She’s tired of the day-to-day writing obligations and she wants that much sought-after, paid gig as a Fox News contributor. She probably hopes she fits most of their on-air aesthetic requirements.

A lot continues to be made over her resignation letter, so cue the sad, piano music bed….

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from the New York Times.

Seriously, who in the private sector does this publicly?

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of the Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

Twitter is not on the masthead of the New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history.

Whoever told her that must have really been full of his or herself. Then again, we are talking about today’s journalists….

Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing moulded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again’. Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

If a conservative accepted a job at MoveOn.org, he or she would know what to expect. When the expected happened, only a narcissist would take to social media and whine about it.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public.

Bari Weiss is either naive or stupid. Despite that, she was still considered New York Times material.

And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Sincerely,

Bari

While this made for some sensational headlines, political discrimination is nothing new. Anyone who works with liberals knows this, which is why most conservatives keep their personal politics close-to-the-vest for fear of public ostracization and/or even potential job loss.

Weiss, in her resignation letter, claims not to be a legal expert.

However, all she had to do was take (literally) a few seconds to look it up.

Not all forms of discrimination are illegal, however. It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employers to make job decisions based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Other federal laws prohibit discrimination based on age, disability, and genetic information. However, political views aren’t covered by these laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider political views and affiliations in making job decisions.
— NOLO, Can Employers Discriminate Based on Political Beliefs or Affiliation?

Bari Weiss has been an outspoken right-leaning columnist and it suited her well as long as she was relatively comfortable and employed. She’s enjoyed opportunities to appear on national media outlets, safe and enemy, and she was able to absorb the incoming… that is, until now.

It appears the “bullying” was too much for her to bear and her very public announcement that she’s bailing on the New York Times could also be looked at as a Times Square sized billboard saying “I’m available!”

Weiss had the convenience of being able to time her job departure on her terms and timetable. Many others who lost jobs, careers, and more due to being blacklisted by intolerant liberals had no such benefit. Weiss had every opportunity to use her various platforms to remind the public of the ramifications of “progressive” tyranny. She could have interviewed, thus talked to Republican leadership on Capitol Hill and directors of federal and state agencies as an advocate for those who have to remain politically silent just to keep a job.

She could’ve pushed for an addendum to current civil rights legislation.

Bari Weiss didn’t do shit.

She was absent to that party, but now that she’s had enough of being picked on, she’s being embraced as yet another potential conservative star.

When it comes to political discrimination and celebrated self-servers like Bari Weiss, when is enough going to be enough?

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.
— United States Constitution, Amendment I

The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is obviously interpreted today as the right to protest, but when that phrase is also referred-to in conjunction with the “right of association”, all fingers appear to point back to the 1st Amendment.

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech…. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” It would appear from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.
— Find Law, Right of Association

So, it’s kind of settled that Americans have the right to be around people we like for a myriad of reasons, but nowhere in the straightforward language of the 1st Amendment does it say anything about protections from being around people we don’t. We’re subject to being around people we don’t like every time we leave the house. Granted, we can obtain restraining orders to keep people who’ve committed legally-proven degrees of unlawful activities against another person, but after that we kinda’ have to suck it up and have people around us we may not have chosen to be with.

While it’s easy to steer clear of people we may not want to associate with in public places, there are also places where a certain amount of tolerance is required. In a movie theater, a bar, a sporting event, the workplace, and Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner….

 
When it comes to the workplace, as long as people act in a professional manner and the tasks are completed to the satisfaction of the employer, all should be all well and good.

However, anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, Washington D.C., Silicon Valley, New York City, almost every education establishment, or anywhere liberals collect in large enclaves, there’s an unwritten rule that’s not so unwritten anymore: if you’re not a Democrat, you had best keep your ideology secret, or else. That “or else” can range from public harassment to termination, despite your not doing anything fireable.

Vince Vaughn faces liberal outrage after he was seen with Trump during national championship game

In some cases, that conservative and/or Republican can’t have anything that verifies his or her preference, even if not verbally stated. Social media posts can do-in a prospective Republican employee from gaining employment.

If you were to replace the words “Republican” or “conservative” in the paragraph above with “liberal”, “progressive”, “Democrat”, “black”, “woman”, “gay”, “handicapped”, “Muslim” etc., you’d be talking about serious social media backlash and the very real prospect of prosecution for civil rights violations.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.
— Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

But for some reason, liberal Democrats feel empowered to discriminate against anyone they discover is a Republican, are free to verbally harass and even do anything and everything to get that Republican terminated. If they have any say in the hiring process, they have no problem not even considering a qualified conservative just because of who they support and vote for.

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
— Barack Obama, Elko, Nevada, 9/18/08

There are serious monetary ramifications for workplace discrimination. Aside from the tense atmosphere, blacklists are created and enforced with impunity. That can result in the obvious negative financial issues for someone who was one day gainfully employed and a valued employee to someone who now can’t find a similar job in their immediate industry despite experience and professionalism. Those ramifications include possible loss of car, home, marriage, and more; losses not considered when gleefully ridding the workplace of someone that doesn’t think the way tolerant liberals demand.

And let’s not forget the opposite when it comes to political discrimination: political nepotism and official favors for the obviously unqualified but well connected.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents. This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
— Peter Schweizer

Political discrimination is NOT considered a civil rights violation because mostly liberal Democrats do it. It should be considered a criminal act way beyond protected political speech, especially when it’s used as a club far removed from the ballot box. The harm caused is more than hurt feelings but real world damage that can last days, weeks, even years while any recovery can be relatively disproportionate.

As it’s something he’s obviously experienced, hopefully this is something President Trump can address down the road.

UPDATE

If you think the environment in the federal workplace is bad enough, here’s something to contemplate should Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election….

You are “Googley”.

At a regularly scheduled all hands meeting, some Google employees and executives expressed their own personal views in the aftermath of a long and divisive election season.

“Personal views” and “values” they can act upon….

For over 20 years, everyone at Google has been able to freely express their opinions at these meetings. Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products.

Only someone who assumed the video wasn’t watched would formally issue such bullshit.

To the contrary, our products are built for everyone, and we design them with extraordinary care to be a trustworthy source of information for everyone, without regard to political viewpoint.
— Google spokesperson

See for yourself if that’s really how things went down shortly after the 2016 election….

Okay, time for a group hug.

The hubris: they actually record their public whine-fests, label them “confidential” because they’re too important for simple Americans to comprehend, they’re #snowflake cowards, and these are valuable enough for the privileged “Googlers” to view on demand: probably for therapeutic reassurance (with a joint or two).

Co-founder Sergey Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists. Brin argues that like other extremists, Trump voters were motivated by “boredom,” which he says in the past led to fascism and communism.

VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker argues that supporters of populist causes like the Trump campaign are motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”
— Breitbart, 9/12/18

One would think Soviet-born Brin would appreciate the perils of forced group-think and enforcement, but like too many who immigrate here to take advantage of our freedoms, he ultimately believes our nation should resemble the #shithole his family fled.

While my initial response to government regulation is negative, Google’s liberal elitist influence on the American people (especially impressionable young people) is no longer something that should be brushed off as incidental.

FLASHBACK

Google is facing renewed controversy over its alleged intolerance toward conservatives at the company, after a class action lawsuit filed by former engineer James Damore disclosed almost 100 pages of screen shots of internal communications in which employees discuss sensitive political issues.

Seriously, some are wearing “Google-Noogler-Intern-Employee” propeller beanie caps.

Screenshots of internal communications reveal numerous employees appearing to support the idea of being intolerant toward certain points of view, such as one post arguing that Google should respond to Damore’s memo by “disciplining or terminating those who have expressed support”.
— The Guardian (UK), 1/8/18

That said, until political persecution is prosecuted and fined just like any other kind of discrimination, this will continue and anyone not one of THEM will be targeted at their weaponized, search engine whims.

The outright censoring of the movie The Path To 9/11 is a blatant example of how liberals whitewash history, and in particular, how post-Clinton Administration officials could strongarm a television network into altering an artist’s work, later to keep that work from the American people… forever.

It also shows how irrelevant and unnecessary The Fairness Doctrine is when liberals are motivated and work in concert.

Last week, I had the honor of asking Cyrus Nowrasteh, director, screenwriter and producer, a few questions.

BOB —First off, can you tell us about your new project, The Stoning of Soraya M. and do you anticipate any resistance from entertainment companies that may resist broadcasting and/or distributing it?

CYRUS — THE STONING OF SORAYA M. is a true story set in Iran about an infamous stoning. It is based on an international bestseller that received much acclaim. It portrays Sharia Law in action in an Iranian village where a woman is accused of adultery, brought to trial, and executed in the same day. It is a condemnation of the barbarity of such punishments under fundamentalist regimes.

Will it inspire controversy? Of course. The book did so, its veracity questioned along with the author’s motives, but that comes with taking on edgy material. I welcome it.

Since MPOWER, the producers I did this with, have their own distribution company, we’re not reliant on the whims of a studio should President Ahmadinejad or CAIR raise objections. MPOWER won’t pull a “Bob Iger” on this film. They have guts.

BOB — Now, let’s get into some industry weeds.

There were early reports that some of the cast of The Path To 9/11 seemed deceived by the plot (or intent) of the film. If you feel at liberty to discuss this, do you feel as though they didn’t know what they film would be about (seeing how they could read scripts), or do you think they may have begun to feel some heat from their more liberal, intolerant Hollywood colleagues?

CYRUS — Everyone who worked on THE PATH TO 9/11 was given a complete script. It was entitled, however, THE UNTITLED HISTORY PROJECT, for security reasons. We would be shooting a good chunk of the film in Morocco, and didn’t want it to be called anything related to 9/11 while filming in a Muslim country. This ‘cover’ title was the source of much discussion in the media who attributed nefarious, conspiratorial, reasons behind it. It is common for productions to do this so as not to invite too much attention from fans, media, and others while trying to accomplish their work.

In the lead up to broadcast a number of actors in the miniseries were approached by the Clinton people to speak out against it. All refused except one: Harvey Keitel. He went on CNN and discredited the film and those he worked with. Of course, this was broadcast all over as proof we were in the wrong. Mr. Keitel, who prides himself on being a Marine and a tough guy, simply panicked when the charges started flying and ran to the media and turned on his colleagues.

Of course, the fact that numerous experts have come out since the film was broadcast and supported its historical depiction has been a bit of an embarrassment to Mr. Keitel.

BOB — When you initially decided to do The Path To 9/11, did you ever imagine creating the one program/movie that didn’t go straight to DVD?

CYRUS — It is outrageous that Disney has bowed to the Clintons and refused to release THE PATH TO 9/11 on DVD. This is a program that was number one in the ratings and garnered 25 million viewers. A smash. The foundation was laid for a huge DVD sale. But Mr. Bob Iger feels it more important to cushy up to his political friends than provide revenue for his shareholders.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11, THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH — all hugely political films — can be easily obtained at any video store. Only THE PATH TO 9/11 is unavailable.

This is outrageous.

BOB — Were you contacted personally by any former Clinton Administration officials, and did they threaten you, and if so with what?

CYRUS — I was not personally contacted by Clinton officials, merely the subject of their attacks. It was their intent to portray me as some right-wing nut in order to discredit me. And their willing allies in the media went along with it.

Jay Carson, who was Clinton’s chief of staff, made it a point to contact people in Hollywood hiring me to work on other projects and try to discourage them from doing so in true ‘McCarthyite’ fashion. Among those he contacted were an A-list director and the President of a major studio.

Some months after the controversy a Clinton strategist told me that I’d better be prepared, that if Hillary became President I would be audited every year. I believed him.

BOB — Have you created a Director’s cut that may hopefully, one day, see the light of day?

CYRUS — Uncut DVD versions of the miniseries have circulated on the Internet, some selling for as high as $500, but Disney’s attorneys have stopped that. Disney owns the film; no version of it can go out unless Disney releases it. They have chosen, under political pressure from the Clintons, not to do so.

BOB — Have you ever wondered what part of the National Archive documents wound up down Sandy Berger’s pants, and how that may have impacted the content of your movie?

CYRUS — Sandy Berger went into the National Archives at the request of Bill Clinton, ostensibly to help them both prepare for their testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

The documents he stole and destroyed contained hand-written notes in the margin that revealed how lax Clinton’s attitude was toward terrorism and Al Qaeda in particular. Driven by a desire to protect their legacy, Mr. Berger destroyed the documents and they are lost to history.

BOB — While working for a television network in Hollywood, I publicly became a Republican and was shunned by many who were previously good friends. The word got out, and freelance jobs that were previously plentiful, dried up. As an outspoken Hollywood conservative, how are you received, both on a professional and personal level, and has your marketability suffered at all?

CYRUS — First off, I was “characterized” as an outspoken Hollywood conservative by the spin machine out to kill THE PATH TO 9/11. If they could discredit me they felt they could discredit the film.

Though I’ve described myself as “conservative” on foreign policy issues (especially those dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism), I’m fairly “liberal” on social and economic issues. I could most accurately be described as a “libertarian” on these latter issues.

But, honestly, as a filmmaker I don’t like being pigeonholed. I made 10,000 BLACK MEN NAMED GEORGE for Showtime, a movie I’m very proud of. Its hero was an African-American communist who leads a labor struggle. My film, THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT (also a Showtime movie) was attacked by conservatives even though it portrayed Ronald Reagan unequivocally as an American hero. For me it’s about the story, the drama — not the politics.

Many people told me this “conservative” characterization would affect my career, and some in town did call my agent and manager and claimed they’d never work with me. But others, from both sides of the political aisle, actually watched the movie and realized that it was all political spin and called about my availability because they liked what they saw. Frankly, I’ve never been busier.

This controversy, in some ways, put me on the map. The town isn’t small enough to ruin people’s careers. Though I don’t doubt that in certain pockets and situations the “reverse McCarthyism” that you refer to goes on.

BOB — Thank you, Cyrus.

CYRUS — Bob, thank you for your interest.