigorous mental health
treatment, real role models, and a society which does not encourage them
to mutilate themselves.

Democrats Tuck Female Draft Into Defense Bill

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/02/democrats-tuck-female-draft-into-defense-bill/
The Pentagon will have to start drafting women in order to receive funding after House Democrats amended the defense budget. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D., Pa.) put forward a measure on Wednesday to require all women over the age of 18 to register for selective service. Houlahan said her policy would best draw on the “talents…