Geraldo Rivera on Free Speech and Showers

Wonder who is really the snake, Free Speech provocateurs, radicalized jihadis or a vain jo-WHORE-nalist?

Countenancing Clinton Charity?

In the wake of the publicity over Peter Schweizer's blockbuster book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich" (2015), there has been increased scrutiny over Clinton finances.  Instead of just mocking the irony of the Clintons claiming that they were dead broke leaving the White House, yet now are personally worth over $55 million.   However, the Clinton Foundation complicates this calculation.

When Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) became Secretary of State, there was a memorandum of understanding that the Clinton Foundation would not take contributions from foreign governments as it would appear like a conflict of interest with Mrs. Clinton's official responsibilities.  Yet the Clinton Foundation continued to take large contributions from individuals who have close ties with foreign governments.  Shortly thereafter, there seemed to be access or action that seemed favorable to such interests.  This can be characterized as pay for play, although Clinton sources claim that there is not a shred of evidence (sic) to prove those allegations.

Another sticking point about the Clinton Foundation is how the founders of the Clinton Foundation use their charity.  The Clinton Foundation only gives 10% of its take to actual charitable grants.  In fact, according to 2013 tax filings, $8.5 million or 10% of the total went to travel.

To address these issues, former President Bill Clinton granted media access to NBC News while he was traveling in Africa on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.



It is interesting to note that President Clinton believes that it is virtuous to donate to his own charity, which leverages Clinton prominence to effectuate global change through lots of international travel for the principal. How convenient.

Should this be charity that the American polity countenance, particularly considering how Mrs. Clinton aspires to again be in the Oval Office?

Will Rogers on Crime

On First Amendment Prudence?

The "Draw Mohammed" event in Garland, Texas has provoked some mixed reactions in the media. Pamela Geller, the proprietor of Atlas Shrugged and co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, believes that speaking out against radical Islam through an event in Garland, Texas is properly exercising her Freedom of Speech.

Greta Van Susteran went "Off the Record" condemned Pamela Geller and the Draw Mohammed event as not being a prudent application of her First Amendment rights.



Some self censorship critics, point to Constitutional limits of Freedom of Speech.  Chris Cuomo got on his high horse regarding hate speech and kept pointing to the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Supreme Court decision about "fighting words".

But if one relies on the Constitution as being a "living document", one must read further high court cases.  to understand that "fighting words" limitations essentially now must be provocative personal epithets. For CNN commentators preening about their juris doctor degree, check Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) [the "Fuck the Draft" case] and Snyder v. Philips (2010) 562 USC ___ (2011) [Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funeral],

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

Several years ago, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was an effort for encourage civic civility. Alas, that was a progressive ploy to stifle conservative dissent and was not reciprocated by the left.

The admonitions of today to be prudent when exercising free speech seem to show the inroads of cultural jihad.  One can not express Free Speech which a Muslim might find offensive. This can be considered soft tyranny or de facto sharia.  Should we acquiesce to such sensibilities now, consider how imams like Anjem Choudrey would handle such offensive speech. 

customer survey

Pamela Geller on Free Speech