Pro-Life students at the University of Buffalo came under fierce attack by a group of professors who compared them to a lynch mob. At least one professor was arrested after she launched a profanity-laced tirade directed toward the students.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

The professors were outraged after the Students for Life club received permission to display a pro-life exhibit that included graphic images of abortion victims along with Holocaust victims and victims of lynching.

A half dozen history professors condemned the display in a letter to the student newspaper.

“Anti-abortion protesters appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching,” they wrote in the school paper. “We feel it is imperative to speak out against this crass, uninformed and dangerous misuse of history.”

The professors said they did not object to their protest – only to the content of their protest.
•READ: PROF ARRESTED FOR CURSING PRO-LIFE STUDENTS

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/professors-compare-pro-life-students-to-lynch-mob.html

CNN correspondent John King reported this afternoon that authorities have identified a suspect in the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

On the afternoon of April 17, King reported that, “the description given to me was a dark skinned male.” It wasn’t clear whether or not police had anyone in custody.

The identification came from surveillance video of the crowd recorded near the Lord & Taylor store along the race route and near where the second blast occurred.

Authorities say they have video of the “dark skinned” man dropping a backpack near the store shortly before the explosion took place. The bombs, made of six-liter pressure cookers packed with nails and ball bearings, are reminiscent of those used in bombings in India.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino also noted on Wednesday afternoon that the police are “very close” to identifying a suspect.

Shortly after King’s report aired, the Associated Press reported that an arrest is “imminent.”

“A law enforcement official briefed on the investigation says a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings is about to be arrested.”

http://ez-qr.com/yr

On Thursday, April 11, Stuart Varney, the host of Fox’s Varney & Co, agreed with Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, that the three major TV networks were withholding information from the American public that revealed the detrimental effects of ObamaCare. Bozell hurled the charge that the networks are “deliberately censoring news and information from the American people,” then backed it up with substantial evidence. The evidence include the following stories, none of which got even one mention on the networks:

http://ez-qr.com/xa

WEST LIBERTY, W.Va.—Students and parents are questioning a college professor after she reportedly issued a syllabus that filtered student’s research options

Be careful who your kids teachers are People like Stephanie Wolfe need to be taken off the job so kids can grow up and learn to think for themselves. What a stupid HO

http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/students-parents-concerned-seemingly-slanted-colle/nWMxY/

Everything changed after the election, and it had nothing to do with Obama winning a second term.

For as long as I’ve been aware of the media, I’ve known that I live in a country with a media biased strongly in favor of Democrats. Fair enough. But there were rules in that world; one of them being that once a Democrat was safely elected or reelected, the media would do its job when it came to scandals, and overall accountability.

Lets publish people on welfare and unemployment we have a right to know that as well.

Washington – Lawmakers in Connecticut – still stunned from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting – are moving forward with legislation that could make public the names and addresses of 170,000 handgun permit holders in the state. The measure, introduced by state Rep. Stephen Dargan, is the latest effort to clamp down on guns in Connecticut. If passed, the bill would reverse a 20-year decision by state lawmakers to keep the personal information confidential. The legislation would make the information fair game under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. Dargan told FoxNews.com on Friday the measure was not intended to pit gun control activists and pro-gun groups against each other. Instead, it’s “to get a broader discussion going on gun issues and mental health in the state.” Critics say being able to obtain the names and addresses of gun permit holders is an invasion of privacy, but others argue that people in the community have the right to know who owns a gun and who does not. In December, an upstate New York newspaper came under fire for publishing the names and addresses of gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties. The story inspired heated reactions among readers and gun groups, who traded jabs by posting personal information about the newspaper’s employees online. The actions highlight a growing backlash against gun owners after a string of shooting in the last five years, which includes the massacres at Virginia Tech and at a Colorado movie theatre. Since the Newtown, Conn., shooting last month, gun owners across the country say they have been vilified and ostracized. Many argue lawmakers are using what happened in Newtown to advance their own political agenda, but Dargan says it’s not true. “Obviously, something needs to be done,” he said. “I want to make sure we look at all the ways we can prevent another horrific shooting from happening.” Dargan’s bill is one of many expected to be brought up and debated in statehouses across the country. He says while his proposals are “middle of the road,” he’s already gotten calls and emails from gun advocates telling him to back down. “This is the least invasive bill that’s going to come up this year,” he said. “We need to open up dialogue in the state. Let’s take a peek at the issue, see what works and see what doesn’t.” State Sen. Martin Looney introduced a measure that would make it illegal for anyone convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor or are under a court-ordered restraining or protective order from buying bullets. The idea is already being criticized by gun groups in the state. “A gun without ammunition is only a club,” Looney has said. “We really need to restrict access to ammunition.” Calls to Looney’s office for additional comment were not returned. Some gun owners say that the federal law that bans the sale of ammunition to felons is a strong enough filter. Rich Burgess, president of Connecticut Carry, said Looney’s plan “has nothing to do with stopping these kinds of madmen from committing heinous acts” and has said he is “dumbfounded” by these bills. Prior to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, which left 20 children and six school employees dead, gun control was not a particularly polarizing topic in the state. The firearms manufacturing business in Connecticut had thrived in a state that boasts some of the strongest gun control laws in the country. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/04/connecticut-lawmaker-wants-names-gun-owners-to-be-made-public/#ixzz2H2QSB5z4

ut here we have a legislator that doesn’t just want to pass laws that are tangentially restrictive. She wants to purposefully use her powers to write laws to target individuals with whom she disagrees, take away their freedoms and liberties, and all in the hopes that the citizens she is oppressing might move away from her state.

As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, “this sounds like tyranny.”

Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent.

Sounds like tyranny, indeed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/02/New-Hampshire-Legislator-We-Need-to-Restrict-Freedoms-of-Conservatives

Arizona lawmakers are facing a backlash over a  proposal that could land people in jail for sending a nasty tweet or other  digital message – prompting efforts to change the bill already approved by both  chambers.

The so-called cyber bulling bill is being criticized  for being too broad, largely because it would prohibit a digital message that  would “annoy or offend.”

GOP state Rep. Ted Vogt, the bill’s primary sponsor,  said Thursday that state House and Senate lawmakers will meet within about a  week to attempt to improve the bill, following the storm of criticism from First  Amendment advocates and other free-speech supporters.

“The bill has been misrepresented in terms of scope  and prohibitive conduct,” he told Fox News. “It was never our intent to  interfere with broadcasters or any other public speech, but we will  clarify.”

The bill is essentially an update to a roughly  30-year-old bill that prohibits phone harassment.

“Technology has moved beyond what it was in 1973,” Vogt said. “If you cannot call somebody and threaten them, then there should be  a law to make that illegal by other means.”

Right now the bill — which passed both chambers  with bipartisan support — would result in a misdemeanor charge that carries a  maximum $2,500 fine and six months in jail for anybody who uses a computer,  smartphone or similar device to send a message to “terrify, intimidate,  threaten, harass, annoy or offend.”

The outcry began last month with critics objecting  mostly to the bill’s failure to clearly define what would be considered annoying  or offensive.

While critics expressed no objection to the bill’s  intent to prohibit cyber “stalking” and “threats of physical harm,” they said a  fine or potential jail time for “lewd” or “profane” language is  overreaching.

Vogt said the lawmakers will address three aspects  of the bill: clarify that the cyber message is targeting a specific person or  group, clarify that the communication is unwanted or unsolicited and ensure the  bill doesn’t interfere with constitutionally protected speech or other  activities protected by law.

“The trouble with the law is it could apply to a  wide range of speech, which is why we suggested some changes,” said David  Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition in New York. “Lewd language  and profanity is certainly not appropriate, but it’s not illegal. It’s  encouraging that the lawmakers are taking a second look. We’ll see what comes  out of the meeting.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/arizona-lawmakers-rethink-wide-ranging-cyber-bully-bill/#ixzz1rGnFe74a

An open records request filed by Milwaukee conservative radio personality  Mark Belling has revealed that freedom of speech in some public schools is  reserved for those who agree with the unions.

According to information obtained by Belling, a custodian working for a  private contractor at Whitewater (Wisconsin) High School was recently fired by  her employer after two school employees, including the supervisor of custodians,  demanded that she remove a pro-Scott Walker sign from her car and she  refused. If you recall, Big Labor is attempting to recall Gov. Walker over  his new law that curtails collective bargaining privileges for public employee  unions.

Mary Taylor, an employee with Diversified Building Maintenance, was allegedly  sent home after school employees complained to her supervisor about the  pro-Walker sign in her car, which was parked in the school parking lot.

Belling said district administrator Eric Runez initially claimed that no one  from the school directed Taylor’s employer to have her remove the sign, but  Belling’s public information request turned up a conflicting account of how the  situation played out.

“… [M]y public records search indicates the custodian supervisor at the  school,Cindy Wiedenhoeft, wrote in a memo she acknowledged discussing the sign  with a Diversified supervisor and the two agreed to order Mary to remove it,” Belling wrote in an email to EAG.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/scott-walker/2012/03/27/report-school-contractor-fired-pro-walker-bumper-sticker#ixzz1qVv8Y6u8

INDIANAPOLIS – A report released today during national Sunshine Week by the Society of Professional Journalists found that reporters who cover federal government agencies say they face impediments to getting information to the public because of interference from public affairs officers.
An online survey of 146 Washington, D.C.-area reporters in February indicated overwhelming frustration from journalists trying to interview federal employees or get basic information for the public.
Download the full report here.
The survey was conducted by the Freedom of Information Committee of SPJ. Key highlights of the study include:
• Pre-approval: Three-quarters of the working journalists reported that they have to get approval from public affairs officers before interviewing agency employees.
• Prohibition: Two-thirds of reporters said agencies outright prohibit reporters from interviewing agency employees some or most of the time.
• Monitoring: About 84 percent said their interviews have been monitored in person or over the phone by government public information officers. “They sit right next to the person I am interviewing and often times jump in to make a comment or interfere with the conversation,” one respondent stated.
• Censorship: Seven out of 10 reporters agreed with the statement, “I consider government agency controls over who I interview a form of censorship.”
• Public hurt: About 85 percent of the journalists agreed with the statement, “The public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers agencies are imposing on journalists’ reporting practices.”
Carolyn S. Carlson, a former SPJ president and lead author of the study, said the results were alarming. “Reporters in Washington are struggling to give the public an objective view of the federal government, but are running into interference rather than assistance from the very people hired by the government to help them. Public affairs officers need to facilitate media coverage, not interfere or block it,” she said.
SPJ President John Ensslin agreed, saying, “The findings in this report, while not surprising, are a dismaying trend. Government works best when there’s a free flow of information at all levels. The strategy of spokespeople acting as the spigots of that information inevitably backfires by fostering leaks and intrigue instead of the sunshine of full disclosure.”
On a good note, about 70 percent of the surveyed journalists said they had a positive relationship with the public information officers with whom they work, and most reported that officers quickly respond to their queries most of the time.
However, overwhelmingly, comments from the surveyed journalists indicated increasing frustration at what they perceive as efforts by agencies to control the message to the public. “PAOs tend to make up information,” stated one respondent. “You can never trust the information they provide. They make our jobs almost impossible and they treat journalists with barely any professionalism.”
Another respondent: “They act as gatekeepers. And they are very rarely completely helpful or forthcoming.”
The survey was conducted online Jan. 23 through Feb. 24. A sample of 776 journalists identified by SPJ as covering federal agencies were contacted, and 146 responded (19 percent). Most (91 percent) were reporters and worked for wire services (32 percent) or large newspapers (32 percent). The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percent.
The survey was conducted by Carolyn S. Carlson, an assistant professor of communication at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Ga., and David Cuillier, director of the School of Journalism at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., on behalf of the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee, of which both are members. Carlson is a former national SPJ president. Cuillier is a former chairman of the FOI Committee and is currently secretary-treasurer of SPJ’s national board of directors. They were assisted by Kennesaw journalism student Lindsay Tulkoff.
For more details, see the study report at http://spj.org/pdf/reporters-survey-on-federal-PAOs.pdf. For further information, contact Carlson at ccarls10@kennesaw.edu or Cuillier at cuillier@email.arizona.edu.
Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For more information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

A California police chief reportedly ordered a sergeant to a reporter’s home insisting on changes to a news story he perceived to be inaccurate.

The Oakland Tribune reports that Berkeley Police Chief Michael Meehan ordered the sergeant to the reporter’s home minutes after reading the report online, a move First Amendments said reeked of intimidation and attempted censorship.

Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publisher’s Association, characterized Meehan’s alleged actions as “totally despicable,” he told the newspaper.

“It’s the most intimidating type of (censorship) possible because the person trying to exercise it carries a gun,” Ewert said.

Bay Area News Group reporter Doug Oakley said he was shaken by the 12:45 a.m. Friday knock on the door of his Berkeley home. Oakley said he and his wife initially thought something was terribly wrong, perhaps that a relative had died.

Meehan apologized Friday.

“I would say it was an overzealous attempt to make sure that accurate information is put out,” Meehan said. “I could have done better.”

Meehan said he didn’t think Oakley would be upset or intimidated because the police sergeant, Mary Kusmiss, regularly deals with the media.

“I did not mean to upset [Oakley] or his family last night; it was late, (I was) tired, too,” he said. “I don’t dispute that it could be perceived badly.”

PHOENIX –  An Iraqi mother accused of beating her teenage daughter for not going along with an arranged marriage pleaded not guilty Monday in a case police said involved burning the teen on her face and chest with a hot spoon.

Yusra Farhan, 50, entered the plea to charges of aggravated assault, unlawful imprisonment and resisting arrest.

The daughter, 19, refused to participate in an arranged marriage with a 38-year-old man, authorities said.

Two other defendants, the victim’s sister, 18-year-old Tabarak Altameemi, and father, 45-year-old Mohammed Altameemi, also pleaded not guilty to assault and unlawful imprisonment.

MyFoxPhoenix.com cited court records showing that on Feb. 7 Mohammed Altameemi got mad at his daughter because she left night class with a boy. The father picked her up at school and took her home.

He is accused of cutting his daughter’s neck with a knife. Police say he admitted he was trying to kill her, but Tabarak Altameemi intervened.

They, other siblings and Farhan then allegedly taped the 19-year-old’s mouth, bound her hands and body with rope and beat her.

The altercation over the arranged marriage occurred in November, MyFoxPhoenix.com reported. At that time, the victim’s sisters and mom allegedly held her down and beat her, with Farhan accused of putting a hot spoon against her daughter’s face and chest.

“I swear I didn’t hurt her, only slightly, just like any parent would do to their children. Nobody would hurt their own children. You can ask her if she can be here with me,” Farhan told a judge, according to a translation.

(CNN) – A protester who ridiculed the Muslim prophet Mohammed claims he was assaulted by a Muslim who was offended by the stunt, but a judge has sympathized with the alleged perpetrator, in a case that has drawn national attention.

Self-proclaimed atheist Ernie Perce marched in a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania last October, dressed in a costume mocking Mohammed.

In a YouTube video he posted, Perce can be seen wearing a long fake beard, a white turban and green face paint, calling out provocative phrases like: “I am the prophet Mohammed! Zombie from the dead!” Perce and someone else in a zombie-themed pope costume are carrying a banner that reads “The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania / Ghoulish – Godless – God-Awful.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Then a man who is not seen on the video can be heard saying, “Take it down.” Amid sounds of a scuffle, Perce can be heard saying “Hey, he’s attacking me!”

Perce told CNN affiliate WHTM that the man “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around, to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”

Based on Perce’s complaint, a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment. But on December 6, District Judge Mark Martin dismissed the case, saying it was one person’s word against another’s, and that there was no other evidence or eyewitness testimony to prove that Elbayomy had harassed or touched the alleged victim.

The judge also scolded Perce, saying he’d been needlessly provocative on an issue sensitive with Muslims.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“You have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights,” Martin said, according to a recording Perce made of the court hearing. “I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.”

The judge went on to point out that in many Muslim countries, ridiculing Mohammed could warrant the death penalty under Islamic law.

Critics say Martin’s lecture shows he used Muslim cultural grounds to excuse a deplorable assault, and failed to defend an atheist’s First Amendment rights.

“That’s greatly disturbing to people that believe in free speech,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “You can say things that are hurtful to others. We hope that you don’t, but you most certainly can be protected. People like Thomas Paine spent his entire life ticking off people across the colonies.”

Former terrorism prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, writing on the blog of National Review, accused the judge of allowing the Muslim suspect to invoke a “Sharia defense – what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed.”

And Perce said of Judge Martin, “He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free, from an attack.”

The judge, in a phone interview with CNN, defended his ruling.

“The commonwealth didn’t present enough evidence to show me that this person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Martin said. “That’s why I dismissed the case. Nothing as nefarious as what everyone’s thinking, that I’m a Muslim or I’m biased. I’m actually a Lutheran.”

Martin added that he has served three tours of duty, totaling more than two years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he learned more about Muslim culture.

“It just amazes me that people think that I’m biased towards Islam,” he added. “I got sniped at once, I got ambushed once, I got attacked by a mob once… I’ve served close to 27 years in the military – and have gone overseas – exactly to preserve that right [freedom of speech.]”

But Martin also repeated his criticism of the atheist protester. “With rights come responsibilities. The more people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them,” he said. ” We need to start policing up our own actions, using common sense, in how we deal with others.”

Attorney R. Mark Thomas, who represented the Muslim suspect, blamed Perce for the Halloween altercation. “The so-called victim was the antagonist,” he told WHTM. “I think this was a good dressing down by the judge.”

A blog post by the group American Atheists disagrees. “That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen,” it says, “in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted… is a horrible abrogation.”

Critics of congressional “earmarking” maintain that it’s a mechanism used to haul a lot of pork-barrel spending home to the representatives’ districts.  Defenders of the practice counter with the argument that putting a stop to earmarks would place too much authority over spending in the hands of the executive.

An amendment to eliminate earmarks was proposed for the STOCK Act, which is intended to restore public faith in Congress by cracking down on methods for using congressional power for personal enrichment.  The amendment was defeated, but the controversy surrounding earmarks continues.

The Washington Post added some fuel to the fire Monday, as it published the results of what it bills as “the first systematic effort to examine the alignment of earmarks with lawmakers’ private interests.”  Specifically, the Post discovered that some congressional earmarks have been used to fund public improvements located suspiciously close to property owned by the sponsoring representative:

A U.S. senator from Alabama directed more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building. A congressman from Georgia secured $6.3 million in taxpayer funds to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage. A representative from Michigan earmarked $486,000 to add a bike lane to a bridge within walking distance of her home.

Thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

The Post put its discoveries into context:

Earmarks are a fraction of the federal budget, and the numbers uncovered by The Post are relatively small in the scheme of the overall Congress, but the behavior by lawmakers from both parties points to a larger issue at a time when confidence in Capitol Hill is at an all-time low.

The congressional financial disclosure system obscures certain relationships. Lawmakers are not required to disclose the addresses of their personal residences or the employment of their children and parents. The lawmakers are also allowed to put properties in holding companies without disclosing the properties’ locations. Current versions of the Stock Act would not change that. To provide a fuller portrait of congressional connections, The Post compared the financial disclosure forms with the public record to track spending on projects near legislators’ properties or on programs employing their relatives.

As the article goes on to note, there isn’t necessarily rank corruption involved in locating a public-works project close to a representative’s home.  Would it make any sense to forbid the expenditure of federal money on any project located near property owned by the local congressperson?

In a similar vein, it’s not always corruption when a federal contract goes to a company that employs relatives of a representative.  What if Congressman Bedfellow’s cousin just happens to work at the best company for the job?  Would it make sense to forbid corporations with even the slightest personal connection to Congress, or the Administration, from accepting government contracts?  Besides putting illogical limits on the pool of contractors available to the government, that would be brutally unfair to the highly-qualified relatives of elected officials (and, if we were to apply this standard vigorously enough, their high-ranking staffers) as they would suddenly find themselves about as welcome as bird flu at large corporations.

What the Post investigation highlights is the intrinsic corruption of Big Government.  As it becomes larger and more remote, the shadow of corruption falls across more of its actions, and infuses a greater portion of the overall economy.

There would be considerably less suspicion surrounding the decision to construct a particular public-works project if the funds were raised locally, and allocated by local government.  You would still have such, suspicions, of course.  The history of my own town is riddled with some epic tales of good-old-boy networking.  Your hometown probably has a few such tales as well.

But when the size, and distance, of government is elevated to the level of Congress parceling out billions of dollars, you end up with people all over the country paying for earmarked projects they have absolutely no control over, and derive no personal benefit from.  There is little chance that individual representatives will be held accountable at the ballot box for particular spending decisions.  In fact, if a voter in Colorado doesn’t like the way a representative from Tennessee is spending federal money for his own personal benefit, or to please his big contributors, the Colorado voter has no electoral recourse at all.

That sense of lost control, and electoral helplessness, probably has more to do with public distrust of Congress than representatives using earmarks to build up the airports located closest to their summer homes.  Who knows what they’re up to on Capitol Hill?  The folks in “flyover country” just know it’s costing them, and their children, a whole lot of money.

Careful what you tweet.

Two 20-somethings arriving from the U.K. learned a harsh lesson about the American government’s sense of humor on Monday, Jan. 23, when they were detained and then forced to return home due to comments they made on Twitter.

According to the Daily Mail, Leigh Van Bryan, 26, and Emily Bunting, 24, were going through Customs when they were detained.

The two spend the next 12 hours locked up in a cell and being grilled by Homeland Security officials. Bryan was charged with intending to come to the U.S. to commit crimes, while Bunting was charged for traveling with him.

Paperwork for the incident indicates that Bryan’s name was on a “One Day Lookout” list maintained by Homeland Security.

According to the New York Post and World News Daily, this refers to an auto-generated temporary list of inbound travelers that are already in the official terror watch list database.

The paperwork also referred to Bryan’s tweets, incorrectly stating they came from his account on “Tweeter.”

From the official paperwork:

During secondary examination, Mr. Bryan was placed under oath and his sworn statement was taken by CBP Officer Wahmann, Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter [sic] website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also the tweeter account of Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America.

The tweets had been sent a week before their trip, indicating the U.S. government had flagged the pair well before their arrival.

Both claimed the messages were lost in translation.

“They asked why we wanted to destroy America and we tried to explain ['destroy'] meant to get trashed and party,” Bunting told the Daily Mail.

Bryan also said he was asked about a tweet that he says is a quote from the television show ‘Family Guy’ that read, “3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p***** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up!”

“I almost burst out laughing when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh’s lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe,” Bunting told the Daily Mail. “It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels.”

But things quickly became less humorous to Bryan and Bunting.

Speaking with the Daily Mail, Bryan said officials told him, “You really f***** up with that tweet, boy,” before handcuffing and putting him in what Bryan described as a “cage” inside of a van. He said he was then transported to a prison with other border offenders.

“It’s just so ridiculous it’s almost funny but at the time it was really scary. The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist,” Bryan told the Mail.

“We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweets,” Bunting told The Sun.

This isn’t the first time a tweet has gotten someone in trouble with the U.S. government.

And other social media outlets, such as Facebook, have also been used by police to prevent potential crimes. Just last week, an Arizona policeman drew a Secret Service probe for posting a photo of a man holding a T-shirt with the image of President Obama riddled with bullet holes.

This news comes at a time when Internet privacy and censorship are hot issues. Just last week, controversy erupted when Twitter revealed it would comply with censorship laws in countries like China and Thailand where much of the content on the internet is restricted.

Take a look at the tweets that got the couple in hot water (below):

By Todd Starnes Students and parents in Forth Worth, TX are outraged after the school district declared that Christmas celebrations – including visits from Santa Claus would no longer be allowed during the school day. The Fort Worth Independent School District also banned students exchanging Christmas gifts after they determined that public schools could no longer “endorse or sponsor any religious activity or doctrine.” A spokesman for the school district told Fox News & Commentary that “in an effort to be politically correct” teachers are not allowed to “post something that would foster or promote or impugn one doctrine or religion over another – or even give that impression.” Seasonal decorations are still allowed but they have to comply with the district’s ban on decorations that are “religious in nature.” In other words, don’t expect to see a Nativity Scene on school grounds. “We have people of different races and religions and to them this particular time of year may not be celebratory,” school district spokesman Clint Bond told Fox News. “Because of their religious beliefs, they may not choose to celebrate anything at this time of year.” But what about students and teachers who do celebrate Christmas? Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, said it’s time for Christians to rise up and put a stop to what he called “political correctness gone awry.” “America is a Christian nation,” Jeffress told Fox News & Commentary. “It’s time for Americans to stand up and push back against this increasing encroachment upon our First Amendment rights. He called on Christians in Fort Worth to protest the school district’s policy. “They need to pack the next school board meeting with Christians demanding this policy be reversed,” Jeffress said. But Bond said the district does not have an out-right ban on Santa Claus or Christmas celebrations – so long as they are done before or after school – and have an educational purpose. “During the school day, when you are supposed to be teaching, you can’t have a formal party where Santa comes in and kids sit on Santa’s lap,” he said. “That’s not part of the instructional day. You can have class parties. They are permissible. We ask that teachers make them appropriate for the instructional purpose.” But there’s a catch. Bond said the Santa visits and gift exchanges can only occur “before school starts, after school ends or on the evening or weekend.” “Do it at the appropriate time,” he said. “Outside the instructional day.” Parents like Brandon Brewer are outraged. He has three children at Ridglea Hills Elementary School. “In their effort to be PC, they’ve achieved the absurd,” Brewer wrote in an e-mail to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “They’ve taken legality out of the equation insisting that holiday traditions (secular or religious) are suddenly too much of a distraction, and besides, if we let Santa in, maybe a Voodoo Witch Doctor will want to visit the classrooms, and gee, we’d have to let ‘em.” Bond said the policy has been blown out of proportion and disputed the notion that they’ve “killed Santa” – arguing that the values of all students must be considered. He blamed the controversy on a “cheap headline that was in the newspaper” that “unfortunately looks around the reality of the facts.” He said many schools still have Santa art work on the walls and display Christmas trees “with stars on top.” “We’re not killing off the Great Pumpkin,” he said. “We’re not killing off Valentine’s Day. We’re not killing off the Easter Bunny. Those holidays are welcome in our school – at the appropriate time.” Jeffress said the district’s real agenda goes beyond Santa Claus. “We all agree he is not the reason for the season,” he said. “However, it is a more insidious attempt to remove acknowledgement of Christmas from our mindset. The bottom line is Christmas is a day to remember Christ’s birth – and yes we live in a pluralistic society, but we were still founded as a Christian nation and I believe as Americans we have every right to exchange Christmas gifts and in the school district to celebrate Christmas.”

Associated Press

NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey couple who gave their three children Nazi-inspired names is due in court Monday to try to regain custody of their newborn.

Heath and Deborah Campbell’s lawyer says state child welfare officials took custody of the child named Hons after he was born Thursday at Hunterdon Medical Center.

The state took custody of the couple’s other children nearly two years ago, saying there were in danger because of previous violence in the Campbell home.

Their parents made headlines in 2009 when a supermarket refused to decorate a birthday cake for their son, Adolf Hitler. His siblings are named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler.