Lawsuit: Minnesota Students Can Be Expelled For Saying Men And Women Are Different
The student says the potential for disciplinary action is 'always at the back of [his] mind' when he discusses a controversial topic.The student says the potential for disciplinary action is 'always at the back of [his] mind' when he discusses a controversial topic.How David Keene’s Charisma Served The Right — And Kept Me Out Of A Soviet Gulag
The conservative movement was fortunate to have had David Keene as one of its leaders and is better for it. We will miss him greatly.Liberals' twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll
It has long been abundantly clear that there is a strong appetite for political violence and ideological uniformity on the left. A new Young America's Foundation poll released on Tuesday indicated that this is indeed an intergenerational problem.
Shortly after the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Echelon Insights conducted a YAF survey of 1,021 registered voters ages 18-29 nationwide.
On the topic of Kirk's murder on Sept. 10, respondents were asked which of the following two statements they agreed with more: "There is absolutely no justification for murdering someone over their viewpoints" or "Kirk's viewpoints mean he brought this violence upon himself to an extent."
Seventy percent of respondents answered that there was no justification for murdering a person over his views. While 90% of conservatives and 75% of moderates answered that there was no justification, 42% of self-described liberal respondents suggested that Kirk had it coming.
'Three in ten young voters, however, say violence might be justified in some instances to shut those types of speech down.'
Young liberals' responses to a follow-up question helped clarify that a great many just don't want conservatives to be able to articulate their views in public.
When asked whether they believed "we are better off when strongly conservative viewpoints are able to be voiced and shared in the public square," 53% of liberals said conservative viewpoints should be "shut down or kept out of the public square."
RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America
Only 49% of all respondents supported expressions of conservative viewpoints in public. The statement lacked majority support in part because only 75% of conservatives indicated that society was better off when their viewpoints were not shut down in public.
Although young liberals majoritively favor censorship, YAF noted that a significant percentage of all respondents are far from absolute in their support for free speech.
"Fewer than half of young voters think that negative statements toward racial or ethnic groups or celebrating acts of violence should be protected as free speech — 42% and 48% respectively — and roughly 60% believe such expression should be reportable to employers," noted YAF spokesman Spencer Brown. "Three in ten young voters, however, say violence might be justified in some instances to shut those types of speech down."
Other polls in recent months and years have similarly highlighted the violent and censorious mentality that possesses so many on the left.
A Marist Poll conducted in late September found that 10% of Democrats strongly agreed and another 18% agreed with the statement that "Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track."
A survey conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab revealed in April that 55% of respondents who identified as left of center said that assassinating Trump would be at least somewhat justified.
RMG Research asked American adults in the wake of the September 2024 attempt on President Donald Trump's life whether the country would "be better off if Donald Trump had been killed last weekend?" While 69% of respondents said no, 28% of Democrats answered "yes."
The desire on the left to see consequence visited upon those who refuse to ideologically fall in line was also manifested during the pandemic, when a poll found that 45% of Democrats strongly or somewhat favored "having federal or state governments require that citizens temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Illegal immigration is a cancer': Iranian student sues California college, claiming staff stifled free speech
An international student from Iran is suing a California college for allegedly threatening him with punishment over some political statements.
Matin Samimiat claimed administrators from Golden West College took issue with comments about illegal immigration, men in women's sports, and the Israel-Palestine war.
'I left Iran to enjoy the amazing freedom that the United States offers.'
Samimiat and fellow student Annaliese Hutchings reportedly caused controversy with their booth at Golden West's Club Expo in February in Huntington Beach, California. The booth, which Samimiat operated with the conservative organization Young America’s Foundation, displayed a "change my mind" sign that encouraged students to engage in debate with him and Hutchings.
However, it was not anything Samimiat said that caused an issue with the school. Rather, statements written on a whiteboard in front of the booth allegedly caused the stir.
The board read: "Being an American is a privilege and we should all be thankful for it," "Illegal immigration is a cancer upon any society in the world," and "Men do not belong in women's sports and spaces."
RELATED: Rubio wages war on foreign free-speech tyrants with visa ban
According to the College Fix, the board also labeled Hamas a "terrorist organization" that must be "wiped from the face of the earth."
These statements were apparently enough for Stephanie Smallshaw, Golden West's director of student life and leadership development, to reach out to Samimiat to request a meeting.
Samimiat and Hutchings, along with YAF, were named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit that claimed to provide details of the meeting Smallshaw had with the students.
The lawsuit alleged that while Samimiat and Hutchings were advised the meeting was informal, it was meant to serve as a "courtesy warning."
The lawsuit further alleged that Smallshaw told the students they would be disciplined if they continued writing similar statements as they did on the whiteboard. Smallshaw allegedly claimed the statement regarding illegal immigration "dehumanizes a group of people and compares them to a deadly disease."
Regarding the Hamas statements, Smallshaw allegedly told the students, "You can't use language that can incite violence and encourage the killing of a group of people."
Golden West College and Smallshaw did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
RELATED: Texas takes aim at free speech — with a Republican trigger finger 
Samimiat told the College Fix that he left the Middle East and came to the U.S. to avoid such things.
"I left Iran to enjoy the amazing freedom that the United States offers. Now I find myself threatened with punishment for expressing political opinions — because they happen to be opinions that administrators don’t like."
Political commentator Ian Miles Cheong told Blaze News that while some schools have faced bans on international student visas, students like Samimiat seem to "understand what it means to be an American" and should not face discipline.
"Isn't the whole point of college to educate students on how to think critically? It's obvious that college administrations, who wield so much power over what happens and what people say on campus, are terrified of some members of the student body," Cheong added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Young Americans for Freedom taking Biden-Harris admin to court over race-based scholarships
The student organization Young Americans for Freedom is taking the Biden-Harris administration to court over a scholarship and career advancement program it claims discriminates against Americans on the basis of race.
According to the federal lawsuit filed this week by the Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of two students and YAF's University of North Dakota chapter, the $60 million Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, which supports around 6,000 students annually, gives preferential treatment to a "list of favored racial groups."
Noticeably missing from that list are Caucasians, Asians, Jews, Arabs, and other students who fail, through no fault of their own, to "fit into a narrow exception for first-generation low-income students," said the lawsuit, which names both the DOE and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona as defendants.
According to the Biden-Harris Department of Education:
Students who qualify for McNair must be enrolled in a degree-granting program at an eligible institution. In all projects, at least two-thirds of the participants must be low-income, potential first-generation college students. The remaining participants may be from groups that are underrepresented in graduate education.
Races listed as "underrepresented" are black, Hispanic, Alaskan Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander.
'Why are we continuing to separate and divide students?'
Those McNair scholars whose dermal pigmentation and ethnicity are to the satisfaction of the Democratic administration can apparently receive an internship stipend worth thousands of dollars along with mentorship and other academic opportunities.
"The McNair Program's racial eligibility requirements are unconstitutional," said the lawsuit. "By using 'race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens,' the McNair Program violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection."
The two individual plaintiffs named in the suit are Avery Durfee, a white female student at the University of North Dakota, and Benjamin Rothhove, a white male student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, both of whom allegedly discovered they were ineligible for the program on the basis of their race.
Durfee said in a statement, "I've worked unbelievably hard throughout my undergraduate career and have wanted to go to graduate school my entire life. Being told that I didn't qualify for the McNair program because I'm white seemed completely wrong. This sends the wrong message to young Americans everywhere."
Rothove noted that he was devastated to learn he was ineligible for the program because of his race.
"This is the 21st century," said Rothhove. "Why are we continuing to separate and divide students?"
This suit, like other recent legal actions targeting similar racist, federally linked initiatives, cites the U.S. Supreme Court's June 29, 2023, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC banning race-based college admissions.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted, "The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race."
"Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin," continued Roberts. "Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."
WILL's lawsuit specifically accuses the Biden-Harris DOE of violating the equal protection guarantee under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
"Denying a student the chance to compete for a scholarship based on their skin color is not only discriminatory but also demeaning and unconstitutional," YAF president Scott Walker said in a statement. "At YAF, we proudly defend our students' right to be judged on their merit and abilities, not on race."
Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at WILL — a conservative law firm that has been taking the Biden-Harris administration to task for years over its discriminatory programming — said, "WILL continues its march through Biden-Harris radical DEI programs."
"We have already heard that the administration knows they can't win in court, and so, one by one, we will terminate these discriminatory, taxpayer-funded efforts," added Lennington.
This is not the first time that the McNair program has been dragged over its race-based criteria.
Last year, the Legal Insurrection Foundation's Equal Protection Project filed a civil rights complaint with the DOE's Office of Civil Rights over the McNair program's implementation at the University of Colorado.
"We bring this civil rights complaint … for supporting and promoting a scholarship program that engages in invidious discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin," said the complaint.
According to the the Equal Protection Project, the McNair program is funded by federal dollars and is therefore subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. As a result, it is prohibited from intentionally discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
WILL's lawsuit also comes amidst a broader societal campaign to kneecap discriminatory corporate policies, particularly those executed in the name of DEI.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'There is nothing feminists hate more than family' — and the Sunday Times’ article on Ballerina Farm PROVES it
When Liz Wheeler first heard about the hugely popular homesteading influencer Hannah Neeleman, more commonly known as Ballerina Farm, she didn’t pay much attention to the hype, as it seemed to revolve around inconsequential matters, such as Neeleman competing in a beauty pageant 12 days postpartum.
But in the wake of the Sunday’s Times recent defamatory article “Meet the queen of the ‘trad wives’ (and her eight children),” Liz has gleefully hopped on the Ballerina Farm bandwagon.
“I'm all about this woman,” she says, lambasting the author of the Times piece, Megan Agnew, as a “bitter, agenda-driven, man-hating, disrespectful, derogatory feminist.”
And when you read even a handful of the remarks Agnew made about Neeleman and her family, it’s easy to see that Liz’s anger is righteous.
EXPOSED: The WORST Thing That Happened at Ballerina Farmwww.youtube.com
The author “deliberately, falsely portrayed Hannah as unhappy, falsely portrayed her marriage as unequal, falsely portrayed her children as annoying, falsely portrayed her life as unfulfilled, her life as fake because Hannah's life is family. And there is nothing feminists hate more than family,” says Liz.
In the article, Agnew took jab after jab at Daniel Neeleman, Hannah’s husband, painting him as the domineering alpha-male type. Liz cites the following excerpt as an example:
“Our first few years of marriage were really hard, we sacrificed a lot,” she says. “But we did have this vision, this dream and —” Daniel interrupts: “We still do.” What kind of sacrifices, I ask her. “Well, I gave up dance, which was hard. You give up a piece of yourself. And Daniel gave up his career ambitions.”
I look out at the vastness and don’t totally agree. Daniel wanted to live in the great western wilds, so they did; he wanted to farm, so they do; he likes date nights once a week, so they go (they have a babysitter on those evenings); he didn’t want nannies in the house, so there aren’t any. The only space earmarked to be Neeleman’s own — a small barn she wanted to convert into a ballet studio — ended up becoming the kids’ schoolroom.”
The passage captures the tone of the entire article.
“Cultural hegemony” is what Liz sees when she reads Agnew’s insults.
First coined by Marxist Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist Party, cultural hegemony refers to how a governing body captures various institutions in order to shape and control the culture, the end goal being that the governing class’s worldview becomes the cultural norm.
“The Marxist left cannot stand if a man and a woman are happily married, if they are fulfilling traditional gender roles — the woman is having babies, the husband is providing and running a business — if they're homeschooling their children, if they are happy,” says Liz.
If you need further proof, look no further than Agnew’s brazen acknowledgement of her irritation at not being able to get Hannah Neeleman alone.
“I can’t, it seems, get an answer out of Neeleman without her being corrected, interrupted or answered for by either her husband or a child. Usually I am doing battle with steely Hollywood publicists; today I am up against an army of toddlers who all want their mum and a husband who thinks he knows better.”
“What an absolutely nasty article,” says Liz in disgust, adding that the piece proves that “feminism is a pernicious fraud that hates women.”
“When women choose to be feminine — like Hannah Neeleman — choose to be wives, choose to be mothers and actually like it, feminists' heads explode.”
“Nobody will more viciously gut a happily married mother — who's happy with those choices — than a feminist who thinks nobody should be allowed to be fulfilled by doing what God created women to do,” Liz condemns.
To hear more of her analysis, watch the clip above.
Want more from Liz Wheeler?
To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Universities Are Canceling Commencement. Students Should Skip It Anyway
I did a lot of stupid things in college. Skipping my commencement ceremony on the National Mall is not one of them.Trump reportedly plans to skip GOP debate and do interview with Tucker Carlson
Reports indicate that former President Donald Trump plans to skip the first GOP presidential primary debate and do an interview with conservative media figure Tucker Carlson.
Trump has determined to skip the debate, NBC News reported, citing two sources aware of his thinking. The outlet reported that Trump is seeking an interview with Carlson.
"We haven't confirmed anything on our end," a Trump campaign spokesperson noted when questioned about Trump's plans for next week, according to the outlet.
The New York Times reported that, according to individuals briefed on the issue, Trump plans to upstage the GOP primary debate by doing an interview with Carlson. According to two individuals briefed on the situation, Trump has informed individuals close to him that he has determined to skip the debate, the Times reported.
Trump is by far the most popular Republican presidential candidate, according to polling, so his absence would almost certainly lead to lower interest in the debate.
Trump has been publicly questioning why he should participate in the debate when he is already walloping the competition.
"Many people are asking whether or not I will be doing the DEBATES? ALL AMERICANS have been clamoring for a President of extremely High Intelligence. As everyone is aware, my Poll numbers, over a 'wonderful' field of Republican candidates, are extraordinary. In fact, I am leading the runner up, whoever that may now be, by more than 50 Points. Reagan didn't do it, and neither did others. People know my Record, one of the BEST EVER, so why would I Debate? I'M YOUR MAN. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
The debate is slated to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on August 23 and will be moderated by Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum of Fox News. "The RNC is proud to announce the @FoxNews Republican Primary Debate with Partners @YAF and @RumbleVideo," the Republican National Committee tweeted in April.
Carlson previously hosted a popular primetime program on the Fox News Channel, but the show was abruptly eliminated from the evening lineup earlier this year. Carlson later launched a new show that is unaffiliated with Fox News, releasing episodes directly on Twitter.
Axios reported earlier this year that Fox News had issued a cease-and-desist letter to Carlson. But Carlson has continued creating content and releasing it on the social media platform.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Leftists steal teen preacher's Bible, eat pages of it to protest Matt Walsh event at University of Wisconsin
Leftists protesting a recent event featuring anti-transgenderism activist Matt Walsh at the University of Wisconsin stole a copy of the Bible from a street preacher who was exercising his First Amendment rights. At least one protester then desecrated the Bible further in a rather unique way: by eating some of its pages.
On Monday, a hundred or so protesters gathered at the campus in Madison, Wisconsin, to express their ire that Walsh, a conservative with a different viewpoint about transgenderism, was extended an invitation to speak and to screen "What Is a Woman?", his wildly popular documentary exploring the dangers associated with so-called gender transition.
Many of the protesters engaged in rather common leftist protesting tactics: defacing monuments and buildings, chanting obscene and illogical rhymes, and harassing those who express Christian values.
However, at least a handful of protesters went beyond harassing one street preacher. They stole his Bible and began tearing pages from it. At least one rotund protester was so enticed by the pages of Scripture that she chose to use them as a mid-afternoon snack.
The incident was caught on the video below. The unnamed female, whom the Daily Wire inadvertently identified as a "male," with bright pink hair stuffs the pages of Scripture into her mouth at around the :04 mark, just before she is obscured by another female protester in black:
\u201cProtestors have now shredded The Bible and one began eating pages\u201d— YAF (@YAF) 1666649131
The mangled Bible in that video once belonged to Nick Proell, a local teenager who attended the event to share his faith and the love of God with protesters.
"It was my personal study Bible that I used every single day," Proell stated. "At church, at Bible study, to preach, you name it."
Proell added that he had purchased that Bible late last year for about $100. He said he brought it with him to the event so that he could try to guide "sinners who love their sin and hate God" to abandon their sin and turn to Jesus instead.
He also believes that transgenderism is antithetical to God and godly creation.
"God uniquely chooses who we are and what our purpose is. He decides if we’re a man or a woman, not us," Proell explained. "Men weren’t designed to chop off their penises and call themselves women. It’s a foolish thing to try and play God."
Needless to say, that message was not well received by the protesters, who chanted "sexist, racist, anti-gay, Christian fascists go away" and "eat s***, f*** you" at the Christians across the street.
TheCollegeFix: Trans activists, Christians clash over ‘What is a Woman’ youtu.be
Proell admitted that he put the Bible down briefly while distracted by the crowd, and the next thing he knew, it was gone.
In addition to the Bible, Proell alleged that protesters also stole upwards of $1,000 in A/V equipment, including a camera, batteries, chargers, and a microphone.
Matt Walsh responded to the leftist protests and vandalism with a few stern messages of his own. First, he condemned UW administrators for "apologizing to the vandals and taking their side," a move that Walsh described as the "worst cowardice [he'd] ever seen by a university."
Then, Walsh made a direct pitch to his fellow countrymen.
"Well, you can be on the side that eats the Bible and castrates children," he tweeted, "or you can be on literally any side but that one. Your choice, America."
\u201cWell, you can be on the side that eats the Bible and castrates children, or you can be on literally any side but that one. Your choice, America.\u201d— Matt Walsh (@Matt Walsh) 1666649285
The UW chapter of the Young America’s Foundation hosted the Walsh event.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com