Insider exposes how the ACLU became CORRUPTED



In the late 1970s, Skokie, Illinois, was home to tens of thousands of Jews, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. That’s when the National Social Party of America, which self-identified as Nazis, planned a march against them.

Shockingly, the American Civil Liberties Union came to the defense of these Nazis and their First Amendment rights.

“Even card-carrying ACLU members resigned in droves, saying, ‘We support free speech, but this goes too far,’” Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU tells James Poulos of “Zero Hour,” adding, “The ACLU lost 15% of our members.”

“Even though that case was a loser in the court of public opinion, including among ACLU members, it was an easy winner in the courts of law because of that bedrock viewpoint neutrality principle: Government may never punish speech solely because its viewpoint is loathsome and loath,” Strossen continues.


The ACLU even defended the 2017 Unite the Right demonstrations in Charlottesville, because there was no evidence that any violence was planned. However, while the ACLU has historically come to the defense of free speech, there have been some changes recently.

“I’m going to acknowledge again the kind of shift that I acknowledged earlier, and it’s a generational shift,” Strossen says. “Younger cohorts within all of these institutions that had traditionally supported free speech, academia, journalism, publishing, ACLU librarianship, etcetera, every indication, including surveys, show that the younger you get, the less supportive people are of classical free-speech values.”

“You see that even in the legal profession, so at some point, that dwindling support for classical liberal free speech values may affect the judiciary as well,” she adds.

Poulos believes that what’s been laid at the feet of younger generations must be seriously protected.

“I think it’s increasingly clear that these things do need to be defended, we do need a broad coalition to defend them, and if we don’t, it’s just not going to be America anymore,” he says.

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Free speech and football: Why they matter and why you should be thankful for them



Free speech and football represent the best aspects of America: unapologetic individuality.

In Canada, neither football nor free speech are particularly popular. While Canadian football remains a protected sport (there have been talks of an NFL team in Toronto for decades; good luck), it truly has one of the most bizarre sets of rules of any professional league in the world.

Have you ever heard of a "rouge"? Watch this embarrassing end to a CFL game where the teams kick the ball back and forth to each other until the clock runs out.

While football has a mixed origin story that involves both America and Canada, the NFL flows better, is more exciting, and involves far less kicking than the CFL. One can claim the CFL is more traditional or is charming in its rule book, but the fact remains it is just not as good as American football.

Therefore, the NFL and its American football predecessors reflect exactly what makes American great: taking something good and making it better.

When the Founding Fathers left the drudgery of Europe to make a new country, a new Constitution, and a new way of life, they simply made a better-functioning society, with a superior rule of law.

This, of course, is best reflected by the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There exists no other nation in the world where free speech is enshrined in law — not before the formation of the United States and not after. This concept may seem odd or even outrageous to the average American, but a quick news search reveals a backward set of speech laws in every nation that is a close U.S. ally.

In Canada, human rights tribunals act as kangaroo courts, where a panel of unknowns determine the fate of a citizen accused of bigotry or hate. One of the most famous cases, for example, happened when Canadian comedian Mike Ward was ordered to pay $42,000 for insulting the appearance of a disabled person during a comedy show.

A few years prior, a Toronto comedian was fined $22,500 by a different tribunal for insulting a lesbian at a comedy show. More recently, a woman in the United Kingdom was investigated for "inciting racial hatred" because of a post she made on X a year prior. Police called it a criminal matter, as opposed to the sometimes used "non-crime hate incident."

Down under, Australian legislation seeks to make it a crime to use "vilifying" speech. This would be on top of current racism legislation that makes it a crime to "offend" or "insult" someone based on ethnicity. There are other aspects of the law that are more redeeming, but with 49% of respondents in a recent survey supporting "new measures to protect people from hate speech" in Australia, there may be more clamoring for less speech.

These instances, while indeed laughable, are often frightening for people in these countries.

Imagine walking down the street, fearing arrest for a conversation you might be having. This is a very real possibility in some of the most like-minded countries to the United States.

This is why I am thankful for America, for free speech, and for real football.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Karma is a b****': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH



Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an esteemed epidemiologist and professor of health policy at Stanford University, refused to accept the premise advanced early in the pandemic by medical establishmentarians and lawmakers that lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking for kids, and other ruinous COVID-19 policies were the best ways to prevent infection and get back to normal.

Although he and other principals behind the Great Barrington Declaration were ultimately vindicated, at the time, he faced incredible abuse. President Joe Biden's former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins conspired to issue a "quick and devastating takedown" of Bhattacharya's criticism while many of the professor's peers personally attacked him. Adding injury to insult, Bhattacharya was censored online.

This prime target for suppression by the current administration is now the nominee to serve as director of the next administration's National Institutes of Health.

'The hammer of justice is coming.'

"I am thrilled to nominate Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, to serve as Director of the National Institutes of Health," President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday evening. "Dr. Bhattacharya will work in cooperation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to direct the Nation's Medical Research, and to make important discoveries that will improve health, and save lives."

Dr. Bhattacharya said that he was "honored and humbled" by the nomination and vowed to "reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again and will deploy the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again!"

Trump's selection was widely celebrated, especially by those critical of Democratic censorship as well as the scientific establishment's deadly and credibility-destroying hostility to alternative viewpoints.

"I'm so grateful to President Trump for this spectacular appointment," tweeted Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services. "Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is the ideal leader to restore NIH as the international template for gold-standard science and evidence-based medicine."

Blaze News editor in chief Matthew J. Peterson wrote, "This is what winning looks like right here. @Dr.JBhattacharya in this role is right and just. The hammer of justice is coming. The era of blackpilling is over. We live in a new era — a new @frontier_mag_. Pick up your shield and sword and get ready to rumble."

'It will be a major step forward to have an NIH Director who will fight science fraud and repudiate science fraudsters.'

Matt Kibbe, the BlazeTV host of "Kibbe on Liberty" and "The Coverup," which recently featured Bhattacharya, stated, "Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to Covid. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH, and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a b****."

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "It will be a major step forward to have an NIH Director who will fight science fraud and repudiate science fraudsters. Rather than an NIH Director — like former NIH Director Francis Collins — who prompted science fraud and rewarded science fraudsters."

Earlier this year, Bhattacharya joined Ebright and other scientists in seeking accountability from those scientific journals that happily published "unsound scientific papers" by Fauci, disgraced EcoHealth Alliance boss Peter Daszak, and elements of their inner circle that downplayed the likely lab-leak origins of COVID-19 during the pandemic.

BlazeTV host Steve Deace, responding to the fact that Bhattacharya is poised to take over the job of a man who recently sought to destroy his reputation, wrote, "Do not be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will always reap what he sows."

Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which suggested that geriatrics and other higher-risk groups should engage in shielding, whereas healthy individuals should "immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." Healthy individuals, it suggested, would be better off catching the virus and developing natural immunity. This greatly angered elements of the medical establishment who preferred coercive medicine, blanket lockdowns, and school closures.

Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense."

Scores of other so-called experts claimed in a response published in the Lancet, the "John Snow Memorandum," that the call for herd immunity and other proposals raised in the declaration were dangerous and unscientific. The memo was signed by thousands of scientists and endorsed by the Federation of American Scientists.

Extra to facing criticism from his peers, Bhattacharya was censored online. Reporting from Elon Musk's "Twitter Files" revealed that under previous management, the platform put the professor on a "Trends Blacklist," ensuring that his tweets would be suppressed, including his suggestion that pandemic lockdowns were harmful to children.

'All were suppressed.'

Bhattacharya was among the individual plaintiffs who joined the states of Missouri and Louisiana in taking legal action against President Joe Biden, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Anthony Fauci, and various Biden administration officials. The case — Missouri v. Biden,which became Murthy v. Missouri — exposed some of the ways the Democratic administration colluded with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices and criticism of COVID-19 policies.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty noted that the Biden administration

used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden's policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power.

"All were suppressed," wrote Doughty. "It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech."

While the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately let the Biden administration off the hook, claiming that "the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant," the lawsuit helped paved the way for Kennedy v. Biden as well as Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al., a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by vaccine-injured Americans.

'Make America Healthy Again!'

The ruling also helped emphasize the difference between Biden and Trump.

Bhattacharya noted on X following the court's ruling, "The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like."

"This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech," continued Bhattacharya.

The candidate promising to protect free speech and hold censorious tech companies accountable ultimately won the day, putting Bhattacharya in a position where, if confirmed, he is unlikely to again be shut up and shut out.

"Together, Jay and RFK Jr. will restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America's biggest Health challengers, including our Crisis of Chronic Illness and Disease," Trump noted in his announcement. "Together, they will work hard to Make America Healthy Again!"

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Bhattacharya will oversee the world's top medical research agency, its $48 billion budget, and 27 institutes and centers.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Orwell would be proud’: UK investigating journalists under NEW ‘non-crime’ law



Free speech might be going strong in the United States, but the U.K. is only becoming more Orwellian by the day.

U.K. police have not only investigated a writer for a deleted post and a journalist for a tweet she posted in the wake of the pro-Palestinian protests, but also jailed a woman for nine months for livestreaming allegedly racist comments.

“Allison Pearson is the journalist; she’s actually just been let off by the Essex police. That story specifically was that a year ago in November, just after the October 7 massacre, she was in London and at a pro-Israel event and mistook a flag, which she though was a Hamas flag, which was actually a Pakistani, Imran Khan, his political party flag, and she said, ‘Oh, they’re Jew-haters,’” Winston Marshall tells Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report.”


Pearson deleted the tweet once her mistake was pointed out to her, but that didn’t stop the police from spending a year investigating her.

“She’s investigated, and we have this thing called a ‘non-crime hate incident,’” Marshall continues, while Rubin interjects, “Orwell would be proud.”

“Orwell was moderate compared to what’s going on,” Marshall argues. “A ‘non-crime hate incident,’ this isn’t a real crime. It’s if someone perceives you to be spreading hatred, and how they define hatred is different in every bloody country.”

“If someone perceives you to be offensive to someone, even if you’re not the person being offended, you can log a non-crime hate incident,” he continues, adding, “This week, a 9-year-old was booked by the police for calling another classmate a ‘r*tard’.”

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Target apologizes after employee was allegedly fired for signaling her Christian faith



Target has apologized and reportedly offered to reinstate a North Dakota employee who claims she was fired for writing "trust in Jesus" in marker on her name tag.

Target vows on its corporate site to "make decisions regarding employment opportunities, including hiring, promotion and advancement, without regard" to religious beliefs and states it wants a company "where all feel seen, heard and welcome."

Denise Kendrick of Fargo was seen and then made unwelcome on Nov. 16 by the DEI-captive organization.

Kendrick told KVLY-TV that a manager approached her and informed her that she "can't wear that name tag."

'I've seen people with rainbows on theirs.'

This came as a surprise to Kendrick because she had worn Christian-themed T-shirts for months to work allegedly without incident in the super-majority Christian state.

Kendrick noted in a video on her YouTube channel, "For several months, I had been wearing my red T-shirts that I ordered myself, my Christian red T-shirts, OK. I didn't wear the he/she/they/whatever T-shirts that Target supplied. I wore my own and never had any problem the whole entire time that I worked there."'

Besides an apparent absence of backlash from customers, Kendrick indicated that the "trust in Jesus" note was her equivalent to other employees' name-tag displays of belief and ideological affiliation.

"I replied, 'Well, I've seen people with rainbows on theirs. I’m going to continue to wear this name tag,'" Kendrick told KVLY. "And then they said, 'Well, you can't work here any more.'"

'The darker it gets, the brighter our lights should shine.'

According to Kendrick, when she asked for a written explanation detailing why exactly she was fired, the manager refused and instead provided her with a list of contact information pertaining to the company's dress code policy.

"They gave me this paper with all these phone numbers on it and said, 'If you have any questions about the violation of the dress code, just call one of these numbers,'" Kendrick told KVLY. "And he just kept repeating it, and we just kept going back and forth, and it was going nowhere."

The incident may have been triggered by the intolerance of a customer. Prior to her termination, Kendrick claimed she saw a visible member of the LGBT community, whom she served as cashier earlier in the day, communicating with the "HR lady."

On Tuesday, a spokesman said in a statement obtained by KVLY, "Upon learning of the situation, we conducted a review and determined that the team member should not have been terminated. We apologized to her and offered to reinstate her immediately."

"We are taking the appropriate steps to address the actions taken by the individual leader involved in this situation and are working with the store to ensure our policies are appropriately followed moving forward," added the spokesman.

Kendrick noted in a video on her YouTube channel, "Following Christ, you know, means taking up our cross every day and standing on the truth, guys. Now more than ever, OK, the darker it gets, the brighter our lights should shine."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Trump Can Convert A Key Identity Politics Agency Into A Tool For Equality Under The Law

Americans’ most basic civil rights have never been more in need of robust legal protection.

Michigan Senate Democrats Push To Ban Unapproved Election Speech

Michigan Senate Democrats are trying to ban making a 'false statement or misrepresentation' about elections.
Crowd Roared for Joe Rogan’s Response to Trump Hugging Him at UFC Event

Crowd Roared for Joe Rogan’s Response to Trump Hugging Him at UFC Event

Chuck Schumer Just Sparked A Massive Free Speech Debate After Sliding Antisemitism Act Into Defense Bill

'Would not protect Jewish students'

NFL Fines Player For MAGA Hat After Paying Kaepernick Millions Over His Kneeling Stunt

The NFL only wants to give the appearance of allowing the players freedom of expression while controlling which messages can be expressed and which can’t.