Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #51 

A handy tutorial on "white privilege" and "microaggressions"


Ben Shapiro says as spoiled, ignorant college students all across America consider ditching their exams but not their bongs to protest the supposed scourge of racism on campus, two terms have been repeated ad infinitum: "white privilege" and "microaggressions."

These terms have become prominent at the university level because when you live in the most wealthy country in the history of mankind and have nothing better to do than play Xbox and vape -- and when that same country glorifies victims of all types -- you must come up with something to complain about. And so students like Jonathan Butler, the Mizzou hunger striker and a child of unending privilege, complains about "white privilege." Smith College idjit junior Raven Fowles-Witten, attending a privileged, tony establishment university, complains about "microaggressions in classrooms."

What do these terms mean?

As I explained yesterday at Breitbart News, "white privilege" is simply a term meaning "you're a white person so shut the hell up." Leftists suggest that anyone who is white carries advantages from skin color, particularly on campus, despite the fact that minority non-Jewish non-Asian students get into colleges with far lesser statistical scores. The only way to avoid charges of "white privilege" is to self-scourge sufficiently: like Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade, only the penitent man (or non-cisnormative human) shall pass. If you don't believe in "white privilege," that is merely another example of your "white privilege."

Then there are "microaggressions." Like "white privilege," "microaggressions" live in the vague fantasy spaces of the leftist mind. Microaggressions and white privilege surround us, even if we're not aware of them. Like The Force, they constitute an energy field created by all living things, surrounding us, separating us, tearing the galaxy apart.

To be more exactly, "microaggressions," according to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in The Atlantic, "are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless." So how do you know they're malicious? You don't. Your subjective interpretation of the comments is what counts. As overeducated moron Aaron Z. Lewis, 21, of Yale told The New York Times, "I don't think it matters what my own personal experiences are with [racism on campus]. What matters is that we all need to have empathy for the experiences that people of color have even if we don't have those experiences for ourselves…It really is hard to believe because we want to believe that we're a postracial society, but it's just not true."

Now, the beautiful thing about microaggressions is the term itself: microaggressions. They aren't "micro-offensive statements." Or "micro-insults." They're tiny aggressions, almost physical in nature. Such aggressions, as with all aggressions, call for punishment. Calling a transgender female -- a man who thinks he is a woman -- "sir" is grounds for legal battery, according to the Left, because it is simply too microaggressive. Words may not break our bones, but they justify sticks and stones. That's why assistant professor Melissa Click of Mizzou felt justified in calling for some "muscle" to deal with a reporter who wanted to take pictures of hunger-striking students: "She said she felt threatened by [reporter Mark Schierbecker]…She said she felt that she and the students were being aggressed upon." That's why black students at Mizzou said today that they wanted white students moved away from them so they could have a "safe space" -- "white privilege" itself, the status of whiteness, represents a "microaggression" in need of full-on racist rectification.

Like all fascists, the pantywaist Fascists must claim that they are not the original aggressors. Like Vladimir Putin claiming that Ukraine instigated violence, or Hitler claiming that the needs of German ethnics in Czechoslovakia required annexation, today's fascists now claim that non-events justify calling in the men with guns.

"White privilege," in short, is an excuse to shut you up.

"Microaggression," in short, is an excuse to arrest, jail, or hurt you.

Together, these two ideas represent an existential threat to Western thoughts and freedoms. Coming in the guise of sensitivity, they end with force. In America, tyranny won't come via jackboot, at least not at the outset. It'll come in Uggs.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #52 

University of Missouri student vice-president is "tired" of 1st Amendment protections

Trey Sanchez is reporting that things have not improved at the University of Missouri since the forced resignation of its president by students protesting against alleged acts of racism. Now it appears as though they won't stop until the First Amendment holds no power over them.

Appearing on MSNBC, vice president of the Missouri Students Association Brenda Smith-Lezama said she is sick and tired of people asserting their First Amendment rights when she feels it is creating a "hostile" and "unsafe" environment.


The student VP was asked by host Thomas Roberts, "One professor complained universities are becoming places of prohibition. What's your feeling? Do you believe that's a place we are heading for American campuses now?"

She answered:

I personally am tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here. I think that it's important for us to create that distinction and create a space where we can all learn from one another and start to create a place of healing rather than a place where we are experiencing a lot of hate like we have in the past.

Smith-Lezama also indicated that she believed the way the photojournalist was treated (read: threatened) in the now-viral video is a "teachable moment" for everybody. 

"I also think it's important to remember that as student journalists, you cannot approach these type of situations with hostility and with anger because it only escalates the situation," she said.


And all of this social justice activism has won big gains this week for these students. Not only has the Mizzou president been ousted, but new initiatives have been put in place for all faculty, staff, and incoming students: mandatory diversity, inclusion and equity training, as well as making sure students are referred to the proper mental health services, if they so require.

Apparently, they really need it!

Tyranny -- the order of the day as progressive lunacy runs amok on American college campuses. 

This is the Left in a nutshell.

Brenda is vigorous in exercising her freedom of expression, but wants to prevent you from expressing yours.

She learned this stuff in school.

And this I don't understand?

The Mizzou student body president is black. The vice president of the Missouri Students Association is black. They're both from families of means.

Yet they believe they're "oppressed."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #53 

Call 911 "immediately" if you hear "hurtful speech"


Trey Sanchez is reporting that according to Twitchy, a former University of Missouri grad posted a screenshot of an e-mail she received exhorting students to contact campus police "immediately" upon witnessing or hearing hurtful speech.

Madi Alexander, a former New York Times journalist, sent the screen cap out on Twitter:


She then posed these three questions:


The e-mail sent out by campus police acknowledges that "hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes," while at the same time threatens "disciplinary action" if the individuals doing the offense are students. But as The Daily Caller notes, previous court rulings have nearly always been in favor of protecting speech outside of class at public colleges.

But the larger question remains, as pointed out by another Twitter user:


Of course it doesn't help when the Mizzou student body president, Payton Head, posted a warning on Facebook that the KKK was confirmed on campus and that he was working with the campus police, the state police and the National Guard:


The only problem with that terrifying statement is it wasn’t true and Head was forced to delete the post and apologize:


Peyton's Twitter page is loaded with hysterical hallucinations of threats to shoot up the school and kill all the black people.

But I'm puzzled? If it's so dangerous for black people at Mizzou, how did Peyton get elected student body president AND "homecoming king" -- and check out all that Brooks Brothers -- just another rich kid bitching about "white privilege."


There's more tweets related to Head's "crying wolf" here . . .

These "collegians" are spoiled babies carrying a very large racial chip on their shoulders.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #54 

Remember the "Free Speech Movement?"

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest that took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. Liberal students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' "right to free speech and academic freedom."

But that was before these same liberals gained control of the university. Now, it's a different story. Now there is no free expression. Now there is no "free speech." Now, the university is an institution of "group think" -- progressive "group think" -- and if you think anything else you are viciously attacked as "the enemy."

Take a look at how this new liberal fascism manifests itself at the University of Missouri, the university with the largest and oldest public college for journalism.

This tells you everything you need to know about the modern Left, academia, political correctness and the reason our so-called "mainstream media" is in the shape it’s in.

The video below was posted to YouTube on Monday and shows a college professor actually advocating violence against a photojournalist, identified as Tim Tai, who dares to do his job.  She demands he leave.  When he doesn’t, she calls for volunteers to "muscle" the reporter away.

The teacher was identified as Melissa Click, a communications professor at the University of Missouri -- and just look at the hate on her face:


"Hey, who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?" Click asked. "I need some muscle over here," she adds.  That can be seen right before the video ends.

Here’s the video of the entire incident:

If these lunatics have their way, we'll become Cuba.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #55 

Hillary's vicious attack on free speech that no one cares about

S. Noble says one of the worst things Hillary Clinton did was to go along with a false narrative that a video caused the attack on the Benghazi mission. She had the videographer, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, arrested for his free speech even though she knew the video didn't cause the attack. This is a woman who wants to be president.

She has absolutely no character.


The night of the attack, Clinton called the prime minister of Libya, explaining that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility. And in a call with Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil, Clinton deliberately rejected the video idea. "We know the attack had nothing to do with the film," she says. "It was a planned attack, not a protest . . . Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda."

There was also a discussion of two videos that night while the men were dying.

Her next step was to tell Charles Woods, Tyrone Woods father, that she would have the videographer arrested even though she knew the video had nothing to do with the attack. She even kept up the lie today and said the video should not be underestimated.

Hillary got lucky. The videographer had a fraud charge and wasn't allowed to used the computer, but not because of videos he made. He was put in jail for a year because he violated his probation, but, in fact, he was put in jail for his free speech and to cover up Team Obama's lies.

He was arrested in the middle of the night and perp-walked by several agents as if he was a danger. He wasn't even allowed out on bail as if he were a dangerous felon.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #56 

Stunner! This court doesn't allow 1st Amendment


Bob Unruh is reporting that the First Amendment will become "little more than window-dressing on a store window -- pretty to look at but serving little real purpose" unless what opponents describe as a court-created exemption to the Constitution is overturned.

That's the argument of attorneys John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute and affiliate Jeffrey Light, who are representing a man who was arrested for holding a sign in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

They have filed a petition for rehearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Hodge v. Talkin.

The court earlier this year affirmed a ban on expressive activity such as handing out leaflets or carrying a sign on the U.S. Supreme Court plaza, the publicly owned area in front of the steps of the building.

"If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment is little more than window-dressing on a store window -- pretty to look at but serving little real purpose," said Whitehead.

For 60 years, the Supreme Court has had a rule "criminalizing expressive First Amendment activity on the Supreme Court plaza."

The rehearing petition points out the ruling by a three-judge panel conflicts with other decisions addressing similar statutes.

And the petition notes the three judges overruled a district-court decision that struck down the limits, finding the ban to be "repugnant" to the Constitution. The decision also found the restrictions are "unreasonable, substantially overbroad and irreconcilable with the First Amendment."

Whitehead of the newest request, "Through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering the First Amendment with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials."

WND has reported as the case progressed, including the earlier three-judge decision.

It was on Jan. 28, 2011, when Harold Hodge stood in the plaza, wearing a 24 inch by 36 inch sign that said "The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People."

He was arrested.

But Whitehead's organization argued the plaza is a "place where the public is allowed to gather and converse, and is in all relevant respects like a public square or park where citizens have traditionally met to express their views on matters of public interest."

Hodge filed the lawsuit, and a district court judge struck down the law as "plainly unconstitutional on its face."

That's when the maneuvering apparently started, Rutherford said.

"In response, the government not only appealed that ruling, but the marshal for the Supreme Court -- with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts -- issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza," the report said.

Rutherford Institute attorneys have since filed a related lawsuit challenging the later orders.

The panel conceded that attorneys and litigants are allowed to use the plaza for public events such as news conferences and for "commercial or professional films relating to the court" but said the government still can exclude those it does not want to have access to the forum.

For example, it noted 200 demonstrators surged up onto the plaza to protest a Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer who fatally shot a teenager in 2014.

The demonstration went on for 15 minutes, but no arrests were made.

Even so, the appeals judges ruled, "the plaza was then, and remains now, a nonpublic forum."

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell originally found: "The absolute prohibition of expressive activity in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment. The court therefore must find the statute unconstitutional and void as applied to the Supreme Court plaza."

The justices and court managers who work at the building struck back immediately. They installed within hours a new set of restrictive "regulations" specifying what can and cannot happen on the high court property, including the plaza.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #57 

Good Law or Bad Law? -- "Congress shall make no law"

Janice Daniels says America's forefathers identified Good Law in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, where it speaks of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." These laws are intractable inasmuch as a tree is a tree, a man is a man and a woman is woman -- that's nature's law based upon God's eternal laws of the universe. It is figuratively written in stone that a tree cannot become a man, a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a tree. No matter how contorted the human mind may become in their effort to disrupt the laws of nature and of nature's God, "these Truths are self-evident."

Since that declaration of Good Law, the written word has been used by man continuously and consistently to make Bad Law; and the only reason this continues to go unabated is that through the years, decades and now centuries, We the People have allowed it to happen.

To that I say, "Shame on us; let's fix it now before it's too late (if it isn't already); and remember, whenever something needs fixing, the best place to start to fix it is at the beginning."

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights attached to the other famous American founding document, the Constitution, is one of the people's most important freedoms, the Freedom of Religion. Our forefathers used sixteen short words to declare religious liberty for all posterity. Those sixteen words read as follows: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's really quite straightforward; understandable at an elementary level; concrete, clear and concise.

And what have we allowed our historical judicial tyrants to do with it? Slowly, serendipitously, stealthily steal our rights so thoroughly that we now live in a country where an innocent woman in Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis, is jailed because she refuses to follow the dictates of one particular judicial terrorist of the day. And why has this happened? I believe it is because we have allowed the sworn enemies of Liberty to distort the very meaning of our God-given, constitutionally protected Rights.

For example, if in fact there is to be separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights puts this concept in the context of a "one-way street." Congress shall make NO LAW. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything to the effect that religious people shall not influence Congress. Furthermore, if there is to be a healthy "separation" of church and state, a good understanding of the mutually respectful separation can be read in a commentary written in 1888 that includes the following paragraph:

Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord's Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.

See: "The American Idea of Religious Freedom," by Philip Schaff.

It's no wonder the statists want to deny our children a proper understanding of American history.

For example, an early challenge to religious liberty was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v United States, involving the right of a Mormon to have more than one wife.

Now, to be clear, I believe in traditional Christian marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree with Mr. Philip Schaff when he states that "Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people" (see italicized paragraph above). That said, this case should never have been allowed (by We the People) to have been adjudicated at the federal level. This was a State issue and should have been finalized in Utah, where "the people" have "the right" to determine "the structure" of "their society" in "their State." That's federalism; that would have been in accordance with our constitution.

However, maybe because Americans were too busy building railroads in 1878, they failed to demand judicial adherence to their constitution; and the Supreme Court was allowed to insert their opinion that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion but allowed it to legislate against action. I don't remember seeing caveats to NO LAW that differentiated between opinion and action; do you? In my humble opinion, the supreme court of 1878 should have cited the First and the Tenth amendments to the United States constitution, declined to even hear the case and remanded it back to the State of Utah, where it should have been properly adjudicated in accordance with the will of the people. Instead, the Supreme Court's handling of this decision seems to have been the proverbial camel's nose under the proverbial tent.

Our religious liberty has, since then, continuously and consistently been eroded at the federal level to the point where, in the 1960's, the supreme court required governments to "refrain from limiting religious freedom, unless they have a compelling societal reason for doing so."

And, of course, the socialist Senator from New York, Charles (Chuckie) Schumer, and the infamous deceased Senator from Massachusetts, Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, were only too happy to enshrine the government's "compelling interest" restriction on our First Amendment Rights in 1993 under the deceitful guise of the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act.

I ask you: Do you really believe that Sen. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Ted Kennedy ever intended to protect your religious freedom? I rest my case.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #58 

University of California's statement of principles against freedom of expression

Dave Blount says with liberal-progressive authoritarianism, everything is twisted around backward and presented as its opposite. For example, when they deprive you of free speech to prevent you from saying things they don't like, this is portrayed as bestowing a right -- the right of privileged people not to hear anything they don't want to hear. To examine progressivism at its most totalitarian, we turn again to Janet Napolitano's University of California:

Intolerance has no place at the University of California. We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups. It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognized symbols of hate, prejudice, or discrimination.

Everyone in the University community has the right to study, teach, conduct research, and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance. The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.

More accurately defined, "intolerance" means anything that a member of a politically favored special interest group (blacks, homosexuals, transvestites, Muslims, etc.) decides to find "offensive."

Stalin himself could not have devised a more stultifying restriction on speech. The idea of course is that by suppressing speech, authorities can suppress thought.

Before liberals consolidated total control of them, universities were actually known as open marketplaces for ideas. Now there is literally no place on earth where you can speak less freely.

Enjoy your right for there to be no "intolerance."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #59 

Internet free speech reaches the DC Appeals Court

S. Noble is reporting that a Washington, D.C., appeals court is set to hear arguments later this year on new net neutrality rules, which critics say could lead to government regulators censoring websites such as the Drudge Report and Fox News.

In February, the FCC stated that Broadband providers do not have a right to free speech. "Broadband providers are conduits, not speakers … the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression," the majority held in its 3-2 vote.

The hundreds of pages of FCC rules have gone into effect. Google and Netflix do not have the same requirement.

Free speech on the Internet has not been regulated but Democrats want to regulate it.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai has been very public about his opposition to the federal government takeover of the internet via "Net Neutrality."

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," he has said.


Pai, pictured above, stated that in the foreseeable future, federal regulators "will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the powers of the FCC or the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Pai spoke on a panel in March at the annual "Right Online" conference in Washington, DC where he revealed his opposition to these new "regulations".

These new "rules" reclassify the internet provider as a utility and "command them not to block or 'throttle' online traffic."

Pai says it's only the beginning. According to Pai and the new rules could "migrate" to directing content, not just the "road over which the traffic flows, but the traffic itself."

Pai stated, "It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, 'We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn't have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn't have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.'"


Many believe this is a "takeover" by the government that will eventually lead to silencing political dissonance.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel wants regulations that would treat them like PACs. Until now they have been free of most FEC rules.

The effort was blocked by three Republicans but Ravel has promised to bring it back with full force next year.

The Washington Examiner reported that she would likely "regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website."

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, described what Ms. Ravel wants as something like a Chinese censorship board.

He said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like "Obama Girl," and "Jib Jab" would also face regulations.

"I told you this was coming," he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

We might never again see spoofs like Obama Girl, Sean Hannity's website would be under scrutiny, and Drudge Report would be taxed and regulated out of existence.

Like all other executive agencies, the FEC has been politicized.

On April 4 2013, during a conversation with POLITICO's Mike Allen, White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer labeled the Drudge Report as harmful.

He said the media has a "Pavlovian response" to controversial links posted by the conservative news aggregator, The Drudge Report.

Pfeiffer also argued that the site actively "hurts" the White House's efforts to convey their message "on a daily basis".

One can assume from that statement that the White House expects the media to work in lockstep with his message. The Obama administration loves state media and nothing must interfere.

He also doesn't want reporters to go to Drudge and pick up information he then has to answer questions about.

The Drudge Report is nothing more than a right-leaning news aggregator -- a highly successful one and therein lies the problem for the leftists.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #60 

University of Wisconsin bans racist phrase -- "everybody can succeed"


Jim Hoft is reporting that The University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point is the latest school to ban common phrases like, "everybody can succeed," or "America is a melting pot" because of their racist nature.

The list of "microaggressions" is posted on the university’s website, and the university expects new faculty to read it and enforce it.

The titled of the document is "Examples of Racial Microaggressions" and outlines types of "racist microaggressions," examples of them, and what they are "actually" saying.

In the section "Color Blindness: Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to acknowledge race," the quote, "America is a melting pot" is said to be racist. According to the document, whites try to force others to "assimilate/acculturate to the dominant culture" when they say that.

"Click" image for larger copy -- "ESC" to return:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #61 

Vikings player compares gay marriage to pedophilia -- is forced to make his Twitter account private

Soopermexican is reporting that one Vikings football player just learned that you cannot speak out against gay marriage without the full weight of the social justice warrior wing of the NFL crashing down upon you.

Here’s what he said on Twitter:


Many pointed out that children can’t consent. Which is kinda true. Robinson continued on:

josh robinson tweet 02

But that opinion isn’t allowed. Robinson has since privated his account, and I am willing to put money on his being punished somehow tomorrow by the NFL.

No thoughtcrimes allowed!!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #62 

Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out

Bruce Thornton says since ancient Athens free speech has been at the heart of political freedom. "Free men have free tongues," as Sophocles said, for freedom depended on citizens empowered to speak freely in the public deliberations about policy and the laws through which they governed. That's why the Founders wrote the First Amendment, to prevent force from trumping law by silencing dissent. That's also why the enemies of political freedom always try to destroy free speech.

Violence or force has been the usual instrument for controlling speech, whether by murder, torture, incarceration, burning books, or shutting down presses and Internet sites. Today a more subtle form of censorship is being practiced, especially in American universities. By succeeding in their "long march" through higher education, today's progressive professors and administrators have created an academic environment, abetted by vaguely written anti-discrimination laws, that internalizes censorship through shaming, intimidation, and threats of legal sanction. The effect is the same as the more brutal techniques of totalitarian states: dissent is driven off campus, making it easier for progressives to indoctrinate and mold to their own ends the susceptible and undeveloped minds of students.

The University of California, which has nearly a quarter of a million students and a $27 billion budget, recently issued a document that illustrates the illiberal ideology that drives the university's squelching of free speech. Entitled "Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages they Send," the document originated with UC President Janet Napolitano, the one-time head of Homeland Security who had no experience as a university professor or even administrator before UC made her president. Thus it's no surprise she would endorse practices that violate the central canon of academic freedom.

The "microagressions" the UC identifies are in fact ordinary, innocuous statements only the hypersensitive or neurotically insecure would turn into a racist or sexist "message." "Where are you from or where were you born?" according to UC in fact means, "You are not a true American." Asking a foreigner how to say something in his native tongue means "You are a perpetual foreigner in your own country." That one is particularly hypocritical, since the cult of multicultural diversity permeates the campus and ensures minorities remain "perpetual foreigners" by asserting the superiority of their "culture" over America's. "Wow, how did you get to be so good in math" is code for "People of color are generally not as intelligent as Whites." Given how innumerate most college students of any color are, this could be just a genuine plea for help.

Worse are the statements that once comprised the canon of the Civil Rights Movement, but are now considered "microagressions." "When I look at you, I don't see color" actually is the command to "Assimilate to the dominant culture." So much for Martin Luther King's dream that someday his children would be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." "There is only one race, the human race" -- a favorite of my black high school chemistry teacher -- and "I don't believe in race" now really are messages "Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being." No, they are denying that everybody is just a "racial/cultural being," that an individual's heart and mind are more important than the color of his skin or the culture of his antecedents. In short, these "microagressions" are objectionable because they challenge the illiberal multicultural orthodoxy that the collective wholly defines the individual.

Then there are true statements that progressives find offensive for ideological reasons. The historically demonstrable observation that "America is a melting pot" is now a way of "Denying the significance of a person of color's racial/ethnic experience and history." Wrong: It's a reminder that American identity is not predicated on "blood and soil," but on fealty to the ideas of individual rights and political freedom enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the principles that create the national unum out of a myriad of ethnic and religious pluribus. To say "I believe that the most qualified person should get the job" is code for "People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race." Of course, ignored is the fact that minorities are given "unfair benefits" based solely on their race. Just ask the thousands of Asians denied acceptance into Harvard. An Asian student has to have an SAT score 450 points higher than a black applicant's, which means that a black applicant is indeed given a "benefit" of 450 SAT points based on his race.

Most egregious is the claim that saying "America is the land of opportunity" is really a slur against minorities, who "are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder." No, it's a reminder that the equality of our political system is the equality of opportunity, not the equality of result. It is the chance for all to rise as far as their individual talents, virtues, and hard work can take them, what Plato calls "proportional equality," which is "giving due measure to each according to nature." But of course, the social and cultural determinism of the progressives loathes such equality, for they endorse a view of human nature that holds all people as absolutely equal. If they are not in fact equal, it's because of unjust racist and sexist institutions that bestow "white privilege" and hinder minorities from succeeding. Tell that to the 12 million illegal aliens, most of them "people of color," who risk their lives to reach what is in fact a "land of opportunity" compared to the countries they have left.

This fatuous document is obviously pandering to the diversity cult and the grievance industry. Such ideas anywhere are an embarrassment, but they are particularly shameful coming from the world's largest system of advanced education. The university's mission is supposed to be the creation of independent, critical minds trained as such by the exposure to what Matthew Arnold called "the best which has been thought and said in the world, and, through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically." The latter clause is an exact description of what today the progressive orthodoxy of our universities is training students to do -- "follow staunchly but mechanically" progressive dogma.

Today's campuses, then, have abandoned what once was known as "liberal education," which Alan Bloom defined in terms that directly challenge the multicultural identity politics the UC document serves. "A liberal education," Bloom wrote, "means precisely helping students to pose this question [what is a human] to themselves, to become aware that the answer is neither obvious nor simply unavailable, and that there is no serious life in which this question is not a continuous concern . . . Liberal education provides access to these alternatives [i.e. answers to the question], many of which go against the grain of our nature or our times. The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration." In contrast, the UC document bespeaks an ideology -- multicultural identity politics --  in which the answer is "obvious," "easy," and "preferred," and the "alternatives" that "go against the grain of our times" are attacked and censored.

Finally, the UC document inculcates self-censorship and obeisance to the progressive "easy and preferred answers," which in turn requires imposing limits on free speech and censoring what Arnold called "the free play of the mind on all subjects." For the ideal Bloom describes requires the university to be "the model of true openness" in which there is an "absence of legal constraints," one necessary for the "freedom of the mind." And in the end, that's what academic freedom is supposed to serve: training people to have free minds so that political freedom can survive and flourish. The opposite sort of education, the one embodied in the UC document, is an instrument of totalitarianism -- a "micro-totalitarianism," as Thomas Sowell puts it, to be sure, but still an enemy of freedom in its assault on free speech and thought. For as Bloom points out, "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable."

That is the tyranny lurking behind the UC's "microaggression" gospel. It's not about protecting "snowflake" students who are so fragile that banal comments or opinions can send them scurrying like preschoolers into "safe rooms." It's about what totalitarianism is always about: the monopolization of power in order to reshape human nature for its own collectivist ends. It is scandalous that taxpayer funded universities, by acting as the enforcers of censorship rather than the promoters of free speech, should be the instruments of tyranny rather than the liberators of the mind.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #63 

The myth of separation of church and state

Jonathan P. Henderson says:

I am frequently attacked by a rapidly-radicalizing Left as a religious freedom advocate. My assailants, all atheists, make no secret of their intentions to strip away our right to worship, period. They insist Christians seek to manufacture a national theocracy, yet they support replacing the Constitution with Sharia law.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a theocracy as follows:


They scream of American society's ecclesiastical rape upon viewing Christian imagery. The decline of religious liberty initiated during the 1960's with the full ban of the Lord's Prayer and reading from the Bible in public schools in School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963). This launched the amoral avalanche killing our civil liberties. The Supreme Court cited in Abington School District v. Schempp the school's violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, forbidding the state from establishing an official religion while prohibiting favoritism for one religion over others, the same with respect to the right not to worship.

Specifically, the full First Amendment protects nearly all the liberties Americans for more than 224 years have enjoyed. Any shows of deference in favor of one faith over all others, or of atheism over peoples of faith, are both unconstitutional and a violation of the American imperative for the individual's civil rights:

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is no constitutional language mandating "separation of church and state". It is not lawful for Congress to establish a national religion or to prohibit an individual's right to worship. There are no legal limitations on free speech or censorship of the media, the right to a peaceful assembly nor petitioning the government as an activist. And while government can neither establish a state religion nor prohibit the rights to worship, no language specifies government and religion cannot coexist in a symbiotic cohabitative relationship.


The concept, however, was constructed on the grounds of tradition, or "common law". We must credit Thomas Jefferson for this juxtaposition of political paradox in his reply to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802, as he entered his second year as president. A devout Deist as one of the American children of the European Enlightenment, President Jefferson replied to the Danbury congregation under intense scrutiny, explaining why he would refrain from declaring national days of prayer and thanksgiving. In the process, Jefferson was the first president complicit in political correctness. He consulted two politicians in Federalist-dominated New England while conveying neither Congress nor the president should engage in policies violating the Establishment Clause.

To Messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

T. H. Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

The first president declared "man of the people", Jefferson's populism altered political positions he initially considered paramount for a just republic. And while he believed the popular sovereignty must dictate the course of republicanism, he attempted to interpret the Constitution verbatim. Jefferson permitted his personal disdain for religion under an omnipotent supernatural entity in lieu of his preference for one based on reason affect his own latent prejudice favoring secular scientism over Christian ethos.

James Madison penned in The Federalist Papers No. 51 federalism must balance and preclude the rise of dominant factions. This includes the difficult task of weighing the supremacy of the majority versus the right of the minority to culturally-abstain. He warned such a rise of a dominant minority class would grow militant, leading to anarchy and "the death of civil society itself".

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

"The Great Little Madison" not only warned against such a rise February 6, 1788, but is shaking his head in disbelief as he rolls in his grave now that American civility is on its death bed.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #64 

Obama pressures colleges to adopt unconstitutional "speech codes"

Hans Bader is reporting that under Barack Obama, the Education Department has pressured schools and colleges to restrict speech, including off campus speech, even when it is protected by the First Amendment, and is not severe and pervasive. It claims this is required by federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title IX and Title VI. It also expects colleges to investigate off-campus sexual misconduct by students, even though most federal appellate court rulings say schools have no such duty under Title IX.


As I recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, "the Education Department, where I used to work," is

...pressuring colleges to adopt unconstitutional speech codes in the name of fighting sexual harassment. It has disregarded many court rulings in doing so.

For example, the Education Department has wrongly ordered schools to regulate off-campus speech and conduct. That contributed to the harassment charges against Prof. Laura Kipnis, who was accused over a politically incorrect essay she wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education and statements she made on Twitter. Court rulings like Roe v. Saint Louis University (2014) reject Title IX claims over off-campus conduct, but the Education Department ignores them. It also ignores court rulings like Klein v. Smith (1986) emphasizing that the First Amendment usually bars public schools from restricting off-campus speech. For example, the Education Department told schools to regulate comments "on the Internet" in an October 2010 letter. In 2014, it demanded that Harvard regulate off-campus conduct more.

At Northwestern University, Professor Laura Kipnis was subjected to a bizarre Title IX investigation over an essay in the Chronicle titled "Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe" (which hypersensitive students claimed offended them and constituted sexual harassment) and her subsequent statements defending herself on Twitter (which the students claimed constituted "retaliation" in violation of Title IX, even though she did not identify them by name). Kipnis was ultimately found not guilty.

Although it eventually became clear that nothing Kipnis did violated Title IX, Northwestern probably felt obligated to subject Kipnis to that chilling, lengthy, and extensive investigation due to improper mandates issued by the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which make it hard to summarily dismiss weak or baseless Title IX complaints.

As I have discussed earlier, OCR issued such mandates in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment provisions, a disturbing practice frequently committed by the Education Department. A federal appeals court in a different part of the country ruled in White v. Lee (2000) that lengthy, speech-chilling civil rights investigations by government officials can violate the First Amendment even when they are eventually dropped without imposing any fine or disciplinary action. But Northwestern is a private university.

OCR's mandates wrongly extend Title IX to off-campus speech and conduct, and pressure colleges to investigate even if the speech or conduct alleged is not severe and pervasive. The Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education requires proof that conduct was severe and pervasive to violate Title IX, emphasizing five times that it must be "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive."

OCR, to the contrary, deems colleges liable for sexual harassment based on conduct that is merely "persistent" or "severe" or "pervasive." Professor Kipnis may have been "persistent" in expressing her views, but there was nothing "severe" and "pervasive" about them, or the way she expressed them.

OCR sometimes expects colleges to nip harassment in the bud by taking draconian measures against speech that does not legally amount to sexual harassment, such as when it told the University of Montana in 2013 to investigate even speech that was not offensive to a reasonable person, much less severe or pervasive, as "sexual harassment."

Prior to the Obama administration, a college like Northwestern would not have taken seriously a Title IX complaint over debate occurring largely off campus, like Kipnis's essay and tweet. They would not have felt obligated to even investigate such a weak Title IX complaint, because judges had often ruled that off-campus activity was simply beyond Title IX's reach, in decisions such as Lam v. Curators of the University of Missouri (1997) (which rejected a lawsuit against a university over a professor's alleged assault against a student) and Roe v. Saint Louis University (2014) (which rejected a lawsuit over an alleged student-on-student rape).

In addition, according to most courts, the First Amendment gives public schools and state colleges little power to restrict off-campus speech, as decisions like Klein v. Smith (1986) and J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District (2011) make clear.

But OCR has disregarded such court rulings. In an October 26, 2010, "Dear Colleague" letter about school bullying and Title IX, it told America's school officials that federal statutes such as Title IX and Title VI can require schools to punish students for "graphic and written statements" on the "internet," and "web sites of a sexual nature."

Prior to the Obama administration's attempt to radically expand Title IX, a university would have viewed Kipnis's statements as obviously beyond the reach of Title IX because they were not "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" (as the Supreme Court's Davis decision requires for Title IX harassment liability), and also because they were directed at the general public, not to the complainants (which made them protected by academic freedom and the First Amendment, under the logic of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Rodriguez v. Maricopa Community College (2011), which rejected a racial harassment lawsuit over a professor's anti-immigration emails which were deemed to create a hostile educational environment.).

But in May 2013, OCR ordered the University of Montana to ignore the requirements in the Supreme Court's Davis decision (that speech be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive) in its internal Title IX investigations of harassment and retaliation. Kipnis's university, Northwestern, apparently heeded OCR's censorial instructions to the University of Montana in adopting the overly broad definition of harassment cited by the complainants who sought to silence Kipnis. Moreover, in May 2014, OCR told Tufts University to change its harassment policy to reach even statements not "directed at a specific person or persons." That, too, opened the door to harassment charges over commentary and discourse such as the newspaper essay written by Professor Kipnis.

As one observer notes, since 2013, "the Office for Civil Rights has sent conflicting signals ever since then about whether the definition it urged on the [University of Montana] should be adopted by all colleges, or need not be (sometimes suggesting it is a blueprint for all colleges, and sometimes not), but it is not surprising that colleges that want to avoid a Title IX inquisition have adopted it to avoid potential harassment by the Office for Civil Rights, as many in fact have," resulting in draconian restrictions on speech at some colleges, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has noted.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #65 

"It's because they're afraid"

SooperMexican says Rich Lowry from National Review is one of the better commentators on political policy and in this great interview with Megyn Kelly, he presents the rational argument to defend Pam Geller's "offensive" political speech.

Whether you agree with her position or not, it's absurd to demand that her message be shut down because extremists are "offended." If anything, that's a reason to press on and drag the extremists into modernity -- or shoot them down when they come to kill you.

Chris Cuomo is a prototypical liberal-progressive. There is absolutely no question -- in his mind -- that he is 100% correct.

He couldn't be more wrong.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #66 

There is alarming support for effective repeal of the 1st Amendment

Charles C. W. Cooke says that despite the Hope & Change inflicted by the bloated federal government through unaccountable agencies like the EPA and the IRS, people still refer to the USA as the "Land of the Free," but will it still be considered a free country -- and will it even be recognizable as America -- if the 1st Amendment falls victim to political correctness? We may soon find out:

YouGov's latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people.

In practical terms, to "stir up hatred against particular groups" means to say anything deemed critical (or opposed to the interests) of politically favored blocs like blacks, Muslims, illegal aliens, and homosexuals. No one is going to prosecute those who denounce white or Christians -- that would be racist.

Once we have crossed the Rubicon by discarding the 1st Amendment, the current slippery slope toward tyranny will be replaced by a plunge off a cliff.

Want to undo Obama's undoing of welfare reform or reassert law and order in places like Baltimore? That could be construed as hateful toward blacks, who consume a disproportionate amount of welfare money and commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

Worried about terrorism or the rise of the Islamic State? Want to let people know what Islam is actually about? That would be hateful toward Muslims.

Want to secure the border and enforce immigration law before the country is completely overrun by the Third World? Keep it to yourself, lest you commit hate speech against illegal aliens.

Want to read aloud from the Bible? Mind you avoid passages deemed hateful toward homosexuals.

Due to the way cultural Marxism has configured our politics, there is nothing you could say to challenge left-wing ideology that could not be construed as stirring up "hatred" toward a sacred "victim" group. The concept of criminal hate speech effectively bans all intellectual resistance.

Yet look at the numbers they are able to achieve by making us forget the word "freedom" in favor of the phony word "hate":


If it were up to the majority of Democrats, I would be hauled off to prison for writing this.

Unsurprisingly, since it would render them immune from criticism, and since many of them are not on board with this whole America thing, 62% of blacks favor criminalizing politically incorrect speech, in contrast to 36% of whites:


America's deliberately engineered "changing demographics" make sense from the point of view of tyrants.

Consider the "progress" Progressives have made in undermining Christianity by normalizing homosexual marriage in just the past few years. A stand that only recently was too extreme even for Obama and Hillary Clinton is now presented as mainstream, and those who resist it are snarlingly denounced as "haters." Now consider what leftist social engineers will be able to do with plurality support for criminalizing speech deemed to be politically incorrect.

Reagan famously said that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." It looks very possible that this will be that generation -- which would reduce the sacrifices we acknowledge on Memorial Day to heroic but futile gestures on behalf of a country that turned out not to be worth dying for.

Obviously we can't let that happen. In the past we could count on heroes in the armed forces to defend our freedom, but now the primary enemy is within. In the information war, every American has a duty to fight by whatever means they can.


Soon they could be throwing us in jail for it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #67 

Controlling the language -- how Progressives stifle dissent

Richard Larsen says ever since the junior senator from Illinois announced his candidacy for the presidency eight years ago, those who have criticized his politics and his ideology have been pummeled with a charge of "racism." It's been the perfunctory, knee-jerk response -- devoid of intellectual integrity or factual relevance -- to avoid the substantive issues, while attempting to simultaneously stifle dissent and silence critics. And it's clear from early indications with regard to the 2016 presidential race, that the same modus operandi will be employed against those critical of Hillary Clinton. Only this time it will be gender based -- the charge of sexism.

During the Obama tenure, the charge of "racist" has been unavoidable to any who were critical of the president. Whether it was criticism of Obamacare, lack of transparency, fiscal profligacy, inscrutable foreign policy, class-envy fomentation, and anti-capitalist policies, it didn't matter. Regardless of the logic, data, facts, or strength of argument, if you opposed the administration policies and initiatives, you were a racist. At least according to the sycophants, who were either oblivious to logic, data, or facts, and had an empty logical quiver from which to fire back with anything except blanks.

[racist_0%255B1%255D]And what's pathetic, from a free speech, open discourse, and cogent political discourse perspective, is that it worked. The millions of Americans who flocked to Tea Party rallies, Glenn Beck confabs, and other conservative functions, were successfully labeled "racists" because of their opposition to the liberal, destructive policies of the administration. It didn't matter what color, race, creed, or socio-economic status they hailed from, they were all racists.

For some reason, the fact that the policies propounded and foisted on the nation the past six years are not race-based seems lost on the vapid purveyors of the "racist" tactic. Big government, massive debt, onerous regulations, expansive government control, and the concomitant loss of personal liberty are naturally opposed not because they might be advanced by someone of a certain color, ethnic background, or native language. They're opposed because they're antithetical to the founding principles of our republic! It matters not who is foisting the destructive policies and ideology on the nation; it matters that they're distinctly anti-American. Conservative Ben Carson's current lead in the crowded GOP primary race underscores that fact.

What's brilliant about the tactic, is that you don't have to worry about any facts, data, or common sense to employ it. Just by hurling the accusation several things have been accomplished with one fell swoop. 1) The argument has been misdirected, so it's no longer about the policies or the substance of the disagreement, it's now whether the dissenter is truly racist or not. 2) It neutralizes and diminishes the objections of the dissenter, for now the greater issue is whether he is in fact racist, or not. And 3) it successfully stifles dissent, since no one, probably even real racists, likes to be called one, so why go out on a limb and face the probability of such an accusation?

And now it appears that Hillary Clinton supporters will use the same tactic. Just last month a pro-Hillary group, self-dubbed the HRC Super Volunteers, warned journalists that they were going to be watching vigilantly how the media reports on Hillary's campaign. Group member and co-founder, John West, was thoughtful enough to serve as an early warning system on the words that cannot, I repeat, cannot be used to describe the probable Democrat candidate for president. According to West, "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over-confident," "secretive," "will do anything to win," "represents the past," and "out of touch," are all apparently sexist code-words that the media are to not use when describing the candidate.

According to West, "Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy," followed by a list of examples from major news sources and their egregious use of such sexist vernacular. As a student of language and etymology, I have to admit I was unaware those words and phrases were definitionally sexist.

But alas, I shouldn't let myself fall into their misdirection and accusatory trap. It's not that those words are sexist, it's just that they're so accurately descriptive of the presumptive Democrat nominee that using the terms will earn the consternation of Hillary devotees, hence justifying accusations of sexism. By couching those terms in a sexist context, they can as easily avert factual criticism of Hillary as they did in protecting Obama. Just like the accusations of "racism;" it has nothing to do with what is true or what is factual, it has everything to do with ensuring electoral success and neutralizing the opposition by attempting to shape and control the language.

Those of us who are bitter clingers to our freedom, our liberties, and the principles the nation was founded on, shouldn't allow ourselves to be rebuffed or silenced by the non-thinking Alinsky devotees who utilize these nefarious and polarizing tactics. And remember, if that's their primary tool to fight back with, you know that logically you've already won, because their only defense is casting aspersions ad hominem.

There are two things even more disturbing than a group attempting to regulate political speech. One, that the liberal-biased media may well comply, and play their game; and two, that for a large segment of our unenlightened and uninformed electorate, their "sexist" tactic will work.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #68 

You "must be made" to obey


Matt Barber says while actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives' words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

When they don't like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have, and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words "marriage" and "equality."

Other "progressive" doublespeak includes words like "invest" (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), "tolerance" (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), "diversity" (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), "hate" (meaning truth), or "The Affordable Care Act" (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable, and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it's during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends' rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular. Obama said:

"[W]e're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues."

How Kim Jong-un of him.

In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

This is an idea older than -- and as well preserved as -- Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to "change how the media reports on these issues" with the First Amendment's Free Press Clause, namely, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press," is abundantly clear.

He doesn't.

Our emperor-in-chief will force-feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree -- a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be president Hillary Clinton's comments last month on the "rite" of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

Reports LifeNews:

The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

"Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced," Clinton said, using euphemisms for abortion.

"Rights have to exist in practice -- not just on paper," Clinton argued. "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

That's a lot of "have tos." See the pattern here? Whether it's Obama saying government will "have to change how the media reports," or Hillary saying "deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed," such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians "must be made" to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, "Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana," Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list,'" he writes. "His commandment is worthy -- and warranted," he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both "vile affections" and "an abomination" throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest, and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

"But this isn't free speech, it's hate speech!" come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. "Hate speech is excluded from protection," opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. "But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment," replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. "Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas."

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man's "hate speech" is another man's truth; and as I've often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

And so they mean to muzzle it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #69 

Court rules that YouTube cannot be forced to remove "Innocence of Muslims"

Tina Nguyen is reporting that an appeals court today reversed a lower court's decision compelling YouTube to remove the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, saying that such an act was a violation of the First Amendment.

The film, a 13-minute "trailer" created by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in 2012, sparked outrage among the Muslim community for its depiction of the prophet Muhammad as a pedophile and a murderer, and for a time was thought to be the cause of the attacks against the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

The initial lawsuit had been filed by Cindy Lee Garcia, one of the actresses in the film, who said that she had no idea that her film was about Islam. (Her lines in the film had been dubbed over and replaced with: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"). Garcia claimed that as a result of the film, she received death threats and demanded that YouTube remove the film; a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially sided with her claim. A year later, the entire eleven judge panel revisited the decision and reversed it.

In the opinion, written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, they based their ruling on Garcia's specific claim -- that she held a copyright to her five seconds of performance, and that YouTube was violating that copyright by hosting the movie without her permission. The :

As Garcia characterizes it, "the main issue in this case involves the vicious frenzy against Ms. Garcia that the Film caused among certain radical elements of the Muslim community." We are sympathetic to her plight. Nonetheless, the claim against Google is grounded in copyright law, not privacy, emotional distress, or tort law, and Garcia seeks to impose speech restrictions under copyright laws meant to foster rather than repress free expression. Garcia's theory can be likened to "copyright cherry-picking," which would enable any contributor from a costume designer down to an extra or best boy to claim copyright in random bits and pieces of a unitary motion picture without satisfying the requirements of the Copyright Act. Putting aside the rhetoric of Hollywood hijinks and the dissent's dramatics, this case must be decided on the law.

In addition, the takedown order was a straightforward violation of the law and the First Amendment, McKeown wrote. "The mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a politically significant film -- based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright," she argued. "In so doing, the panel deprived the public of the ability to view firsthand, and judge for themselves, a film at the center of an international uproar."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #70 

SC school tells student to take down "offensive" US flag from truck

Jim Hoft is reporting that York Comprehensive senior Peyton Robinson was recently told by school officials that he could no longer fly his American flag in his pickup truck -- it was offensive.

Yesterday, supporters rallied for Peyton and the US flag. The Blaze reported:

Peyton Robinson said he got the bad news from a school administrator Wednesday morning.

The 18-year-old senior at York Comprehensive High School was told he wasn't allowed to fly his American flag and POW-MIA flag in the bed of his pickup truck.

"He said, 'We're having some issues. Some people were complaining about the flags in your truck,'" Robinson told WBTV-TV. He said the administrator said the flags could "possibly" be offensive, and told Robinson to take them down before coming back to the South Carolina school Thursday.

But apparently, Robinson didn't have to lift a finger.

He told WBTV that at some point Wednesday, a school official unscrewed the bolts securing the flags to his truck and laid them in the bed "when I wasn't even there."

By the end of the school day, officials announced that flags such as Robinson's are safety concerns. Superintendent Vernon Prosser told WSOC-TV the fear is that they could block the view of other drivers and cause a wreck.

The senior -- who has relatives who served in the military -- was upset. "I was pretty mad," he told WBTV. "I don't see how it's a problem. Nobody has ever complained about it before."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #71 

Judge rules "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of atheists

John S. Roberts is reporting that Atheists are always quick on the draw when it comes to silencing freedom of religion , and religious speech in particular. Their feelings are: We don't believe in God, and we don't want you letting us know that you believe in Him. 

"Under God" has been used as target practice for many on the Left ever since it was placed within the Pledge of Allegiance by President Eisenhower in 1956, and even today, decades later, liberals can't seem to justify the fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

History seems to take a backseat to faux outrage.

In a decision made earlier this year, but just published Monday, Judge David Bauman of New Jersey ruled that "the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of atheists" after "a lawsuit [was] filed by a student against the Matawan-Aberdeen school district" who argued that the words "promoted an environment of discrimination in class because it elevated religion and made the atheist students feel like "second-class citizens," reported.

A much deserved victory for religion.

Cue up the liberal outrage.

From BizPac Review:

Attorneys for the plaintiff contended that the unnamed student felt "marginalized" when he heard the pledge "just as America's Jews, Hindus, and Muslims would feel excluded, marginalized and stigmatized if they were told by their government on a daily basis that the United States is one nation 'under Jesus.'"

Judge David F. Bauman dismissed the case in February, but his ruling was published Monday. In it, he stated that the student had every right to skip the Pledge if he wanted to, but that the words do not endorse a particular religion.

Bauman followed up: "As a matter of historical tradition, the words 'under God' can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words 'In God We Trust' from every coin in the land, than the words 'so help me God' from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787," Bauman wrote.

Well said.

"The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise," he added.

Bauman pointed out that the state's constitution even references "Almighty God."

How about that? A commonsense, legitimate response as to why the term "under God" is highly validated.

The American Humanist Society would disagree with me, though…

"The daily pledge recitation is a core part of how we define patriotism for children on a daily basis, so the exercise is discriminatory if it associates patriotism with God-belief and suggests that atheists and humanists are second-class citizens," legal director of the American Humanist Association's Appignani Humanist Legal Center David Niose said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #72 

Free speech -- is it only for the Left?


Morgan Brittany asks: How many times have you heard a comment made by someone on the Left where you said to yourself, "Wow, can you imagine if a conservative said that?"

So, why is it that the progressives in America have the right to say whatever it is they want, but if anyone expresses their opinion and it differs from the worldview of the Left, they are demonized and shouted down?

This is becoming a tremendous problem, and every day we are seeing that free speech is becoming less and less available to anyone who disagrees with the Left.

Is anyone noticing that there is an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment that guarantees us the right to speak openly and freely even if it makes people uncomfortable? Does anyone see that opinions and ideas the Left disagrees with are immediately attacked and ridiculed?

We can’t use certain words anymore because the Left has deemed them "unacceptable hate speech." They have decided what we can and cannot say. Well, I have news for them, according to our founders and the 1st Amendment, we have the right to voice our opinions -- and just because a conservative says it, does not make it "hate speech."

Political correctness is killing this country. We have to be so careful not to offend anyone that we have allowed our voices to be censored. The Left has completely indoctrinated everyone through its control of the media and the message, so most people go along with this rather than fight it. God forbid you should speak out and give your opinion if you have conservative beliefs. The Left will target you, dig up everything that they can on you and find something you said years ago that was (according to them) hateful, racist or bigoted. Excuse me, but who made them the police force of American speech?

Look at Paula Deen. They dug up words she said years ago, demonized her and made sure that she lost her job, her contracts and made her a pariah with the public. They tried the same thing with Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty." Just because his program was enormously successful with its roots in family and religion, the Left targeted him for his views and did everything in their power to silence him. Luckily, Phil fought back and did not let himself be silenced.

They tried it again with the president of Chick-fil-A. Just because he happened to have his own personal beliefs that had absolutely nothing to do with how he ran his business, he was targeted, boycotted and made to look like a bigot. The media carried the water for the Left and spun every story branding him a "hater." I could go on and on with stories of lives turned upside down by this intolerance of opinion.

While all of this targeting was going on in the public arena, quietly, behind closed doors, leading possibly up to the White House, orders were given to the IRS to silence any conservative TEA Party voices applying for tax-exempt status. There was a blatant effort to silence the free speech of these organizations and keep them from getting their message out. What country are we living in?!

The Left is vicious in its attacks on anyone who dares to have an opposing opinion. Black conservatives, women, even members of their own party are turned on with a vengeance if they even think about speaking against the Left’s agenda. If they do stray from the liberal message, they are called "house N-word" if they are black or "dim-witted airheads" if they are women.

The odd thing is, the Left is so concerned about conservative, religious voices being heard, yet they will go to their deaths defending the rights of radical Muslims who are preaching hate against Americans and calling for the destruction of both Israel and the United States. Radical Islam, which hates gays, oppresses women and has a vendetta against all Jews, is seemingly "OK" with the Left. Their speech is acceptable, but a conservative voice is not. The Left does everything in its power to make sure radical Islamists are not offended.

Just last week, Pamela Geller, was hosting a private event in Texas, which involved an art contest featuring the prophet Muhammad. Radical Islamists decided that these Americans should be killed for attending their own private function just because they disagreed with them. Thankfully, a brave police officer killed the radicals before they could do any damage, but the reaction to this situation by the Left was appalling!

Instead of standing up for Geller’s right to speak freely under the 1st Amendment, she was the one targeted for antagonizing the radical Muslims!

There were numerous voices all over the media analyzing her motives and making her out to be an "instigator." There was very little discussion of Geller’s rights in the leftist media, but they made sure that the would-be killers were portrayed as victims of American hatred.

Not only does the Left defend radical Muslims, but they have a love affair with criminals who gun down innocent people. They will send high-ranking officials to the funeral of a thug/criminal, but not one will be sent to the service of an innocent victim.

We as Americans need to stop this now. We need to shine a light on the fact that some of our highest elected officials are all-in for silencing anyone who doesn’t agree with them. This is an orchestrated effort, and little by little we will see our freedom of speech completely taken away. The worldview of the Left will be the only acceptable view, and anyone who disagrees will be threatened.

No matter what the subject -- illegal immigration, global warming, gay marriage, 2d Amendment rights, religious beliefs or whatever -- there may come a time in the not too distant future when you will be questioned over something you said that was contrary to the "national opinion," and there may be severe consequences for your words. We are already beginning to hear warnings in some corners about "dangerous conservative/religious voices" and from Hillary Clinton, who in a recent speech said that she plans to change your "deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs." If we don’t start to fight back, how long will it be before an executive order is signed defining and allowing only "acceptable speech"?

We can’t be naïve and think this isn’t coming.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #73 

The "hate speech" canard -- ticket to tyranny

Tom Blumer says it's impossible to overstate the importance of the ugliness Pamela Geller has exposed, and how grateful we should be to her.

Geller's "Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest" in Garland, Texas, on May 3, sponsored by her American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Jihad Watch, featured "about 350 entries depicting Muhammad" -- in drawings and cartoons.

For this -- creating drawings and cartoons -- radical Islamists have declared that she and others associated with the event must die.

After numerous online and other Islamist death threats during the preceding week, two ISIS-inspired jihadists drove 1,000 miles from Phoenix to Garland's Curtis Culwell Center hoping to carry out the demanded executions. Fortunately, thanks to a heroic police officer's aggressive action, they were killed before they could carry out their plan.

As will be seen shortly, it is no exaggeration to say that long-established organizations in the international "human rights" community opposed the exercise of free speech embodied in that event, and believe that its sponsors and attendees deserve to be punished.

Elite U.S. reactions to Geller's and her attendees' near-death experience demonstrate just how far their campaign against so-called "hate speech" has progressed. The answer is, "farther than almost anyone might have thought."

A much greater than expected swath of elite commentators and pundits on both the left and right clearly believes that Geller and event organizers -- again, by exhibiting drawings and cartoons -- provoked the attack. Many of them believe the event was an example of "hate speech," and that it should not have taken place. Some have gone further, declaring that it should not have been allowed to take place. Those who truly believe in freedom should be thanking Pamela Geller for helping us identify genuine enemies who until now have cloaked themselves in respectability.

Sadly, the surface desirability of eliminating "hate," especially in speech, is powerful.

After all, the great religions of the world -- with the notable exception of certain far from minor strains of Islam -- treat genuine hate as sinful. In Catholicism, hatred "(targeted) directly at the person … is always sinful." Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, is credited with saying "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

This nation's Founders were religious too -- and uncommonly brilliant. As they declared this nation's independence from Great Britain, they, uniquely in human history, also declared that human beings' rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were God-given and not conferred by men or their governments. The Founders' First Amendment-confirmed definition of "liberty" clearly includes the right to say, write, draw, or produce whatever one wishes. Given the intensity of political discourse at the time, it's clear that they did not intend to carve out any kind of exception for "hate."

The creation of the "hate speech" construct is irrefutably communist in origin, and goes back to the afternath of World War II:

… the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.


The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.


The states where criticism of totalitarian ideology was prohibited were the ones that internationalized hate-speech laws.

The initial Soviet-led efforts were too ham-handed and obvious for most of the rest of the then-free world to stomach. So, the definition of hate speech evolved:

… hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Now, "hate speech" is a tool to be exploited by the perpetually aggrieved. Note the definition's obvious implication that truly hateful speech directed at anyone who is not a "protected individual" or in a "protected group" cannot be considered "hate speech." People not in protected groups are also apparently not worthy of federal protection when violently threatened.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the "internationalization" to which the excerpt above refers has left this nation as one of a very few without oppressive "hate speech" laws favoring "protected individuals or groups" on the books. This intensely frustrates the so-called "human rights" community, many of whose members believe that the U.S. is a haven for "hate" and must be ostracized by the international community until it falls in line.

Most, but not all, of those who wish to impose their totalitarian regime on us have been circumspect about their ultimate goals. One such exception is Tanya Cohen, who claims to have worked with a number of "human rights" groups.

The headlines and content of Cohen's recent columns will quickly disabuse those who still hold the quaint notion that banning "hate speech" is merely a project designed to ensure that everyone is civil to one another.

Her April 18 entry, "It's Time To Put An End To Anti-Choice Speech," is a prime example. In Cohen's version of a supposedly free society, lobbying for pro-life legislation, demonstrating at an abortion clinic, or even publishing a pro-life opinion on your Facebook page would be outlawed. In Ms. Cohen's ultra-scientific opinion, such people are "spreading lies," and must be stopped.

Banning any discussion of abortion's morality, which if logically extended would drive Catholicism and many of the world's other major religions underground, is just a start. In that same column, Cohen clearly is on the side of a professor she quotes who wishes to similarly squelch speech "for climate denialists" and even "the tobacco industry."

Separately, we find that Ms. Cohen has advocated an online command-and-control regime in Australia about which George Orwell's Big Brother could only have dreamed:

What I propose is something called a Human Rights Online Act. This Act would not only make it a severe criminal offence on the federal level to publish, distribute, promote, or access hate speech online, but implement a federal Internet filtering system to protect Australians from being exposed to hate sites run out of the US. The Internet filter should block access to all hate sites, and anyone who tries to access any hate sites should be sent to gaol (i.e., prison -- Ed.) … anyone accused of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating other people should be required to prove their innocence or be declared guilty automatically …

Cohen has also celebrated how "attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isn't really marriage, or saying that trans women aren't really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred" is "one of the most admirable things about Europe."

Those with totalitarian impulses have created the idea of "hate speech" out of thin air and have turned the entire idea of "human rights" on its head, transforming it into the tyrant's ultimate tool.

Now we know, and must react accordingly.

Thanks, Pamela.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #74 

Will the 1st Amendment survive sharia and liberal-progressives?

Related:  Liberal media share the same goal as the jihadis -- they want to silence Pamela Geller

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #75 

Americans' willingness to fold on free speech -- "jihadis are officially winning"

Joe Saunders says with much of the mainstream media continuing to disgrace itself by ignorant coverage of Sunday's terror attack on a Texas art exhibit, Fox News' Megyn Kelly continued her outspoken defense of First Amendment rights Wednesday.

And she brought one of the country's top legal scholars onto "The Kelly File" to back her up.

Since Sunday's attack by two Islamists on the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, commentators who should know better have been arguing the real blame for the attack lies with the art exhibit's organizers -- NOT the two murderous fanatics who showed up at a peaceful gathering with the intent of murdering as many people as possible.

Kelly has been fighting a vocal war on the topic since -- including with her colleague, the usually sensible Bill O'Reilly. ("'Should we get rid of all Jews?' Megyn Kelly blasts O'Reilly for suggesting we cater to jihadis.")

"Over the last 72 hours, we have heard the event organizers condemned as being too provocative, too stupid, even for inviting their own attempted murder," Kelly said.

"If this is where American sentiment stands on this issue, then the jihadis are officially winning."

Actually, the only "American sentiment" that really matters is the one the Framers put into the Constitution, and respected UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to make the point crystal clear.

As though he was teaching a class of first-year law students, Volokh noted that the First Amendment guarantees Americans free speech -- it's as simple as that, regardless of what some libs -- like CNN's Chris Cuomo -- might think.

"There is no exception under the First Amendment for blasphemy, no exception for speech that offends people because of their beliefs," he said.

"The whole point of this was to say, 'you cannot tell Americans, you cannot tell a free people what you can and cannot say," he said.

Class dismissed.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved