Connect with us


California state lawmaker unveils two bills to combat political ‘cancel culture’

With each day that passes, cancel culture seems to grow more vicious and hungry to find its next victim.



With each day that passes, cancel culture seems to grow more vicious and hungry to find its next victim; the more you feed it, the stronger it becomes. 

But, one California lawmaker has had enough. 

Republican state Sen. Melissa Melendez has unveiled two legislative proposals designed to combat cancel culture and the harm it causes. 

She claims that “a climate of intolerance has been established” in the Golden State, so political affiliation should be protected under state law to protect residents from descrimination. 

“Anyone who values their own freedom of speech should be concerned,” she said. “This cannot and should be allowed to continue.” 

The “Diversity of Thought Act” would protect people from discrimination over politics when seeking housing, bank loans or employment by amending the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Fox News reports. 

If this bill becomes a law, it would be illegal to deny someone a job or housing on the basis of that person’s political affiliation, according to the Los Angeles Times. Landlords could not legally evict someone because of political beliefs, and banks would be prohibited from denying financing on the basis of politics. 

The second bill would protect students from being bullied over their political views by requiring an amendment to the state’s education code. 

Schools are compelled to have policies against discrimination on the basis of gender race, religion and sexual orientation. Melendez’s bill would add political beliefs to that list. 

“Cancel culture and the efforts to silence differing opinions and voices should be a growing concern for all of us,” Melendez said in a statement. 

But, to no surprise, she’s already facing backlash from the left. 

Democratic state Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez blasted Melendez. 

“Your choice to hate & actively pursue hate does not make you part of a protected class,” Gonzalez wrote on Twitter. 

“It is unfathomable to me that corporations and members of the public would ruin a person’s career, business and family because of their political ideology,” Melendez said per The Hill. “Free speech covers all speech , not just that with which you agree.” 

Continue Reading


  1. Jennifer

    February 18, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    The tweet from Gonzalez is EXACTLY the reason why legislation is REQUIRED. Gonzalez is the one FILLED with hate and prejudice. It’s shameful that a person holding political is allowed to spew such hateful rhetoric. I think more states need to introduce legislature as Melendez

    • Alyssa

      February 18, 2021 at 11:09 pm

      Well said Jennifer! I’m glad to hear a legislator has the courage to stand up for us against this INSANITY!!

      • Paula

        February 19, 2021 at 9:49 pm

        This type of discrimination irs exactly why this legislation needs to be done. Gonzalez is yhr one filled with hate. Thanks Jennifer for standing up to this

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


National Public Radio Discontinues Reading the Declaration of Inependence



Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A post by Todd Starnes alerts that National Public Radio (NPR) has ditched its annual ritual of reading the Declaration of Independence. NPR, derisively referred to by Starnes as “National Public Welfare Radio,” announced the cessation of reading the Declaration. Which staffers at the taxpayer-funded radio network had been reading aloud the document since 1988.

The void that would have resulted from not reading the Declaration was not unfilled. “Instead, NPR broadcast an 11-minute conversation about whether or not the Founding Fathers actually meant the words “all men are created equal.” Here’s a link if you’d like to listen to their “screed” (which also reminds us frequently that many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves).

Starnes disclosed that he owns “KWAM, the leading news talk radio station in Memphis, Tennessee. It angers me that my tax dollars are used to prop up a broadcast competitor that spits on our Founding Fathers and our Founding Documents.”

Interestingly, NPR’s newly voiced contempt and cynicism for the Declaration of Independence does not encompass refusing taxpayer-funded government support. Whether or not the Founding Fathers meant what they said and what they wrote may be grist for energetic banter on a radio program that is increasingly committed to shrill progressive virtue signaling. However, the topic of this discussion among smug well-remunerated media activists is irrelevant. The words of the Founding Fathers have been inspirational for two hundred and forty-six years and have been the moral and legal foundation used to free the slaves and develop Constitutional principles to ensure that slavery can never be implemented in this country. Slavery currently exists in several countries now, but NPR is dedicated to ignoring that scourge.

Continue Reading


‘Every Word Of This Is False’: Ted Cruz Factchecks Ilhan Omar’s Attack On Coach Kennedy Prayer Case



Rep. Ilhan Omar

On Monday night, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) factchecked Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after she made multiple false claims about the Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Court ruled 6-3 that a public high school football coach in Washington state had his First Amendment rights violated when he was punished by his school district for praying on the field after games where students could see.

As previously reported, “In 2008, high school football coach Joseph Kennedy began a tradition of praying at midfield after each game. Over time, his players and even members of the opposing team began to join him. In September 2015, a school administrator addressed the matter with Kennedy after an opposing team complained and the coach briefly stopped his prayers.”

“On October 14, 2015, Kennedy told the school district that he was planning on resuming his prayer tradition at the next game. The school district told the coach that his prayers violated the district’s policy, but Kennedy continued to pray at the next two games. The school district subsequently placed him on administrative leave, banned him from participating in the football program, and refused to renew his contract for the following season. Kennedy took the issue to federal district court, arguing that the school district had violated his First Amendment rights,” the report added.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Kennedy, Omar tweeted, “The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in. Religious freedom is dead in America.”

“Every word of this is false,” Cruz responded.

Omar’s claim that the Supreme Court’s decision allowed to teachers to “pressure students to join prayer” is false. The Court’s ruling just protected Coach Kennedy’s religious freedom to pray publicly.

Omar was also incorrect in claiming that there would be retaliation against students who did not join Kennedy in prayer – the coach’s tradition of praying after games began with him praying alone at midfield after football games. Kennedy’s school district even noted that Kennedy had “not actively encouraged, or required, participation.”

Additionally, in contrast to Omar’s claim that “religious freedom is dead in America,” the Supreme Court ruling actually strengthened protections of religious freedom.

Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained, “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.”

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment,” Gorsuch added. “And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his First Amendment claims.”

Continue Reading

Leo's Hot List