The Digital Threat to Free Expression

google-facebook-apple-spotify-big-tech-censorship-640x480

Recently, in a series of unprecedented moves on the part of four major social media platforms, free expression was deliberately brought to a halt.

That the thwarting of the free expression in question took place on the same day adds to the alarming nature of the action by the digital powers that be.

Alex Jones’s InfoWars content was banished from Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify. The move appears to have been a coordinated effort.

The removal of the content was evidently motivated by a desire to rid the platforms of supposed hate speech. However, the same platforms continue to display pages that have far more incendiary and/or offensive content than InfoWars posted.

Provocateur Jones’s site was a convenient quarry for tech companies to begin their purge of content that they subjectively deem undesirable.

However, tech giants have laid down a track record that indicates they cannot be trusted to maintain a fair venue for the marketplace of ideas.

Approximately 70 percent of the people within our country now obtain their news from Google and Facebook. Additionally, the major tech concerns have a virtual stranglehold on the manner in which billions of people around the globe communicate.

Truth be told, there has never been a more massive concentration of media power than that which is squarely in the hands of Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, and a smattering of other internet companies.

As digital companies go about the business of justifying censorship, many are looking for solutions via regulation.

Restraints on speech imposed by private companies are not protected by the First Amendment, and companies do not have a legal obligation to provide freedom of speech to their users. While internet companies were once fierce advocates of free expression, this is unfortunately not the case anymore.

Being larger than many governments of countries throughout the world, the tech giants act in a quasi-governmental manner when they eliminate or limit speech within their internet province.

Some have proposed turning the big tech giants into public utilities. Others have urged breaking up the companies through the use of anti-trust law, a logical idea when considering that the major tech firms have essentially become a monopoly with no significant competition, e.g., Google’s dominance of the internet video market and Facebook’s rule over the social media sector.

British Prime Minister Theresa May recently suggested that social media platforms be treated like news organizations, which would render them responsible for content appearing on their platforms.

Rep. Steve King has recommended revisiting the law that shields internet companies from being treated as the publisher of content users’ posts, thus restoring legal responsibility for defamatory and other tortious or criminal content that is published. The Iowa congressman is referring to a statutory provision that made the current internet social media landscape possible: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Publishers of content are typically liable for the material they disseminate, even when the content originates from individual unpaid contributors, such as a “letter to the editor.”

In 1996, when the web as we know it was still in its infancy, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. An amendment to the original bill, Section 230, stated, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

The statute protected Internet providers from being deemed news organizations and gave legal immunity to the tech companies, ostensibly to foster industry growth and freedom of speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court stripped away much of the bill in 1998, but Section 230 was left unscathed.

Later precedents interpreted Section 230 broadly so that digital platform companies could grow exponentially, without serious concern for illegal speech placed on their platforms. And grow they did, to become the gargantuan companies that they are today, complete with secret algorithms that render selected users invisible. At the start, the young companies would not have been economically feasible minus the provision.

The law also prevents liability in the event “objectionable” material is removed. If the companies do choose to eliminate offensive user-created content, their immunity is not forfeited.

These massive companies are essentially being treated by the law as if they are still mere startups. Although many in the tech community see Section 230 as sacrosanct, i.e., not to be touched, the provision was modified by a bi-partisan coalition in Congress earlier this year. President Trump signed legislation amending Section 230 in April 2018, denying some legal immunity to internet platforms in order to fight sex trafficking.

More carve outs of the statute, or the threat of such, will get the attention of the tech giants and perhaps motivate them to return to the free and open platforms they once wanted to be.

Advertisements

Rebel Comics Rock, Seinfeld, Allen, Miller, and Brooks Speak Out

hwc4dxxwwrrz5jboo32v7edabq

Chris Rock has recently been attacked by the left because he tweeted some words of praise for his comedic colleague Jerry Seinfeld.

In his tweet, the comedian and filmmaker included a link to an article from The Federalist, titled “Seinfeld’s ‘Comedians In Cars’ Is A Welcome Respite From The Insufferable Wokeness Of Comedy.”

“Wokeness,” or the abbreviated “woke,” is the term that is being used by the so-called resistance movement to describe an individual or group’s commitment to oppose President Donald Trump.

Author of the article Ellie Bufkin argues that the value in Seinfeld’s show is that its emphasis on being funny, as opposed to actively engaging in leftist political messaging, “has created a wonderful escape from the political insanity of our day…”

As pointed out in the article, Seinfeld had been chastised by the Vulture website and others for not inserting “woke” politics into his show. Bufkin and Rock were essentially commending Seinfeld for not joining the ranks of the numerous late-night Trump bashers who in today’s cultural climate are delivering patently predictable comedy to their audiences night after night.

Further infuriating the left, Rock concluded his tweet with the following words: “Thank God for Jerry.”

Meanwhile comedic actor Tim Allen told Entertainment Weekly that the current politically correct restrictions imposed on public expression are posing an actual danger for comedians.

“It’s a very icy time. I’ve been a comedian for 38 years and I’ve never seen it, like Lenny Bruce said at the Purple Onion, ‘we’ve gone backwards,’” said Allen, whose series “Last Man Standing” is set for a return to television in September on FOX.

“There are things you can’t say. There are things you shouldn’t say. Who makes up these rules? And as a stand-up comic, it’s a dangerous position to be in because I like pushing buttons. It’s unfortunate,” Allen added.

Humor is an important relief valve for individuals as well as the whole of society, and in a cathartic manner allows people to observe new and differing perspectives on potentially polarizing topics. It is therefore critically important to examine the left’s penchant for weaponizing identity politics and the degree to which the strategy has resulted in the serious side effect of silencing laughter itself.

Human response to comedy is uniquely spontaneous. Comedian, actor, and best-selling author Dennis Miller wrote, “Laughter is one of the great beacons in life because we don’t defract it by gunning it through our intellectual prism. What makes us laugh is a mystery — an involuntary response.”

Today’s late-night comedians are often comfortable operating joke free, no longer seeking laughs but instead pursuing applause via material that panders to their like-minded niche audiences. In the same interview in which Rock told New York Magazine that he gave up performing at colleges due to hyper-political correctness on campuses, he talked about the manner in which technology and social media spur comedians to censor their own material.

Stand-up practitioners have a particularly pressing need to try out their material before exposing it to a larger audience.

“It is scary, because the thing about comedians is that you’re the only ones who practice in front of a crowd. Prince doesn’t run a demo on the radio. But in stand-up, the demo gets out. There are a few guys good enough to write a perfect act and get onstage, but everybody else workshops it and workshops it, and it can get real messy. It can get downright offensive,” Rock said.

The prevalence of smart phones, which have the capacity to record and share, has altered the way reactions to stand-up presentations are communicated.

“Before everyone had a recording device and was wired…, you’d say something that went too far, and you’d go, ‘Oh, I went too far,’ and you would just brush it off. But if you think you don’t have room to make mistakes, it’s going to lead to safer, gooier stand-up. You can’t think the thoughts you want to think if you think you’re being watched,” Rock added.

In comedy clubs back in the day, when members of an audience were offended, they simply got up and left the club. Today if someone does not like a joke, the outrage over the offending material can easily be spread in geometric fashion to an enormous number of people via social media.

Social media at the present time is extremely unfriendly to any attempts at being funny that do not fit within the strict parameters of the politically correct crowd, who are on an endless hunt for PC violators. With the advent of Twitter mobs, some of which are artificially enhanced, humor is routinely being re-labeled as hate speech.

In a recent interview with the U.K. Telegraph, legendary filmmaker Mel Brooks warned the world that society’s “stupidly politically correct” sensibilities will lead to the “death of comedy.” Brooks explained that political correctness is “not good for comedy,” since “comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks.”

Surprisingly, Brooks believes that his iconic western parody “Blazing Saddles” could not co-exist with the current climate because it has a racial theme within the plotline.

Once upon a time rational people discussed whether or not humorous content had crossed into the territory of being too offensive.

Today, however, with digital monitoring, persecution via social media, and the constant addition of favored groups that can never be the subject of comedic material, humor is in danger of becoming extinct.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations against Les Moonves Stun Hollywood

djis2e_uwaar4-y

Ronan Farrow, who already won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the Harvey Weinstein story, has now unveiled another detailed account, which involves alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the singular most powerful and influential media executive in the world, Les Moonves.

According to Farrow’s New Yorker article, six women accuse the chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation of various forms of sexual harassment and intimidation, and dozens more claim that they suffered abuse at the company as well.

Farrow’s piece also documents a culture of sexual harassment at CBS, focusing specifically on CBS News, the former employer of another figure who had a career end due to sexual misconduct allegations, Charlie Rose.

The account by Farrow includes allegations of physical intimidation and threats to derail careers, which took place during the mid-1980s through 2006.

Among the accusers is actress Illeana Douglas, who claims that, when she attended a 1997 meeting with Moonves, he “violently” kissed her while holding her down.

“The physicality of it was horrendous,” Douglas said.

The CBS board of directors indicated in a statement that it would investigate any allegations of misconduct and further indicated that the claims would “be taken seriously.”

Moonves himself acknowledged in a statement that he “may have made some women uncomfortable by making advances.” He expressed immense regret for what he characterized as “mistakes.” However, he otherwise denied all of the claims in Farrow’s story.

Farrow’s article also contains sexual harassment allegations against a group of CBS News executives, including the former head of the news division and current executive producer of “60 Minutes” Jeff Fager. According to Farrow, CBS News executives were promoted, despite allegations of sexual misconduct that ended in settlements. Fager also responded that the allegations against him are false.

Moonves, according to Forbes, has a net worth of $700 million and is one of the highest paid CEOs, with a yearly compensation of close to $70 million.

The CBS head has been in a public tug-of-war with Shari Redstone, who has been urging CBS to merge with Viacom following the current media consolidation trend. Redstone owns a controlling 80 percent stake in CBS and Viacom via her family company.

Moonves has resisted Redstone’s proposal and has done so in court. In May 2018 CBS filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent a merger of the network with Viacom, accusing Redstone of breaching her fiduciary duty to CBS shareholders. The case is set for trial in October 2018.

From Redstone’s perspective, as well-heeled tech firms have bought into the entertainment space, studios have sought to merge with telecommunications companies, including ATT/TimeWarner and Comcast/Universal, and other entertainment media concerns, e.g., Disney and Fox.

Moonves has led CBS to a number one spot with regard to a broadcast network and a transformed it into a very profitable company. The success is primarily due to Moonves’s uncanny ability to pick winning television programming. He is, after all, the individual who when serving as president of Warner Bros. Television, green-lighted “Friends” and “ER.” And during his tenure at CBS, “Big Bang Theory,” “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “Survivor,” and “CSI” were launched.

The CBS head is concerned that revenues at Viacom have been headed downward and a move to combine companies would hurt earnings.

The litigation as well as the outcome of the trial, coupled with the sexual misconduct claims, are placing Moonves’s career in jeopardy. If the allegations are deemed by the board to be genuine, it is highly likely Moonves will be asked to step down, which, in turn will make it more probable that Redstone will be able to obtain her goal of a recombined CBS/Viacom.

Some media outlets have questioned the timing of the sexual misconduct charges, which have occurred not only in the middle of the company’s public legal dispute but two weeks ahead of the annual shareholder meeting and mere months before the trial begins.

This has led to Redstone’s representative releasing a statement, which puts forth a denial that Redstone had any involvement with the release of Farrow’s report.

“The malicious insinuation that Ms. Redstone is somehow behind the allegations of inappropriate personal behavior by Mr. Moonves or today’s reports is false and self-serving,” the statement read.

Ironically, Moonves has been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement and is a founding member of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, which was formed in late 2017 and is headed up by Justice Clarence Thomas’s chief accuser, Anita Hill.

Roseanne Is Back with an Unfiltered Internet Show

roseanne-barr

Samantha Bee used a terribly profane pejorative to describe the president’s daughter, and Whoopi Goldberg treated an established legal professional and Fox News host in a reprehensible manner.

Neither television personality suffered any real fallout for their inappropriate and offensive behavior.

In stark contrast, as a result of a single tweet posted during personal non-working hours, Roseanne Barr had her television series taken away from her.

As a testament to her resilience, Roseanne has decided not to abandon her audience or surrender the opportunity to speak her mind.

The comedic actress is coming back, and she has a brand new way to reach out to her fans. She is working on a new talk show with son Jake Pentland, who told Radar Online, “We are doing our own stuff for now.”

Pentland has his own production studio where he has been filming interviews with mom-host Roseanne.

For the time being, Rosanne’s guests consist of family and friends, but she plans to bring in a variety of interesting people to discuss certain eclectic topics about which she herself is passionate.

In early July, Barr revealed that she had been given offers for new television projects. With the record ratings that her show had achieved and the prominent name recognition she enjoys, it makes sense that entertainment companies would be interested in featuring her in some sort of TV project.

“Inside every bad thing is a good thing waiting to happen,” Roseanne said in an interview on a podcast hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

“I feel very excited because I’ve already been offered so many things and I almost already accepted one really good offer to go back on TV, and I might do it,” she added.

ABC recently greenlighted a spinoff titled “The Conners,” which is essentially the “Roseanne” reboot without the show’s headliner.

Roseanne told Boteach that she gave up her contractual rights to the show to ABC and, in an unusual move for a Hollywood personality, did not ask for any money as compensation.

“I thought signing off of my own life’s work and asking for nothing in return, I thought that was a penance,” Roseanne said.

Wanting to keep the cast and crew working, she essentially sacrificed her own interests to do so. She had previously canceled what was to be a television interview during which she intended to discuss the loss of her show.

“After a lot of thought, I decided that I won’t be doing any TV interviews, too stressful & untrustworthy 4 me & my fans,” Roseanne tweeted.

“I’m going to film it myself & post it on my youtube channel in the next week-the entire explanation of what happened & why! I love you all-sign up & get ready,” she added.

Roseanne wrote that she was planning to post video footage, which would explain “what happened and why,” and how a single tweet caused Disney/ABC to cancel her highly successful reboot.

She also hinted that her show would be free of the usual entertainment company bureaucracy that filters out controversial content.

“I’d like to speak directly to you, the people, and cut out any middlemen who use for clickbait/ad revenue while seeking to divide rather than unite,” Roseanne wrote, asking her fans to email questions to be answered by her on her YouTube channel.

She is now posting videos on her revived channel, filmed in a facility that she refers to as “my own studio, where I’m able to speak for myself to my fellow and sister Americans without the filter of the biased media.”

In one of her recent video posts, she speaks about the tweet that led to her losing her show, ranting during the footage, “I’m trying to talk about Iran! I’m trying to talk about Valerie Jarrett about the Iran deal. That’s what my tweet was about.”

Indicating that she thought Jarrett “was white,” Roseanne used a common hip hop term for a woman in reference to the former White House aide under President Obama. After repeating the statement, Roseanne ends the segment by defiantly smoking a cigarette.

Roseanne follows this up with another video in which she explains what she believes is the real reason that she was fired by Disney/ABC. She indicated that she made an offer to the ABC brass that she would appear on daytime TV shows such as “The View” to explain her tweet.

According to Roseanne, within about 40 minutes her “show was canceled before even one advertiser pulled out” and she “was labeled a racist.” Consequently, she was denied the chance to publicly apologize.

Roseanne proceeded to reveal what tens of millions of people already knew, but still needed to hear.

“Why, you ask? Well, the answer is simple. It’s because I voted for Donald Trump and that is not allowed in Hollywood,” Roseanne said.

Social Media Memes Obscure Bombshell Revelations in Strzok Testimony

peter-strzok23

Peter Strzok is the former Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI. He is the same individual who led the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit use of a personal email server.

Strzok became Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position within this division. He led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and was part of the investigative team on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel probe.

Strzok recently testified before two House committees about the explicit and clear animus that he expressed toward then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. He did so while simultaneously showing his utter devotion for then-candidate Hillary Clinton, via tens of thousands of text messages with his then-paramour FBI attorney Lisa Page.

Under the oversight function with which Congress is charged, it must determine whether the manifest bias exhibited in Strzok’s text messages influenced his work on three very important investigations, ones that rank among the most serious in modern history.

After the testimony of the FBI agent had been completed, the social media was abuzz with memes that consisted of pictures and video footage showing some rather bizarre facial expressions and body movements on the part of Strzok.

The memes had a potentially negative effect in that, rather than enlightening the public, they served to detract from the substance of Strzok,s testimony.

Meanwhile most of the mainstream media avoided acknowledging points made by GOP representatives and continuously painted Strzok as a victim of Republican persecution.

As if they had torn a page from the Alinsky playbook, Democrats did their best to obstruct and disrupt the hearings with rapid fire interruptions, incessant points of order, and countless motions, timing their outbursts to those moments when Strzok was asked a probing question.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen had the gall to talk about a desire that Strzok be given a Purple Heart for his work on the investigations, which was a serious insult to members of the armed forces who have received this distinguished honor.

The Democrats, their media allies, and broadcast television’s late-night hosts portrayed Strzok as a hero, ignoring how he attempted to explain away as mere joshing texts that called residents of Loudoun County, Virginia “ignorant,” and that the smelling of Trump supporters in a WalMart merely meant that he was aware of their presence.

The “we” in “we would stop Trump from getting elected” was supposedly a reference to all of the American people, and according to his testimony, Strzok wrote and sent tens of thousands of texts in which he did not say what he meant.

Even though Strzok was taken off the Mueller investigation for bias, according to Sztrok’s answers bias did not exist, but instead he was removed because of the “appearance of bias.”

Lost amid the strange footage of Strzok, which rapidly spread across the social media landscape, two bombshell revelations were unearthed that were new to the public and the press. The first occurred during questioning by Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert and came immediately after an exchange in which Democrats went into hysterics over Gohmert questioning Strzok as to whether he wore the same grin when he lied to his wife about having an extramarital affair.

Although the outburst by the Democrats sounded rather rehearsed, it did manage to distract from the pertinent information that was about to be exposed. Via his questions to Strzok, Gohmert revealed that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) had informed Strzok that forensic analysis of metadata from Hillary Clinton’s email had indicated that over 30,000 of Clinton’s emails had been forwarded to the email address of a known hostile foreign entity, and that this entity was not Russia.

Gohmert stated that Frank Rucker, an ICIG investigator, presented the forensic findings to Strzok but no action whatsoever was taken by Strzok to pursue the significant intelligence matter. Strzok acknowledged having met with Rucker but claimed that he could not recall the “specific content.”

“The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, telling Strzok, “You were given that information and you did nothing with it.”

What possible explanation could there be for a highly placed FBI official failing to diligently pursue such a significant intelligence breach? Bias appears to be the most sensible explanation.

Still, there is an even more important revelation that arose during questioning conducted by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. The revelation deals with a fundamental question: What exactly was the basis for launching a major counterintelligence investigation that targeted the Trump campaign?

Strzok acknowledged under questioning by Jordan that the fourth ranking official at the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, supplied the FBI with documents that were the basis for the counterintelligence investigation. Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, conducting opposition research against then-candidate Trump, which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The material Ohr provided was compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and consists of documents that are known as “the dossier.”

“This is the first time, to my knowledge, the FBI has admitted they got parts of the dossier from Bruce Ohr, a fellow DOJ employee,” Jordan told Sean Hannity during a Fox News appearance.

The revelation confirms the fact that an unverified, unreliable dossier, which was purchased as opposition research by Clinton’s campaign, formed the basis by which a counterintelligence investigation against Clinton’s opponent in the presidential election, namely now-President Trump, was launched and was soon used to obtain FISA warrants to surveil members of her opponent’s campaign.

Hollywood Has a Meltdown over Roe v. Wade Film

16867473389_38224ac3ea_b

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The memorable line by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” fits like a glove.

When it comes to subject matter that is outside the leftist box, Hollywood just can’t endure any factual information coming to light, as witnessed by the massive overreaction by the entertainment elite to a pro-life project that is currently in production.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film, which deals with the backstory of the landmark decision that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, is being shot in Louisiana. Its working title is “1973,” a reference to the year of the Supreme Court decision that polarized the nation.

The left is particularly rattled over the abortion issue right now since President Donald Trump is naming a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court.

Nick Loeb, a banking heir who formerly dated actress Sofia Vergara, is directing the movie and began filming in mid-June. He told the Hollywood Reporter that his court battle with Vergara over access to the couple’s frozen embryos prompted him to do the film.

“I have my own pro-life issue going on with my fight over embryos, but no one has really told the whole truth about Roe v. Wade in a film,” Loeb said.

Aware of the disdain that the entertainment industry has for the pro-life perspective, Loeb initially attempted to be low key about the project, cast and crew so as to forestall the backlash that would inevitably come.

However, when Loeb told LifeNews about his motivation behind the film, he left subtlety behind. “This is the untold story of how [abortion activists] lied and manipulated Jane Roe, the media, and the courts into the decision to allow abortion in 1973,” Loeb said.

In knee-jerk fashion, the entertainment press began trashing the film, despite the project not having been completed, edited, or screened.

–The Daily Beast published a piece with the headline “‘Roe v. Wade’ Script Leak: Pro-Life Movie Pushes Conspiracy Theories and Lies.”

–A Huffington Post headline read “Anti-Abortion Movie About Roe v. Wade Is Pushed By Nick Loeb.”

–The New York Daily News used the following title for an article on the movie: “No one wants to help Nick Loeb make his anti-abortion film ‘Roe v. Wade.’”

Particularly snarky was the Daily Beast’s characterization of the project as a “movie in chaos,” describing cast and crew departures due to the nature of the subject matter. And the Hollywood Reporter indicated that a costume maker, electrician, and director had walked off the project.

The subject matter also created difficulties for Loeb’s choice of filming locations. Loeb shared the following about a request that was made to shoot at Louisiana State University: “We were told we were rejected due to our content, even though it will be a PG-rated film. They refused to put it in writing, but they told us on the phone it was due to content.”

Even after the production was permitted to use a local synagogue, the crew was kicked out after the leaders found out about the movie’s message.

“Once they found out what the film was about, they locked us out. We had to call the police so that the extras and caterers could retrieve their possessions,” Loeb told the Hollywood Reporter.

Facebook blocked crowdfunding for the film, but it is still ongoing at GoFundMe and IndieGoGo.

The Daily Beast obtained a copy of a leaked script that reportedly showed the project’s “severe anti-abortion stance.” The Beast is apoplectic that the narrator of the story is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (portrayed by Loeb). Nathanson happens to have co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). However, after having witnessed the details of an abortion procedure via ultrasound, he became a dedicated pro-life activist.

Nathanson became an archenemy of the left after having narrated the profoundly compelling 1984 pro-life film “The Silent Scream.”

The cast of the upcoming pro-life movie includes many openly conservative Hollywood residents including Stacey Dash, who portrays Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a founder of the National Right to Life Committee; Jon Voight, Robert Davi, Corbin Bernsen, John Schneider, William Forsythe, Wade Williams, Richard Portnow, and Jarrett Ellis Beal, who portray Supreme Court justices; and Jamie Kennedy, Joey Lawrence, and Greer Grammer (daughter of Kelsey Grammer) are also cast members.

Adding to the left-wing discomfort are some cameos courtesy of commentators Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos.

The film’s executive producer is pro-life advocate Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“This big screen movie is the real untold story of how a mountain of lies led to an injustice that deprived millions of people of human dignity and human rights,” King says in the trailer.

The untold story includes Planned Parenthood’s scheme to recruit a pregnant girl to file a lawsuit that would create a right to an abortion. According to the film’s description, Nathanson, Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood searched “the country to find a pregnant girl” that they could “use to sue the government for her right to have an abortion.”

The film also takes on the forbidden facts concerning the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Despite the left’s attempts to minimize Sanger’s fondness for eugenics, Sanger solicited eugenicists’ writings for her conferences, asked them to testify in congressional hearings, and gathered them together to advance the cause.

Sanger also urged state-imposed compulsory sterilization and segregation of people with mental or physical disability, those in poverty, and those considered illiterate. She sought out eugenicists to become board members of her American Birth Control League, the predecessor organization to what is now known as Planned Parenthood.

Hollywood Aligns with the Democrats to Try and Get Rid of ICE

33b6bce9-d8ba-4eb9-a850-98c9252c3442-large16x9_ap18179734713168

Hollywood celebrities recently made their presence felt at gatherings across the country, ostensibly to protest the separation of children from their illegal immigrant parents, a policy that actually existed during prior presidential administrations.

Similar to other nationwide events that the left has managed to engineer, this one had a social media hashtag name attached to it: “Families Belong Together.”

Left-wing groups are apparently choosing to ignore President Trump’s recently signed executive order, which ended the policy of separating children from their detained parents after the parents had illegally crossed the United States border.

In Los Angeles, protestors were joined by actors Laura Dern, Mira Sorvino, and Connie Britton, along with singer John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen. Legend used the opportunity to debut his newly released single.

In New York City, actors Kerry Washington, Amy Schumer, Alec Baldwin, Ellen Page, and Carrie Coon participated in the march.

In Washington, D.C., Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda, singer Alicia Keys, and actors America Ferrera and Diane Guerrero took part in demonstrations.

Many who were at the Downtown L.A. rally called for the dismantling of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE, and even carried signs that read “Abolish ICE.”

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a group involved in the march on the West Coast, issued a statement that spoke of how the agency was “terrorizing…entire communities,” adding the admonition that “all of these violations will continue to take place unless ICE is abolished.”

The “Abolish ICE” movement has dramatically morphed from a position that was held by a socialist fringe to a political slogan that is embraced by significant national Democratic office holders and candidates.

After a surprise upset primary win by 28-year-old self-described socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the victor’s central slogan “Abolish ICE” began to spread throughout the left-wing infrastructure.

The first sitting senator to embrace the trend was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who declared that the U.S. should “get rid of” ICE and “start over.”

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted, “ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted on Facebook that the nation should replace “ICE with something that reflects our values.”

Sen. Kamala Harris and former actor-turned-New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon both hopped on the bandwagon as well.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal called ICE a “rogue agency,” and Rep. Mark Pocan announced that he would be introducing a bill to abolish the agency.

As the proposal gains momentum with those on the left side of the political aisle, a brief analysis is warranted, which will hopefully bear fruit.

The notion of doing away with ICE has profound ramifications with regard to national security, law enforcement, and border integrity. ICE was formed following the horrific terror attacks of September 11, 2001; this was the same time period during which the Department of Homeland Security was created.

The functions of several border and revenue enforcement agencies were consolidated into ICE, resulting in it becoming the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

–The agency handles the investigatory work and enforcement of over 400 federal statutes and additionally provides attachés at major U.S. diplomatic missions overseas.

–The agency’s all-important activities impact national security with regard to investigation for the prosecution and removal of foreign-born terrorists, terrorist supporters, and hostile foreign intelligence agents located within the United States.

–The agency regularly provides counter-terrorism information in order to prevent and disrupt terrorist cells.

–The agency is also charged with important policing functions and targets violent transnational street gangs in order to prosecute and remove illegal immigrant gang members from the country.

–The agency investigates criminal drug traffickers, manufacturers and distributors of images of child abuse, child exploiters, money launderers, arms dealers, and intellectual property counterfeiters.

The idea of abolishing an agency that is responsible for so many vital functions is a flat-out dangerous one, and the more people learn about this essential agency called ICE, the less willing they will be to support anyone who would advocate its abolition.