Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee

Sunday, November 22, AD 2015


My favorite liberal, Nat Hentoff, takes aim at the campus brownshirts seeking to eradicate free speech:

Hostility to the exercise of free speech on American college campuses is nothing new. But what happened at Yale University, the University of Missouri and other colleges over the past two weeks is something new and frightening. The suppression of speech in academia has begun to spiral out of control.

Nicholas Christakis is a professor at Yale who lives with his wife in a student residence hall on campus. An internationally renowned physician and sociologist, Dr. Christakis was surrounded by dozens of angry students who showered him with curses and threats. Dr. Christakis’ offense? He refused to publicly apologize for his wife’s email that defended free speech and urged tolerance of offensive Halloween costumes.

Greg Lukianoff, the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), was on the Yale campus to attend a free speech symposium and witnessed the incident. In the video Lukianoff posted on FIRE’s website, Christakis appears on the verge of being physically assaulted.

“Nicholas addressed the crowd for more than an hour, even after it became clear that nothing short of begging for forgiveness would satisfy them,” Lukianoff wrote in The Washington Post. “I’ve witnessed some intense campus disputes during my 14 years fighting for free speech, but nothing like this.”

The next evening — at a William F. Buckley, Jr. Program conference on free speech that had been planned months in advance — Greg Lukianoff’s speech was interrupted by a student who rushed the podium, shouting, before he was dragged out of the building by campus police. Attendees then braved a gauntlet of angry Yale students who cursed and ridiculed them. The Yale Daily News reported that “several attendees were spat on as they left.”

At the University of Missouri, a student photographer freelancing for ESPN was confronted by a mob of angry anti-racism protesters who tried to eject him from the public commons area where they had gathered. After he refused to leave, the students begin a coordinated effort to both psychologically and physically intimidate the reporter into leaving.

The protesters subjected him to intense ridicule, sometimes chanting in unison, as they gradually forced him backwards. They then began to falsely accuse the reporter of the very conduct that they themselves were directing against him.

MU’s student body vice president later tried to justify the students’ self-imposed restrictions on the press during an interview on MSNBC. She suggested that the First Amendment “creates a hostile and unsafe learning environment.”

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee

  • Soul disfigurement.

    The souls of these students are dark and unrecognizable. The venom spills out.
    Hatred is their opponents disorder, not thier’s.
    They are so engrossed with their own viewpoint being the ONLY correct one that they can not see the hatred they harbor and unleash on others.


    I’m in the middle of the Miraculous Medal Novena. St. Kolbe used these “silver bullets,” as he called them, to cut through the stain of darkness and remedy the disordered soul by Mary’s pure hands. She will lead that soul back to the Sacraments.

    Have a handful of these sacramental’s, blessed of course, in your pocket or purse.
    The Holy Spirit will open the door to bring the bullet into the target.

  • The notion of “Repressive tolerance” is not new. It goes back at least to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay of that name and similar ideas were expressed by Felix Dzerzhinsky at the time of the Russian Revolution.
    Marcuse argues that tolerance which enlarges the range of freedom is an end in itself but it has always been partisan and intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo. For him, the issue is only the degree and extent of this intolerance.
    Hence, “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”
    Marcuse justifies this privileging and protection of radicalism on the Left on historical grounds: left leaning revolutionary movements are driven “from below’” by the masses in a fight against injustice while radical right movements are drive from above by the ruling classes and only result in further repression and control.
    This is what Alain Badiou, the Grand Old Man of the French Left means, with his ridicule of those who want a “decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793” and his insistence that “if you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A.”

  • Marcuse is an idiot. Mao, Stalin, and all the other dictators of the left laugh in his face. And the tens of millions of those from the people down below never drove anything but were driven to gulag, torture and execution.

  • Prof. Alan Charles Kors (emiritus at Penn) had this to say: “I confess to Schadenfreude. I’m watching the Red Guards go after the zealots and apparatchiks who taught them.”. Dr. Kors put in considerable time in largely fruitless efforts to improve campus climates regarding discussions of public affairs (among other things, helping found the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

    The problem we face is that the Bourbons who run academe are perfectly satisfied with their performance and fancy that the role of the rest of society is to keep the money flowing without any annoying oversight. The legal profession manifest in our repulsive judiciary is commonly willing to run interference for them. The state legislatures are usually otiose and the trustees lickspittles of the Bourbons and concerned only with edifices, sports, budgetry, and public relations. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it is.

  • One thing that gets you is the complete failure of adult authority. The yo-yos who run these places are emotionally incapable of impartial administration of behavioral norms (see the recent mess at Dartmouth). The adults at all these institutions are failing to do the one thing the rest of us can reliably do for the young: to help them put their problems and discontents into perspective,. In fact, a critical mass of those adults are encouraging these youths to play the self-centered, histrionic, borderline nightmare. These youths have an artificial language to describe the artificial feelings with which these adults have equipped them. It is a scandal.

  • The common response to criticism among leftists today in this country is to attempt to howl it down, ban it or criminalize it.

    That’s the rabble’s job. The faculty and administration traffick in sophistry, evasion, and pretense.

    Maybe some of the lawyers here adept at rapidly parsing other lawyers’ canny verbiage might have some spare time to put their skills to work on a distillation of this man’s prolix intervention: . My eyes glazed over pretty quickly.

  • Scratch the thin veneer of schmooze and liberal swear-words (unjust, unfair, racist, homophobe, climate change, polluter, fundamentalist, Christian) and you will find a fascist. Treat them accordingly. The only logical response is “Screw you.”

    “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

    P. J O’Rourke

    “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
    George Orwell


  • Hold on a second. Let’s not pretend that the email incident was the sole catalyst for this outrage. A Yale fraternity hosted a “White Girls Only” party and a woman of color entry into said party. Also, cultural appropriation in the form of Halloween costumes is actually ubiquitous in college campuses. These are problems that shouldn’t be silenced in the name of free speech. I agree that Yale and Mizzou students are going too far with their demands. But a lot of colleges, such as my own, are engaging in dialogue with one another to fix these racial issues.

  • Kids no longer hear there old phrase “Stick and stones may break by bones, but words will never hurt me.” Of course words can hurt, but we should teach our kids to have thicker skins and not gain all their self worth from what others say or think about them. The source of some of this crazy is that this idea is now passé. We teach our delicate snowflakes that authority figures are there to protect them from any kind of pain or discomfort, mild insults and unintended slights included.

  • Chairman Mao would be proud of the Cultural Revolution 2.0 ….actually quite funny. The monsters that left wing academia has created over the last few generations are finally going to turn on them and devour them. Like Kerensky and the Bolsheviks . A little justice maybe ?

  • Ditto to Mrs. Zummo.

    Oppressive stupidity!

  • Apparat from some bad language, this is awesome.

    Ben Shapiro crashes safe space at Mizzou.

  • A Yale fraternity hosted a “White Girls Only” party

    I wonder how many were viciously raped in a bed of broken glass. (Or not.)

    cultural appropriation in the form of Halloween costumes is actually ubiquitous in college campuses.

    Yes, we’re aware of the problem here.
    Although, I have to ask, what gives you the right to decide what is or isn’t an authentic cultural appropriation, hmmm?

  • I thought Kirsten Powers was your favorite liberal.

  • Nat has been my favorite liberal for decades.

    Until this column however, I assumed that he was retired. At 90 he certainly has earned the right to no longer be involved in the public square, but, God love him, he still has a heart for the fight!

  • T Shaw quoted George Orwell, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
    This called to mind an anecdote of Wittgenstein, recounted to me by Miss Anscombe. Wittgenstein reflected on the shrewdness of Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, in replacing the traditional Arabic script with the Roman alphabet and also the elimination of Arabic and Persian loan-words. This reform, introduced in 1928 for school text-books and all official and public communications, including the press, was backed up by the 1934 law on copyright.
    Wittgenstein remarked that within a generation, the population would be completely severed from its past; for them, their national story, its religion, literature and culture would exist only in officially approved text-books; a propaganda coup far beyond anything attempted by the Bolsheviks or the Nazis.
    Newspeak indeed.

  • I suspect that soon the graduation diploma will be replaced with a black “SS” armband.

  • “We teach our delicate snowflakes that authority figures are there to protect them….”

    The idea is to give them a pat on the head, and a puppy biscuit when they are being obedient. And, never forget–the single goal is to establish obedience.

  • @Ernst Schreiber Sorry, not trying to sound condescending or uninformed. I just know students of color who legitimately don’t feel safe on our campus through no fault of their own. Most of these kids aren’t loudmouths or bullies at all, despite what the media would have you believe.

  • And they charge tuition? The First and Second Amendments are really an inseparable pair. An interesting article from The Washington Post here:

  • @RodneyHood1314 Then these kids need to grow the [expletive deleted] up.

  • @Ernst Schreiber No, they aren’t the ones who need to grow up. It’s the white kids throwing “Around the World” parties drinking themselves into a stupor and and captioning the photos they take of themselves with immature jokes about green cards. That’s just one example from my college. Why should they get a repreive? Why criticize minority students who just want to expose these issues, and why ignore the ones actually causing them? Because the ones getting the most media attention are too radical? I don’t understand why all social activist students of color deserve your scorn.

  • That’s just one example from my college. Why should they get a repreive? Why criticize minority students who just want to expose these issues,

    Because the ‘issues’ are unimportant and do not implicate public officials.

  • Unimportant, eh? My mistake then, how foolish of me, I’m so naive, etc. I feel like I’m shouting in a vacuum here. The kids I know don’t want to implicate public officials. They see it as a student body issue. They want to work with the administrative resources at their disposal, not oppose them. I agree with you all that the Yale and Mizzou activists were in the wrong. But their behavior shouldn’t be representative of the norm on college campuses.

  • I dunno. I put three young men through university. They never had any issue such as this.
    There is a Constitutional right to free speech and association. That right is operative to the point of inciting violence or property destruction.
    There is no Constitutional right to outrage at another’s free speech.

    Similar to gay privilege nonsense, I don’t care what the campus party crowd does or says in their 3AM drunken bacchanals, and over-sensitive minority students shouldn’t, either.
    They should concentrate on their studies because aren’t as qualified as the rest of the student body. I were a voterin Missouri, I would write my elected representative and habve the state U system defunded.

  • To reiterate, I am as much in favor of free speech rights as all of you. “Overly sensitive” or not, however, there are students who feel ostracized and can only find solace in their respective racial communities. Many young black women have to ask other students not to touch their hair multiple times. A certain portion of our dining hall has been called “Cafrica.” I have been in a room, during an enlightening discussion open to the public, where all minority students could do while talking about their problems with race is cry. And you would argue that they should just focus on their studies? I know a Latina student who has reduced others to tears with her powerful rhetoric. She is a talented spoken word poet. This same student is incredibly shy and reserved, doesn’t party like crazy, and has been recognized by our college for her academic work. Yet she still feels unsafe on campus. Should I just go up to her, tell her her problems are unimportant, accuse her of being too sensitive, and remind her of those privileged drunks’ First Amendment rights? She doesn’t want to silent dissenters. She just wants to stand up to these bullies. I’m confused by the lack of sympathy on this forum.

  • Unimportant, eh? My mistake then, how foolish of me, I’m so naive, etc. I feel like I’m shouting in a vacuum here. The kids I know don’t want to implicate public officials. They see it as a student body issue. They want to work with the administrative resources at their disposal, not oppose them. I agree with you all that the Yale and Mizzou activists were in the wrong. But their behavior shouldn’t be representative of the norm on college campuses.

    Yes, unimportant. No society is so carefully policed that it can protect you from insults and banal social friction. The effort to do so will have costs out the back end. The three complaints at the University of Missouri concerned trivia. The complaints about ‘microaggression’ are offered because there are no macroaggressions (or any aggressions at all to someone not a social ideologue).

    This may come as a surpirse to you, but about 55% of the personnel at baccalaureate granting institutions in this country are public employees. At associate’s granting institutions, it’s north of 95%. That aside, it’s not the job of the dean of students to save you from petty interpersonal conflicts or personal embarrassment. You’re going to have to handle that yourself, as you will and you must the rest of your life.

  • there are students who feel ostracized and can only find solace in their respective racial communities.

    ‘Feelings’ are not necessarily reasonable and are not their own justification. People around you should reflect reality back at you and give you some toughlove when you might benefit from it.

    You haven’t called attention to the simplest explanation for all this: reversal of fortune. Here you have moderately competent high school students thrown into a situation where they’re having academic problems because they did not have the preparation for the pacing, and they did not have the preparation because they were given mulligans in the admissions process. Why do you suppose a mess of black militants invaded the college library at Dartmouth and made a godawful nuisance of themselves to people who were doing nothing other than studying? Why mightn’t the library be a poignant locus?

    And you haven’t called attention to another source of this: adolescent narcissism harbored by youths who’ve been lied to and told they’re Special when they are ordinary. So, when they’re treated like they’re ordinary, they’re disoriented. The sheer effrontery of a mess of these complaints suggests this. Prudent men do not throw rubbing alcohol on open flames.

  • Fair enough. You’re right. College kids shouldn’t be coddled and have to learn to deal with adversity. All I’m saying is the rhetoric that black student activists are militant leftists isn’t what I’ve been observing on my campus.

  • A recent poll by pew said 40% of my fellow 18-34 year olds favor government censorship of offensive speech. This is bad…REALLY BAD. I mean, I suppose I should be glad that’s not technically a majority. But it should NOT be that high!

  • In his “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”, Robert Bork warned that America would be taken over by barbarians and that these would be our own children.

  • I don’t understand why all social activist students of color deserve your scorn.

    I scorn the white ones too, when their activism revolves around juvenalia, like playing dress-up on halloween, or wallowing in hurt feewings.

Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

Tuesday, November 17, AD 2015

11 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

  • Atheistic liberal progressivism is as evil as radical Islamic terrorism. Both must be defeated and thrown into the trash bin of history. I fear, however, that neither will happen till Christ returns to Earth in the Parousia at the end of time. Indeed, while I am no theologian, in a certain way I can see the account in Revelation about the casting of the Beast and the False Prophet into the Lake of Fire being the final defeat of radical Islam and liberal progressivism (though which is the Beast and which the False Prophet is anyone’s guess). Of course, Sacred Scripture usually has meaning within meaning, so my little point of view is surely not the whole story.

  • Perpetual serenity is for livestock. Which, come to think of it, is what progressives treat people like.

  • George Will can be digested occasionally–like this time.

  • I can think of nothing less compatible with human nature than perpetual serenity. And, ironically, true progress is born of struggle – not serenity.

  • Grammy, you’re so right. Did we think he came to bring peace?

  • LQC, Ernest S, DonL and Grammy, All good comments.
    I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?That said, Will makes sense this time. I wonder if legalization of drugs in some states and the District is an attempt to have the populace, well, drugged? Mellow and addicted and pliable.

  • “I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?”

    No, Will has always had Obama’s number.

  • but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley,

    Buckley is a humor and travel writer (Editor of ForbesLife) who has written almost nothing for the starboard press other than his father’s publication. I think if you review a Reader’s Guide listing of his two dozen or so pieces he’s written for National Review, you’ll find its almost entirely composed of humor, diary, reviews of belles lettres, &c. Buckley hired Richard Brookhiser in 1978 with the idea that he might retire at some point and turn the publication over to Brookhiser because Christopher was unsuitable. CB did have a staff position in the pr apparat of the White House during the Reagan-Bush Administrations, but he worked for George Bush and did not stay long. He was much more his mother’s son than his father’s (his antagonism to his mother notwithstanding). He’s never uttered a serious word in public print and his endorsement of BO was of a piece with his usual oeuvre.

    As for the others, the Obamacon phenomenon was a mess of hype from the get go. Social survey research from exit polls demonstrate Obama was no more appealing to soi-disant Republicans than the Democratic candidate usually is, if anything a bit less; the same bloody 9% voted for him. David Friedman, Charles Fried, Kenneth Adelman, Kenneth Duberstein, Jeffrey Hart, and Douglas Kmiec, Bruce Bartlett, Richard Whalen, Scott McClellan, and Larry Hunter made very little sense while endorsing BO. If they don’t like the Republican Party as is, they can just stay home. No one was waiting with bated breath for them to weigh in. However, the media was not going to grill them about why they were doing what they were doing and offering such lousy reasons for it. (One wag offered an explanation which makes more sense than the perps did, “How many of these guys had liberal wives or girlfriends?”).

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

  • Thank you all for setting me straight on Will. I agree on the wives and girlfriends of conservatives…often the they are not pro-life like their husbands.

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

    George Will was a small city bourgeois from Champaign, Illinois. Non-ethnic, but not blueblood or patrician. His father was a university professor. The first Mrs. Will grew up somewhere around Hartford, Ct where her father owned a diner. The second Mrs. Will grew up in a comfortable but normal range bourgeois suburb of Chicago. Will is the nouveau riche. Brooks comes from pretty much the same social stratum as Will, just that both of his parents were professors and he grew up 2/3 of a generation later in Manhattan and Philadelphia, so better off. Brooks ‘thinks highly’ of Obama. Will knows better.


Monday, August 31, AD 2015


I have always been pretty conservative.  Well, at least since the age of seven when I backed Barry Goldwater in 1964.  In college I often clashed with liberal professors.  I recall one education professor who went off on a leftist rant in class.  I stood it as long as I could and then yelled out, “That is garbage sir, pure garbage!”  The shocked look on my classmates was classic!  He graded my work in the course as an A anyway.  I have to hand it to all the liberal professors that I battled, that none of them downgraded me because of my stances.  Judging from the following at Instapundit, times have changed for the worse:


THEY OUGHT TO BE FIRED: It’s back to school time, and progressive professors at Washington State University are gearing up to suppress speech they personally find “offensive,” such as saying “illegal alien,” using the terms “male” or “female,” or failing to “defer” to the “experiences of people of color”:

In his “Introduction to Multicultural Literature,” for example, professor John Streamas informs students in his syllabus that he expects white students who want “to do well in this class” to “reflect” their “grasp of history and social relations” by “deferring to the experiences of people of color.”

The taxpayer-funded critical studies professor also writes in his syllabus that Glenn Beck is a member of a group of “insensitive whites.”

Streamas, who obtained his Ph.D. at Bowling Green State University, is most notable because he told a student who supports limits on illegal immigration: “You are just a white shitbag.” . . .

A second Washington State faculty member, Selena Lester Breikss, warns students in her “Women & Popular Culture” course this semester that they risk “failure for the semester” if they use the terms “male” or “female.” . . .

“Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions,” Breikss adds.

Finally, not to be outdone, Washington State American studies professor Rebecca Fowler similarly warns students that she will lower their grades if they utter the phrase “illegal alien” at any time in her “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course.

The taxpayer-funded Fowler proclaims that she bans students from using the phrase “illegal alien” because the Associated Press stylebook “no longer sanctions the term.”

The Associated Press stylebook is purely an advisory publication for professional journalists. It has no force of law whatsoever. . . . Public university students who dare to use the phrase “illegal alien” “will suffer a deduction of one point per incident,” Fowler warns.

Apparently these sensitive little snowflake professors cannot tolerate any disagreement. For their failure to tolerate a diversity of views and engage in actual teaching (rather than proselytizing), they should be terminated for “cause.” Parents and students should avoid this university at all costs, unless/until the University’s administration takes appropriate disciplinary action to ensure that all viewpoints are welcomed, even those that are “offensive.” It’s called “free speech,” and yes, it protects offensive speech, too.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Indoctrination

  • This why Trump’s numbers are so large. He’s too rich to care about anyone’s opinion….and its refreshing. He’s the opposite of political correctness though as months go on he might offend so many groups ( short people e.g. via his Rand Paul quip..” I’ve had it up to here ( hand at mid chest ) with you”)….that they’ll be no group left he hasn’t insulted. Or people will just vote for him anyway as a four year vacation from under-disclosing pols.

  • Free speech for the professors but not for the students, I assume? Is free speech a goal, or a means to an end in academia? Whatever happened to the lifelong search for truth?
    Once that was the purpose of education and now truth has been relegated to being a flexible substance like clay, to be molded or kept locked up in a tin, never to be touched by any except the anointed.

  • Bill Clinton legalized a million illegal aliens making citizens of them one Saturday afternoon. Even though, the now legal aliens could not read English or the Constitution, they were instructed in how to vote for Bill Clinton, their benefactor, with our tax dollars. The illegal aliens are how Bill Clinton got a second term. and it is possible that Obama is more ruthless than Clinton, either one, Bill or Hillary. If Obama wants to be emperor, who is to stop him? or change the Constitution, who is to stop him? Illegal aliens cannot even read our road signs. So, the tax payers better not complain. Illegal alien has become a dirty word, and taxpayer has become an endangered species.

  • in 1974 I started college as a 26 year old Freshman on the GI bill. Our freshman chemistry class for science majors had maybe 150 students in it. The grand professor lectured 3 days a week and the TAs taught the other two days and ran the labs. On our first hourly, being nervous as I was new to college, as a jocular tension breaker I wrote JMJ on top of my paper. The TAs graded the papers and I got a good grade but my TA Herb(Jewish so he did not know) said the prof wanted to know what the JMJ was. I told him. Herb never graded any more of my papers, the mighty prof did and he marked the hell out of them. I could tell by Herb’s face that he was ashamed of the prof. I had to work like hell to salvage a B out of the course after a high A on the first hourly. So savagery against Christians by egotistical and atheistic professors is not a new thing for students but perhaps it is now more honestly dishonest. My class was at the University of Maryland.

  • College? I put up with this excrement in seventh grade…in a matter of speaking. In the last class of the day, the chapter in the textbook we were reading was covering the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, where some of the most ancient pre-human fossils have been found.

    The climate there is very hot and very dry – almost completely unhospitable to human life today. Being a smartass seventh grader, i said I wouldn’t want to live there. The teacher, a Mrs. Dawalt (she was called Daywart because of the massive mole on the side of her chin) asked me what I said and I repeated myself. She gave me a C grade the rest of the year even though I got As and Bs on all my tests, quizzes and homework. You see, I was a racist – according to her.

    Kent State University is a rat’s nest of leftists, with the possible exception of the business school, but that exception was during the Reagan Administration. Now, who knows? I hope my sons grow up to be hockey players or electricians or restore classic cars. Higher education is a multi-billion dollar ripoff.

  • I was too Catholic in a catholic university. Still got good grades and ultimately it gave me a better education for having to dig deeper to argue my points.

  • Trump reminds me of Nimrod.

  • Trump favorite book is the bible.
    If this was the gong show he’d be gone.
    I am not impressed either by politically correct speech nor impolitic speech..
    It’s truth we are after
    Trump = liar
    Hillary = liar

  • Trump makes me laugh. I wander what type of President he would be if elected into office. I only know him from The Apprentice- a permanent scowl and horrible hair. You can’t get worse than your current…can you?

  • What to do about those fascists?

    Someday the worm will turn.
    Seven out of ten believe America is headed the wrong way. The rulers do not care about the majority.
    The middle class and its economic power are in sharp decline (burgeoning Obamcare taxes, skyrocketing energy (global warming, war on coal) costs, regulations Dodd-Frank, CFPB, etc.) killing agriculture, banking, commerce, etc.). And, those fascist, philosopher kings want it like that because craven dependents and serfs are easier to control. .
    What are you prepared to do?

  • Our youngest son has gone back to school in liberal Northern VA to prep for transfer into petroleum engineering. This semester he signed up for Sociology 101as an elective. Since he’s very logical and conservative, my parental advice on taking a “soft science” like soc was ” just regurgitate what your prof tells you or your grade will suffer”. Our older son signed up for a first year English lit course at a CA college. Turned out It was not as advertised as it was all about Black Power. The syllabus came out after the drop date (a sneaky trick which more and more profs are pulling). He told the administration that he felt his personal safety was threatened in that class as a Caucasian minority; he’s a tough kid so it must have been bad. Luckily he was able to drop w/o any financial or academic penalties. He transferred to another state university as a hard science major where he didn’t have to listen to any nutty BS.
    On the other hand my husband on his grad school application to an liberal Ivy League university, stated that he was conservative politically and they should admit him for diversity. He was admitted. We think it was the DOD funded scholarship that they couldn’t resist.

Something Rotten in Denmark and the West

Sunday, February 15, AD 2015


Coming soon to a city near you?

Police in Copenhagen say they have shot dead a man they believe was behind two deadly attacks in the Danish capital hours earlier.

Police say they killed the man in the Norrebro district after he opened fire on them.

It came after one person was killed and three police officers injured at a free speech debate in a cafe on Saturday.

In the second attack, a Jewish man was killed and two police officers wounded near the city’s main synagogue.

Police say video surveillance suggested the same man carried out both attacks. They do not believe any other people were involved.

“We assume that it’s the same culprit behind both incidents, and we also assume that the culprit that was shot by the police task force… is the person behind both of these assassinations,” Chief Police Inspector Torben Molgaard Jensen told a news conference.

He said police would maintain a high presence in the city.

Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said it was “a very sad morning” and described the shootings as “a cynical act of terror against Denmark”.

“I am happy and relieved that police have disarmed the alleged perpetrator behind the two shootings,” she said in a statement. “I will continue to encourage everyone to follow police instructions and be vigilant.”

Early on Sunday, police said they had been keeping an address under observation in the district of Norrebro, waiting for the occupant to return.

When he appeared, he noticed the officers, pulled out a gun and opened fire, police said. They returned fire and shot him dead. The incident happened near Norrebro train station.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Something Rotten in Denmark and the West

  • In dealing with these terrorists, the authorities, both in France and Denmark appear to be pursuing Turreau’s solution in the Vendée – “those who wish to die for their faith are being given every opportunity to do so.”

  • Liberal progressive atheist Democrats and Islamic terrorists deserve each other. Sadly, millions of innocent people stand between them.
    BTW, just as God allowed the utterly wicked Assyrians and Babylonians to punish the children of Israel and Judah for their rebellion, so also may He (because He does not change and always does the right thing in the right way) allow the utterly wicked Islamic terrorists to punish the liberal progressives for their equivocation of license with liberty. But the rain falls on the good and the bad.

  • What is at stake here, too, is the principle of separation of church and state, as St. Thomas More said: “If he offends God, then let God arrest him.” The immortal soul of Mohammed does not need the death of any person to defend him. Allah does not need the death of any person to remain Allah. Islam is a theocracy as is the nation of Israel. If the nation of Israel can bring peace and prosperity to its people, what is Islam waiting for?
    Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.

  • The man identified as the perpetrator, who was shot dead by Danish security police, was 22-yr-old Danish-born Omar Abdel Hadid El-Hussein, obviously born of Egyptian Arabic parents (he was heard shouting in Arabic when he killed film director Lars Vilk). The late shooter has an interesting name—apparently named for another Egyptian of note, the “Blind Sheik”, Omar Abdel Rahman. Hmmm. 1993, the year the late El-Hussein was born, the year he acquired his “patron-saint” patronymic, what was the Blind Sheik up to, so that his parents would want to have their baby boy follow in his steps? Oh, well, could be that was the year of the first World Trade Center bombing, of course master-minded by the BS.

    All a coincidence of course. Soon the heads of his mosque will come forward and assert he was a “mentally-ill young man, and not representative of Islam.” International press members are already calling him a “gang-member.” I agree: his gang’s street symbols are the Star and Crescent.

  • Correction, I meant to say Finn Norgaard was the Swedish film director killed by El-Hussein, not Lars Vilk, who was a likely target…

Blaming the Victims

Wednesday, January 7, AD 2015

Fan of Free Speech

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is fuzzy on this whole free speech thing:

Bill Donohue comments on the killing of 12 people at the Paris office of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

Continue reading...

77 Responses to Blaming the Victims

  • I have believed for a long time that Bill Donahue is another person who needs a box of Duck Tape (TM) sent to him.

  • Angie,

    Archie Bunker?

  • Great posting Mr. McClarey.
    Do the feelings of the mourners count?
    The families that have lost their loved ones. Does Mr. Donohue share compassion with them?

  • According to Bill Donaghue, “What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years…”

    And those of us who are not Muslims may consider ribald derision and scathing contempt the appropriate response to superstition and ignorance.

  • . Donohue pays himself $400,000 a year from donations …almost twice what a proctologist makes…and I think it is appropriate because he certainly gives me a double pain in the ass.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for this insight into the way forward. Dr. Donohue of the Catholic League explains why the terrorists were inflamed but he does not countenance how the terrorists behaved. Assuming on all fronts that terrorism is condemned, Dr. Donohue did need to produce the law by which to go forth: the right to free speech and the consequences for our speech which would be what Donald McClarey has posted here.

  • Equal Justice requires that the penalty be commensurate with the crime. The terrorists need to produce a nation so lily white that Charlie Hebdo is seen for what it is: beneath contempt.

  • I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.

    It’s like there was a group at a gathering, walking around being threatening, obscene and occasionally violent. Some members are being fine, and one or two try to tell the violent ones to cut it out, but they’re not stopped.
    Other folks at the gathering start to be rude to the nasty guys; a couple of guys rattle off an obscene suggestion of where they can go and what the rude guy can do to the horse he rode in on.
    The guys who have been rude, disruptive and violent since they got there pull out a gun and shoot the one that responded a fraction as rudely.
    And now people are standing up to denounce… the guys who flipped off the violent, rude guys, for doing it in a way that might offend the members of the group that weren’t stopping the violent, rude guys?

  • I’ve not been a huge fan of Donahue in recent years … but let’s admit he has a mission and plays out that mission, and it is a fair critique that a voice reminds folks on the less than uber innocence of that organization. I do not pretend that TAC has always been more noble than he.

  • Foxfier: “I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.”

    In Man for all Seasons, St. Thomas More tells Will Roper, his so-in-law “If he offends God, then, let God arrest him.” Separation of church and state. That is why we, the people have a constitution. Unless a theocracy is based of the ultimate love of God and neighbor as oneself, all the law of God and the prophets, it is a tyranny of the lame minded.
    The assailants ought to have been evangelizing the culprits, rather than eliminating them. Islam does not evangelize the neighbor. Islam eliminates the neighbor. Therefore, Islam does not love God as God has commanded.

  • It’s correct to question the timing of Donohue’s post, but poor timing does not invalidate his arguments.
    I don’t seem him blaming the victims. He tries to bring into focus the lack of respect for things people hold personal and sacred and how this creates friction, friction that can boil over into unjustified terrorism. His point is to say both sides in this situation show intolerance, and showing more tolerance and respect on each side would simmer the acrimony down. He expresses this personally when he says “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”
    I’m sure he understands freedom of speech, and nowhere did I see him suggesting any abridging of it.

  • No he does not understand freedom of speech. This sentence says it all:

    “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

    What the devil does that mean except for either state action or vigilante action to shut down the magazine. People are free to criticize what the magazine does, but that was not the point that publicity hound Donohue was seeking to make. He is as bad as the idiots on the left with their campus speech codes.

  • “I do not pretend that TAC has always been more noble than he.”

    Do you always toss non-sequiturs into your comments D Will, or was this a special occasion?

  • “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”
    Is there a list of all the various intolerances I can refer back to? Like, where does pure jackassery fall, versus fauxhomophobia, versus beheading? Which intolerances rate which punishment and from whom? Will there be a vote?
    Just pray for the souls of the departed, Mr. Donahue; they were dear to somebody. Don’t try to lead us down a road that can only end in a scaffold for Christians.

  • No he does not understand freedom of speech. This sentence says it all:”
    His call for not tolerating what this magazine was doing is not necessarily a call for legal action. It could be as simple as public shaming. I think your post it trying to do something very similar with regards to Donohue’s post. No? Yet, I don’t think you are calling for limiting free speech.

  • Every one of us believe in some level of limiting free speech … usually our conscience and common sense acts as the appropriate guide, but we know this falls pretty flat in the regulatory realm. I agree, a little shame can be a useful effort.

  • I came across a link to this at the Speccie Coffee House blog…

    “I am DONE!!! Whenever I try to say, it’s okay, terrorism is not Islam, ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK DONE BY MUSLIMS COMES UP ON THE NEWS!!! I am having panic attacks, and want to kill myself. WHAT MAKES ME FEEL HORRIBLE IS THAT I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!! I am useless, I can’t stop these terrorists, and how come only Muslims do these kind of attacks. I’m SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE CRAP! I am tired of uselessness, muslims keep killing, so it makes me wonder, are we really a religion of peace? I will never be accepted, just because i’m muslim. I used to blame them….but now I am started to hate us…… I am starting to hate muslim, I BEING ONE! Maybe I won’t be for long. IN PARIS JUST NOW!!! 12 PEOPLE KILLED, STUPID TERRORISTS SAYING ALLAHHUAKBAR AND OH MY GOD I’M DONE!!!!!! I AM DONE!!! Why do they keep doing this, what can we do. Why doesn’t Allah help the muslim UMMAH!!! Why are we not being helped. I pray and pray for this to stop but it never does. It makes me feel like duas do not work. WHY WON’T ALLAH HELP US! WHY CAN”T WE BE SAVED!!! WHY WAS I BORN MUSLIM!!! I am also moving to the US and I will be bullied to death so might as well kill myself now. WHY CAN’T WE MUSLIMS TAKE CRITISM OF SOME STUPID CARTOONS!!! They are just cartoons, WTF!!! I want to DIE. What do I do, I can’t just put my fingers in my ears and scream LALALALALA I see and hear nothing, I see and hear nothing…IT IS HAPPENING!!! I don’t understand, WHY AM I USELESS, WHY DOESNT THE WORLD JUST END………”

    Utterly heartbreaking to read.

    Please pray for this poor tortured soul and what years of experience teaches me are many many like her…

  • It’s hard amidst emotional turmoil to maintain important distinctions, but here’s a try: there is no “right to free expression.” A rightly ordered society does not allow any and every opinion to be voiced with no ramification. In our country, we’ve gone from a clear understanding of the limits of “free speech” to a wide open, no holds barred allowance of the much broader “free expression.”

    In the US, the First Amendment forbids the government(and really, only the federal government) from abridging free speech. There is no general right to free speech that prevents one from being ostracized, criticized, boycotted, and even sued for offensive speech. Rightly understood, the First Amendment doesn’t even prevent a state from restricting “speech.”

    Absolutism about “free expression” has brought us unhindered pornography, grotesquely violent movies and games, and yes, utterly socially worthless offensive “art” such as “Piss Christ” and these offensive-to-Islam cartoons.

    It is entirely possible to hold the intellectual position that the incendiary “speech” (not really speech at all, but “expression”) practiced by Charlie Hebdo should never have been allowed in the first place; and at the same time to recognize that summary execution of the editors and two police officers merits only the deaths of the perpetrators.

    I would say that “Piss Christ” for example, was not any form of protected speech under the constitution; but that having been disseminated, it would have been utterly evil for, say, a Knight of Columbus to shoot up the museum and kill the “artist.” Just so with this case in France.

  • Apologies. I neglected to provide a link to the original.!

  • Kyle,
    Donohue had absolutely no tolerance for the freedom of speech of the non Catholic owner of the Empire State Building which had feted a Pope in the past but would not fete Mother Teresa perhaps in a change of policy to insure they never had to fete really odd religious characters in the future eg Jihadists in their use of private resources. He then went beyond words to intolerance in action and tried to hurt them in the pocketbook. I believe Donohue makes money in part from quite poor old city Catholics who have no idea of the salary he is drawing partly from their poverty while they cannot pay for teeth crowns after property taxes …on their small pensions. He saw at some point that rage pays big time in many small donations…maybe not Fr. Corapi bigtime…but bigtime nonetheless.

  • “His call for not tolerating what this magazine was doing is not necessarily a call for legal action.”

    I take him at his word Kyle. If he was not calling for state action or vigilantism then his statement was truly meaningless since all of us have the freedom to criticize any speech we do not like.

  • Looks like Mr. Bill is walking back his earlier statement:
    (they emailed it about 12:30 today)

  • tolerate
    [ ˈtäləˌrāt ]
    allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:
    “a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent”
    synonyms: allow · permit · condone · accept · swallow · countenance · More
    Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

    [ ˌintərˈfi(ə)r ]
    prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly:
    “a job would interfere with his studies”
    synonyms: impede · obstruct · stand in the way of · hinder · inhibit · More

    Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

    Oxford definitions via Bing’s search.
    To object is not to interfere; to answer is not to interfere; to decry is not to interfere.
    As Donald says, per his words, he says we should not allow the activity to continue or be carried out.

  • Bill,
    We can discuss Donohue’s previous statements and theories on his compensation, but I’m discussing his latest post in regards to this act of terrorism. If it is Al Sharpton race baiting or Charlie Hebdo religion baiting, they deserve condemnation without violence.
    The public can show disapproval of certain behaviors beyond criticism without resorting to state action or vigilantism.

  • exNOAAman,
    Looks like quite the opposite. Looks like standing ground and clarification. I don’t read anything really disagreeable.

  • There’s a difference between Al Sharpton inciting violence against others and Charlie Hebdo inciting violence against themselves.

  • “Don,
    The public can show disapproval of certain behaviors beyond criticism without resorting to state action or vigilantism.”

    Of course they can Kyle and if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless. I think he had something else in mind a la a hate speech code which is anathema to freedom of speech.

  • Ernst Schreiber,
    The result of their actions are the same, i.e. stirring of acrimony. The victims differ.

  • Of course they can Kyle and if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless. I think he had something else in mind a la a hate speech code which is anathema to freedom of speech.
    Hate speech code? Really? Even in his very latest post made today he makes clear that’s not what he is calling for. Are you calling for hate speech code because of your post condemning Donohue’s post? I don’t think so. It would be wrong for me to interpret beyond what you wrote.
    if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless.”
    So, anything less than state action or vigilantism is meaningless??

  • “Hate speech code?”

    Yep. Not tolerating something implies more than criticism which is what people are free to do in any case. In Donahue’s bloviating cya today he makes crystal clear his position that what Charlie Hebdo was doing does not deserve freedom of speech protection:

    “Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end. For Americans, the end is nicely spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the goal is to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

    No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary. Moreover, the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society.”

    As a legal matter the preamble does not limit the scope of the Bill of Rights and free speech has never been limited to political speech.

  • Yep. Not tolerating something implies more than criticism which is what people are free to do in any case
    I can think of a lot of sins I can’t tolerate, personally and otherwise. Being an intolerable sin is not enough to qualify for legal action, but intolerant it is to me.
    In Donahue’s bloviating cya today he makes crystal clear his position that what Charlie Hebdo was doing does not deserve freedom of speech protection
    He’s no legal scholar. I can only assume he is taking a Justice Thomas approach, viewing the Constitution “through the lens” of what precedes it, preamble for Donohue and Declaration of Independence for Thomas.
    Being as this was in France, the U.S. Constitution would have no bearing anyway.
    He also made this clear…
    As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.

  • “As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.”

    Then why was he at pains to argue that freedom of speech would not cover what Charlie Hebdo was doing? I agree that the Constitution of course does not apply in France, but it was Donohue’s incoherent statement, not mine. (As it happens freedom of speech in France labors under restrictions that most Americans would find galling.) The simple truth of course is that Donohue is taking a lot of heat for his first statement, so he falls back on bluster and attempts at justification. Better for him to have quit when he was behind.

  • I think I agree with Kyle. The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated does not presuppose legal or violent remedies. We should not tolerate people who abuse their freedom of expression in the manner of this rag by removing them from our society. And by this I do not mean physically kicking them out of a certain place. Civilized people should consider those who routinely bully behave in wicked and mean ways, especially toward the weak, to be beneath contempt and unworthy of social intercourse. In other words they should be shunned. Those jerks at that rag should have been shunned, not killed or imprisoned.

  • Mike Petrik wrote:

    “Those jerks…”

    Jesus wept…

  • Yes, Kennybhoy. He wept when those jerks published cartoons of nuns masturbating.

  • The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated

    Brings up interesting issues – at what point does “speech” become a “behavior” and to what extent do they overlap or are interchangeable? If the freedom of speech is intended to protect the free exchange of ideas, can behavior be a form of “exchange of ideas” and therefore protected? Was CH speech, behavior, a combination of both? Regardless, none of it could justify or excuse the terrorists’ response.

  • Yes, and Kennybhoy, He wept when those terrorists murdered those jerks too. I don’t think He wept just because I called the late jerks, jerks.

  • I’m anxious to know Mike and Kyle’s opinion on women’s fashion trends of the last 50-60 years and how they pertain to the current “rape crisis” on college campi.

    No I’m not.

  • In the US the written publication of words or pictures that are designed to communicate or express something is almost always within the protective ambit of the First Amendment, and this is a good thing. But just because something is legally permissible does not mean that it cannot be criticized, and that criticism can and often should include social sanction. Calls should not be returned and vendors and customers should disassociate.

  • Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Ernst?
    Perhaps you think that the wicked murder of a jerk renders the jerk not a jerk? Wow, does the same trick work for serial rapists?

  • Then why was he at pains to argue that freedom of speech would not cover what Charlie Hebdo was doing?
    I think he’s arguing the necessity to use prudence when exercising liberties. Expressions like what Charlie Hebdo did failed to meet the moral spirit or imperative of the preamble while be legally permitted. It’s the classic “you could do it, but should you?” argument. He answers no. Others say it’s licit because… freedom of speech, which is why he says freedom of speech is not the end.
    The simple truth of course is that Donohue is taking a lot of heat…
    You could have ended the sentence there and have the same meaning. He’s takes heat for nearly everything he writes. (He has a few enemies.) But obviously the heat and criticism, e.g. this blog entry, is meaningless without state action or vigilantism. 😉
    People feel inclined to hold Charlie Hebdo up as some martyr or saint of free speech. I disagree. It’s not like they were killed for speaking out for civil rights, the vulnerable or some other noble cause. (Elevate the people who do!) Charlie Hebdo is a victim of an unjust crime, an act of terrorism. Find the perps and prosecute.

  • Yes, not all victims are martyrs, but they are victims nonetheless. I took Donohue’s statements to be entirely consistent with that.

  • I’m more concerned about not creating a precedent for a jerk needed killing exception than I am in attempting to qualify the jerkiness of the murdered jerk or quantify the liability of the jerk for his murder.
    Sticking up little Nigerian girls kidnapped by boko haram is easy. The real test is in sticking up for jerks like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo.
    And we’re doing a p*ss poor job of sticking up for little Nigerian girls.
    One more thing. They actually were killed for speaking out for civil rights: The right to say things others find offensive.
    And it’s the right to criticize and disagree, and even offend that’s vulnerable.

  • No one here is remotely advocating for such an exception, Ernst. Instead, everyone has made it clear that such an exception would be a wicked horror.

    But I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offense. Again, one does not need murder victim to be a saint or hero in order to nonetheless be a victim of a murderer.

  • I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offens[ive].

    You do realize that’s a distinction without a difference, don’t you?

    And if we’re not admitting of the possibility of a jerks needed killing exception in all of this that was wrong, killing, those jerks like that, but they were really jerky jerks weren’t they?* talk, then why all this complaining about the spittle on the sidewalk when the blood next to it hasn’t even dried yet?

    *That’s my admittedly crude gloss of the conversation, but I don’t believe it’s an unfair one.

  • Ernst, are you being deliberately obtuse?
    Seriously, you don’t see the difference? Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    If you are going to insult the moral understandings of others (“Jesus wept”), you should first demonstrate your ability to reason about morality.
    And the reason for the complaining is because folks like you are suggesting that Donohue’s acknowledgement of the “jerky” nature of the victims somehow meant that he endorsed their murder, which is a scurrilous lie. Donohue is right. These victims were jerks, and their their murder was a mortal sin. At most Donohue is guilty of suggesting a false equivalence in suggesting that because neither jerky behavior nor murder should be tolerated they are equally morally problematic. I’m sure he did not mean that, but would could infer it if one were inclined to take conveniently self-righteous inferential liberties.

  • Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    They will.
    We are Catholic.
    I am an uncovered woman.
    We are not paying the tax.
    They always have a reason.

  • I have read it all and I am underwater with this thing.
    Only TRUTH, WHO is Jesus Christ, has freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly. (and peaceable assembly means to imitate Jesus Christ.) Everything else is perjury in a court of law and a lie in the public square. All men are created equal and can be required to give a good account of themselves in public. On the American Catholic I have often failed to give sources, and hope I am not going to be excised. In this matter, “put up or shut up” needs to be implemented. Does the masturbating nun have a name? Who is she and where is she? Every nun has a right to demand a good accounting. So, she could sue them in a court of law for bearing false witness, again, the Eighth Commandment. Does the cartoon look like the Pope or Mohammed, sue them in a court of law or shun them until they go bankrupt, as Mike Petric suggested.
    The state has the power, the country has the authority from the people who constitute the government to declare this outrageous rag as “person non grata” and exile the dirty minded b–tards. Criminals of all strips can also be deterred by keeping them moving on, in the same way that the government causes protesters at abortion clinics to keep moving in a circle without stopping.
    This magazine sucked the life out of freedom of speech and freedom in general. How does one take his children into the public square and not be offended by garbage. Don Wildmon shut down K-Mart pornography. God gives us free will and the will to live decently. It really would have been better if France had exiled that rag to Iraq.
    As far as rape goes on public university campuses: First, the university is not legally equipped nor is it authorized to prosecute the crime of rape. Rape is the business of the state. The university suspending the rapist, leaving him no criminal record or other punishment, is a crime against the victim and society by starting a precedent that denies Justice to all people.
    There was a case and I am ashamed to tell the name of the university, where the rapist was suspended for two months. The father of the girl demanded state prosecution. The court said that this would be double jeopardy as the rapist had already been suspended for two months. I am not above sandwich boards in front of the rapist’s house. The prosecutor failed to prosecute. Let the crime be on him/her.
    And let the terrorist attack be on the government of France for not acting in ridding itself of this evil. So, yes, the murdered victims were victims of their own making and that of France for not acting in their behalf by getting rid of them as “persona non-grata”.

  • I’ve never cared for Bill Donohue’s approach to combating anti-Catholicism (real or imagined) because it basically boils down to “we can play the PC protected victim class game too”. Whenever the Church is ridiculed, insulted, or criticized, his response 99 percent of the time is “They would never get away with doing this to Muslims, Jews, Blacks, gays, etc.”. Yes, he may be right about that, but is the solution to become just as insufferable and thin-skinned as they are?

    Also, let’s not get censorship confused with discretion. Censorship seeks to prevent offensive material from ever being created in the first place, or to eliminate it wherever it exists, and to punish those who create it. Exercising discretion in how or where one chooses to display or present offensive material (e.g., schools choosing what books to stock in their libraries, stores choosing not to sell Playboy, Cosmo, etc.) is NOT censorship, since the material remains available elsewhere.

  • Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    They will.
    We are Catholic.
    I am an uncovered woman.
    We are not paying the tax.
    They always have a reason.

    What foxfier said.

    But go ahead and hope the crocodile will eat you last, if that’s what you want. Try not to splash around to much. You might call attention to yourself.

  • Also, let’s not get censorship confused with discretion. Censorship seeks to prevent offensive material from ever being created in the first place, or to eliminate it wherever it exists, and to punish those who create it. Exercising discretion in how or where one chooses to display or present offensive material (e.g., schools choosing what books to stock in their libraries, stores choosing not to sell Playboy, Cosmo, etc.) is NOT censorship, since the material remains available elsewhere.

    When it becomes discrete to not display or present material that offends because the offended will kill you, is that not tantamount to censorship?

  • Oh good. I was worried that I might be more obtuse than usual today.

    [“]The massacre at the Paris offices of the venerable satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been met with near-universal condemnation, but a growing chorus of self-appointed arbiters of good taste are going public, following up cursory denunciations of the murders with caveats that Charlie Hebdo is a “provocative,” “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic” publication who brought much of its trouble on itself.[“]
    Without even reading the rest of the article, I’m betting most of these “arbiters of good taste” are the same people who think we should teach all men not to rape.

  • This has been a very strange thread. Basically, some posters seem to be falling all over themselves to argue that no one should be inhibited from freely expressing his opinion, however odious it might be, for fear of criminal punishment or violence. The problem is that no one on this blog — and certainly not Donohue — advocates otherwise. I’m no fan of Donohue for the reasons expressed by Elaine, but Donohue is right in his description of the magazine. Bullies who publish mean-spirited and hurtful nonsense for the very purpose of offending should not be tolerated by members of polite society. Thinking people should shun and avoid association with such jerks, rather than lionize them as martyrs to the monument of free expression. Let’s be clear — the martyrs of free expression are those men and women in the armed forces who die for the purpose of protecting our rights, not those who exercise those rights in shameful ways. The victims of this violence are just that — victims, not heroes, not martyrs. They were not responsible for their own murders — their murderers were; but they were responsible for what they published and their deaths do not miraculously change that.

  • The only God given right of freedom of speech is the right to say what is true. For the good of society, we must tolerate a certain amount of false or invective speech. The law regarding slander and libel is an attempt to strike a balance between tolerating certain false, questionable, and invective, statements or publications to be made and always allowing the truth to be stated or published.

  • Regarding separation of Church and State in AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES
    Pope Leo XIII stated as follows:
    “28. We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence if follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence. These superior truths are so clearly proclaimed by the voice of even natural reason, that they force themselves upon all who are not blinded by the violence of passion; therefore Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens…. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages – above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles – and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defence, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.”

  • The behavior of the victims has nothing to do with it… I think of the earnest young man, Foley, who was beheaded last fall; a week later another good man, Jewish, was beheaded, followed by a good person, an aid worker form England. who also had converted to Islam.
    As was stated above on this page, the jihadis will always have a reason, svn if the only apparent reason is a bloodlust.
    I am sorry for the people of “charlie”. We Catholics can do a better job of evangelizing these educated talented elites. Why do they hate us so much? Our war is at least on two fronts: the secular atheists who attack our religious rights, and the jihadis.

  • Donohue’s a distraction. And an enervating one at that. So’s trying to assign the proper portion of blame to the massacred for the offense of offending the easily offended and aggrieving the perpetually aggrieved. This is about opposing the heckler’s veto. This is about recognizing that Islamists are at war with the West for reasons of their own rather than because of anything anyone in the West has done to them.
    “Why do they hate us so much?” Anzlyne asked. Because they hate.

  • I’m going to riff off another comment on the Reason roundup of equivocating responses to yesterday’s terror attack. I linked earlier, and then I’ll let it go (much to everyone’s relief, no doubt).

    Charlie Hebdo was racist, misogynistic, crude and vulgar. One should be able to say that because it is true.
    Just because someone is slaughtered by Islamists doesn’t magically turn them into saints.

    It seems to me that the commenter’s point is irrelevant because it misses the main point. The Charlie Hebdo victims were slaughtered not because Charlie Hebdo was racist, misogynistic, crude and vulgar, but because Islam was not exempted from their crudity and vulgarity. But even that is only part of the amin point. The Islamists who carried out this massacre acted upon a pretext. If it hadn’t been Charlie Hebdo, it would have been something else.
    All this rationalization and contextualizing, all this explaining away is just appeasement by another name.
    I wish I could remember what Orwell said back in 1940 or 41 about British pacifists being objectively on the side of the Nazis; it applies here.

  • I just thought of one more thing, so I guess I lied when I said I’d let it go. Maybe I’ll mean it this time.
    You want to know what the most offensive thing ever spoken was?
    “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58)
    The runner up is “Today, this scripture passage* is fulfilled in your hearing*.” (Luke 4:21)
    (*The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has annointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recover of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. ( Luke 4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2, 58:6))
    Maybe I can get some sleep now that I’ve got that out of my system.

  • Vincent A Lewis wrote, “The only God given right of freedom of speech is the right to say what is true.”

    Really? What about

    Giving orders –
    Forming and testing a hypothesis—
    Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams—
    Making up a story; and reading it—
    Singing catches—
    Guessing riddles—
    Making a joke; telling it—
    Solving a problem in practical arithmetic—
    Translating from one language into another—
    Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying –

    There is much more to speech than “saying what is true.”

  • Mike-
    Possibly it is “strange” to you because you insist on acting like the guys who refused to give in to the actual bullies– “do what we say, or else”– were the bullies.
    The “offensive” stuff did not come out of the blue.
    You’re pulling the same thing that schools do when they expel the guy who raised a hand in self defense, because fighting is wrong, and completely ignore that he was punched several times before even doing that.

  • Foxfier, I think you have a misimpression of either my position or the nature Charlie Hebdo. I do not think that the Catholic Church provoked the magazine’s lurid and gratuitous depictions of masturbating nuns and perverted priests, etc. The magazine is not some heroic defender of either the West or free speech. It is a scurrilous rag with mean-spirited content that intends to offend, rather than persuade or enlighten. That is not to say that such behavior is a warrant for murder — of course not; and that is not to say that murderers are not worthy of condemnation and punishment — of course they are. But Charlie Hebdo was and is in fact a mean-spirited rag that caters to both the ignorance of the masses as well as the conceits of the elite. The victims who were responsible for such content deserve our prayers, of course, but not our admiration.

  • End note: Many of my more orthodox Jewish friends take seriously the idea that one should never mention God by name, to the point that even in writing they will type G-d. Accordingly, when in their presence or in a written exchange I often employ the same convention, simply out of respect, even though I’m confident that if I didn’t they would take no offense (unlike the jihadists who view behaviors incompatible with their own conventions to be a warrant for violence). Attitudinally, Charlie Hebdo would respond to my Jewish friends by gratuitously speaking and writing God, Yaweh, etc as much as possible for the very purpose and with the precise hope of committing offense.

  • Mike-
    not only does your argument not support your assertion, it engages in a lot of mind-reading or assumption of motivation.
    Given people who are openly saying they kill people because they disagree with them, and people who are making points you don’t like in very rude ways, you decide to make statements about how horrible the motives of the one that won’t kill you are.
    I’m done.

  • Foxfier,
    I think you are mistaking publishing meanspirited distortions about convenient targets for speaking truth to power. I’m anxious to read your justification for the masturbating nun. And your implication that somehow I am excusing the murdering jihadists or trivializing the wickedness of their murder is horribly untrue and unfair. As a good Catholic I oppose the death penalty except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Executions are sins and the executed are victims. Elevating victims into martyrs may allow for a more compelling narrative, but it is intellectually dishonest.

  • Mike, why on earth would I keep trying to talk to you about this when you have thus far either not understood or cannot respond to a single point I have made?

  • Mike Petric: “Executions are sins and the executed are victims.”
    “Only for killing a man shall a man be put to death.”
    Capital punishment is the temporal punishment for capital one homicide; for laying in wait and murdering an innocent man for jealousy, or hatred or lust for his wife and/or property. There can be no Sacrament of Penance without temporal punishment and the firm amendment to sin no more and avoid the near occasion of sin. The executed are brought to Justice on the gallows. As the prophet Samuel hacked Agag into pieces saying: “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless.”
    Without the death penalty, the Boston bomber is going enjoy his crime in prison for the rest of his life. For the murderer to enjoy his crime in prison for the rest of his life is injustice. It is the duty of the state to deliver Justice.
    World War II was capital punishment on a large scale. Those Germans killed were supposed to be resisting Hitler and freeing the concentration camp victims, not shooting as they were, at the Allies. There was an underground resistance in France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Carl von Stauffenberg tried to assassinate HItler, people who could think for themselves. ditto “the japs” as they were called.
    War is hell but so is taking on the power of attorney of the condemned and bringing him to Justice.
    Justice is what this post is about. Violation of the sovereign person is a miscarriage of Justice. “piss Christ”, the image of Our Lady covered in elephant dung, the life-sized statue of Jesus Christ in chocolate and the invitation to passersby to “take and eat”. These are mockery not only of my belief but essentially ridicule of the Divine Person and the human person. “You are men sacred to me, for I, the Lord, your God am sacred”. and our tax money paying for the cruel blasphemy and insult to the human person and God. William Donohue responds to the defamation of innocent persons. Real humor subsists in our acknowledgement of our shortcomings. It seems these people were killed for violating free speech.
    There is so much in the Bible to cause “funny”, such as the phrase: “there will not be a dog that pisseth against a wall.” Whenever I see a dog pissething against a wall, I am reminded that things aren’t so bad (and things can get worse).
    The public square and the public tax money belongs to all people and are not to be misused to abuse. When their magazine entered the public square and offended and violated common decency and the person, it had brought about sanction on itself, and it needed to be removed by them or everyone. The terrorists do not represent “everyone”.

  • I agree, Mary, with much of what you have written. As a Catholic I am bound to the Church’s teachings, and Her teaching regarding capital punishment is pretty clear — it should be used only when necessary to protect society. While that rule very much requires a prudential application in each case, in my opinion it would not permit capital punishment for most instances of capital crimes. Current law in the US does not apply such a prudential calculus, but instead the inquiry is chiefly penal in nature. To the extent executions occur that do not satisfy the prudential test taught by the Church they would be objectively sinful. For the record, this is not a teaching that I am especially enthusiastic about. While I think I understand its reasoning, it seems wrong-headed to me for reasons your post suggests. That said, I submit to authoritative Church teaching.
    My penultimate point was simply that in those instances where a convict is executed under circumstances that would not permit such exectution under Church teaching, the convict has been wronged, and he is a victim; but that does not render him a martyr.

  • Elaine Krewer wrote:

    ‘I’ve never cared for Bill Donohue’s approach to combating anti-Catholicism (real or imagined) because it basically boils down to “we can play the PC protected victim class game too”.’

    Indeed. It demeans us and alas, has become all too common in my neck of the woods…

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote:

    “All this rationalization and contextualizing, all this explaining away is just appeasement by another name. . I wish I could remember what Orwell said back in 1940 or 41 about British pacifists being objectively on the side of the Nazis; it applies here.”


  • Mike PetriK wrote:

    “…but Donohue is right in his description of the magazine.”

    Of course he is. But there is a time and a place Maister P. To so indulge himself now, RIGHT now when twelve people have just been murdered, and their friends and families are in shock and mourning is a species of moral masturbation to make the sins of “Charlie Hebdo” pale by comparison! It is at best ill-bred and callous, and at worst a sleekit way of saying that those poor souls somehow got what was coming to them! Christ on the Cross that poor, tortured wee Muslim lassie I quoted above shows more understanding and compassion than Donohue! He might as well have gone the whole hog, got on a plane to Paris and p****d on their corpses!

    Mike Petrik continued:

    “Thinking people…”

    God gie me strength!

    “..should shun and avoid association with such jerks…”

    Are you familiar with Matthew 9:9-13?

    “…rather than lionize them as martyrs to the monument of free expression.”

    The thing is Maister P, in their choice to continue publishing after previous threats and violent attacks that is precisely what they are. Not all martyrs, to whatever cause or faith, lead blameless lives prior to martyrdom.

  • Mike Petric: “— it should be used only when necessary to protect society.” Who defines what is necessary to protect society? My problem is: who defines society? Are the other prisoners not “society”, the warden, the doctors, the contractors? My stand is simply that a truly repentant capital one murderer will expire with grief over his crime. Now, you are telling me that God wishes to keep him alive, as though God must trust him, but that is not in the CCC.
    Actually, I am for dropping every capital one murderer into the Amazon Jungle and if God wants him/her to live, that’s OK with me. I was also considering Devil’s Island. Let them work as hard as we have to.
    Did you see where St. John Paul II’s assassin came to place flowers on St. John’s grave. After the flowers were placed he was immediately deported by Italy.

  • Mike: There is another concept weighing heavily on me. If the murderer murders again, the state becomes an enabler, an accessory before the fact for not ending the murderer’s crime spree. If St. John Paul II’s assassin murdered again, St. John would have been an accomplice. Are we, the people, to be sitting ducks while the state becomes an accomplice?

  • It is surely ludicrous for Bill Donohue to accuse Charlie Hebdo of intolerance, of all things (“But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”)
    Charlie Hebdo has never advocated restricting anyone’s freedom of speech – They leave that to the fanatics they ridicule.
    (The hobnail boots are a nice touch)

  • I keep thinking. Dr. Donohue’s response is basically “I told you so.” and then Dr. Donohue goes on to explain his “I told you so” so when anyone gets to heaven he cannot claim that he was not informed. What happened was hideously unfair, but Dr. Donohue warned the victims of the consequences to be faced for their freedom of speech. Will somebody please blame the devil.

  • Mike Petric: “in my opinion it would not permit capital punishment for most instances of capital crimes.”
    You are absolutely right, but I am talking only about, exclusively about, capital one homicide, not homicide two, negligence, accidental death, only about a hate filled individual who plots, plans and executes his neighbor, even a cold-blooded hit-man does not bear the hatred required for capital one murder. I think the cold-blooded hit-man needs capital punishment because his conscience is gone. But, as you say, these cases must be tried on their own facts, each individually. A blanket ban on capital punishment removes self-defense and is double jeopardy for every citizen for the ban gives the capital one murderer license to kill.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: The Jews, Catholics and the Muslims were all three indeed slandered by the magazine. To portray the three as equally guilty in the murders is no more just than what the magazine was doing, slandering innocent people because they belonged to that group, guilt by association. A Bill of Attainder is prohibited. It is unconstitutional to punishing family and friends of traitors.

Democrat Attempts to Gut First Amendment

Monday, September 15, AD 2014

a jealous faith



The contemporary left gives lip service to freedom of speech, but where they are in power they actively seek to ban the speech of those who disagree with them.  We see this clearly on campuses where speech codes, anathema to any concept of freedom of speech, are the order of the day.  It is no accident, as Marxists used to say, that representatives of the Democrat party are busily seeking to jettison the concept of free speech when it comes to elections.  Kevin Williamson gives us the details at National Review Online:



Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Dissent is the lowest form of crime. If you are a drone in the hive of the Left, it is possible — easy, in fact — to believe both of those things at the same time.

Free speech just won an important victory in a federal courtroom, though it is shameful that the case ever even had to go to court. Ohio had enacted a plainly unconstitutional law that empowered a government panel to determine whether criticisms offered in political advertisements were sufficiently true to be permitted in the public discourse. Those who have followed the IRS scandal, the Travis County, Texas, prosecutorial scandals, or Harry Reid’s recent effort to repeal the First Amendment will not be surprised that this measure was used as a political weapon against a conservative group, in this case the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. SBA List criticized a Democratic House member for having voted for the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the law will implicate American taxpayers in the funding of abortions, an entanglement previously minimized through measures such as the Hyde Amendment. Despite the fact that the ACA regime would, among other things, permit federal subsidies for abortion-funding insurance plans, the Ohio Inquisition ruled the ad impermissible, and banned it.

So much for free speech.

Fortunately, an Obama appointee whose ability to read the letter of the law had not been utterly drummed out of him ruled that the Ohio Inquisition obviously violated longstanding free-speech protections, the First Amendment notable among them. Last week, a similar case in Minnesota came to a similar conclusion.

Which is why Harry Reid wants to repeal the First Amendment.

Democrats pushing the measure to repeal free speech pretend that it is a campaign-finance measure, but the only criteria it establishes for Congress to ban an advertisement — or a book, or a film, or a television show, or a magazine — is that money is expended in an attempt to influence a political outcome. Under those rules, the Ohio Inquisition’s successful move to ban billboards critical of an embattled Democratic congressman would have been totally acceptable under the provisions of a gutted First Amendment.

The Ohio Inquisition, and the Minnesota Inquisition, and Harry Reid’s war on the First Amendment are hardly isolated episodes. Consider that the same Texas prosecutor that has indicted Governor Rick Perry on two felony counts for the so-called crime of exercising his constitutional authority to veto a bill — a bill providing funds to that prosecutor’s office — is now preparing to indict University of Texas regent and whistleblower Wallace Hall, on charges of . . . hmm.

The charges against Mr. Hall are odd even by the standards of Rosemary Lehmberg, the vodka-pickled Texas prosecutor whose videotaped tirade after a DUI arrest — she threatened to have sheriff’s deputies jailed if she was not given special treatment — led to Governor Perry’s veto of funds for her office, on the theory that he could not in good conscience sign off on funding for an agency under such non-credible leadership. Mr. Hall is accused of leaking private information regarding academic records; short of that, prosecutors want to charge Mr. Hall with the crime of leading people to “speculate” about certain information protected by privacy rules. For the record, I should note that, though I never have spoken to the man, the party to whom Mr. Hall is accused of leaking information and whose speculation he is accused of encouraging is me.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Democrat Attempts to Gut First Amendment

  • O’Rourke, as always, makes the arcane digestible. Or something.

  • They are remarkable like Islam – whining about their rights when out of power, crushing everyone else’s when they are in.

  • “…the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes.”
    – Twain, Letter fragment, 1891

  • c matt: They are remarkable like Islam – whining about their rights when out of power, crushing everyone else’s when they are in.”
    “My sentiments exactly. How often I have thought these thoughts, but I am forbidden by the thought police to think these thoughts, much less express them out loud. You have given words to my thoughts.

  • What amazes me is that it never occurs to liberals that the pendulum might someday swing back and all the anti-dissent machinery they have built will be in the hands of their opponents.
    If they are truly haunted by nightmares of a “Republic of Gilead” it could arise much more easily once the Bill of Rights was repealed.

  • What else is new?

    This is what the modern Democrat does. Silence, or attempt to silence any opposition.

  • Liberalism, aka. progressivism is so full of itself it cannot conceive the possibility of being in error. Utopian zeal embodies an insatiable appetite for control. This is the fundamental basis for the totalitarian state. To the liberal progressive, free speech is a means to an end. When that end is achieved, free speech is banned.

  • Café Hayek quote of the day: “is from page 82 of Alain de Botton’s delightful 1993 volume, On Love (original emphasis):

    “’Amorous politics begins its infamous history in the course of the French Revolution, when it was first proposed (with all the choice of a rape) that the state would not just govern but love its citizens, who would presumably respond likewise or face the guillotine.’

Vandalism, Battery and Robbery, Along With Being a Red Fascist

Thursday, March 20, AD 2014




Hattip to Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.   A follow up to Foxfier’s post, go here to read it, about the Feminazi professor who assaulted a teenage pro-lifer and stole her sign.  The following is a report of the investing police officer as he interviewed the professor.  Imagine that he is speaking in Jack Webb’s Joe Friday, Just the Facts Ma’am, monotone:




I asked Miller-Young if she felt anything wrong had happened this afternoon. Miller-Young said that she did not know enough about the limits of free speech to answer my question. Miller-Young went on to say that she was not sure what an acceptable and legal response to hate speech would be. Miller-Young said that she was willing to pay for the cost of the sign but would “hate it.”

I explained to Miller-Young that the victims in this case felt that a crime had occurred. I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law. Furthermore, I told Miller-Young that I was worried about the example she had set for her undergraduate students.

Miller-Young said that her students “were wanting her to take” the sign away. Miller-Young argued that she set a good example for her students. Miller-Young likened her behavior to that of a “conscientious objector.” Miller-Young said that she did not feel that what she had done was criminal. However, she acknowledged that the sign did not belong to her.

I asked Miller-Young what crimes she felt the pro-life group had violated. Miller-Young replied that their coming to campus and showing “graphic imagery” was insensitive to the community. I clarified the difference between University policy and law to Miller-Young and asked her again what law had been violated. Miller-Young said that she believed the pro-life group may have violated University policy. Miller-Young said that her actions today were in defense of her students and her own safety.

Miller-Young said that she felt that this issue was not criminal and expressed a desire to find a resolution outside of the legal system. Miller-Young continued and stated that she had the “moral” right to act in the way she did.

I asked Miller-Young if she could have behaved differently in this instance. There was a long pause. “I’ve said that I think I did the right thing. But I acknowledge that I probably should not have taken their poster.” Miller-Young also said that she wished that the anti-abortion group had taken down the images when they demanded them to.

Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.

Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said. “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred. I also told Miller-Young that individuals involved in this case desired prosecution.

I later booked the torn sign into evidence at UCPD. I also uploaded the audio files of my interviews into digital evidence.

I request that a copy of my report, along with all related supplemental reports, be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Vandalism, Battery and Robbery, Along With Being a Red Fascist

  • “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”
    Harm? Visible disagreement is harm? This is the state of the fascist left – anything that is not in hive-mind lockstep with them provides angst-ridden confusion to the point of physical pain, much like an Adam Sandler movie does to a thinking adult.
    I say “More of it!” Push and shout until their agony drives them to madness and they run like the lemmings they are over the nearest cliff.

  • “much like an Adam Sandler movie does to a thinking adult.”

    Comment of the week WK! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • “Liberalism [Red Fascism, Progressivism, Socialism] is a mental disorder.” – ‘Michael Savage’

  • The incident in question is unimportant enough. The trouble is that there has been a chronic reserve army of the unemployed among aspirants to positions on arts-and-sciences faculties for around 40 years now and a position was allocated to this adolescent. It gets worse when you consider that institutional resources are allocated to pseudo-disciplines like ‘women’s studies’. These are not demand driven endeavours. The women’s studies program I know best recruited 38 eight ‘corresponding faculty’, cross-listed courses from I cannot recall how many departments, and managed to generate a mean of 2 majors per student cohort. That particular institution hands out about 650 diplomas a year. The best you could say is that the do not have a dedicated department or faculty, just some prime space on campus for their brown-bag lunch talks. The students know perfectly well ‘women’s studies’ is humbug even if the faculty and administration do not. (So, what’s the value added by the faculty and administration?).

    The foolishness of law and social practice has allocated the task of sorting the labor market to these institutions. It’s just another feature of contemporary life that makes you think your living in a cartoon storyline in Mad magazine.

  • I don’t know if it makes it better or not, but I don’t think the…female “adult” actually believes what she’s (objectively) saying, she’s just in the habit of throwing out anything that she thinks will get the correct response. She’s not lying, because that would require willfully saying false things, and I suspect she’s speaking to convey emotion, rather than facts.

    She didn’t like it, so it must be a bad thing– assault is a bad thing, so it must have been assault; she didn’t “feel” like theft and getting physical with a teenage girl was bad, because it was subjectively OK, so it couldn’t have been assault or a bad thing.

  • This woman is an idiot. She probably drives a Prius. The back of her car has to be covered with bumper stickers like Obama 2008 and Stop the Republican War on Women. Probably she is a “gaytheist”, too.

  • Here she is:


    Noodling around, I stumbled on the dates on her degrees and her fellowships. It appears she was born around about 1975 and has been ensconced in academe since around about 1993 either as a student or professor. She’s not been anywhere else and worked for a supervisor (bar seasonal and part time employment as a student, perhaps). I’ve not been able to check any specialized databases, but Google Scholar turns up a dry hole. She does not list any publications on her site on the tabs provided by the re-working of her dissertation for publication. Given that UCSB hired her nearly ten years ago and given it’s a research institution, that’s a thin resume (though perhaps these sources miss something); thin enough perhaps to get you denied tenure at any sort of institution other than a second-tier private college.

    So, she is 38 years old. She has not since her late adolescent years ever been away from academe; the amount of time she ever spent in ordinary jobs likely does not (pro-rating) exceed 4 years; and it appears she’s been dispensed from the normal feedback academics get about their published (such as it is) work and been tenured for the hell of it.

    It’s not surprising she’s … disoriented.

  • …Art, you managed to really depress me. She’s only a handful of years older than I am? That’s…. ugh.

  • Black studies, pornography and sex work…….so says the website.

    Obviously she’s unmarried and childless…..that’s a good thing.

    This woman is unqualified to do just about anything, including watering fake plants in offices.

  • She’s a token. And the powers at be at UCSB point to her and pat themselves on the back because her presence proves how refined their consciences are. Maybe she should run for President.

  • Pingback: Stanford Surrenders; Free Speech Wins! - God & Caesar
  • She is childless but possibly pregnant with a down syndrome child she will likely abort if the test comes back positive. Or at least that is my take. Very high motivation there not to see the results of a possible future choice

  • “I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred”

    I would have thought the more appropriate charge was stouthrief – an attack by a combination of persons, in which property is masterfully carried off, and the lieges put in alarm. Robbery, by contrast, is the simple case of a person having property taken from him forcibly, or extorted from him by alarming menaces. It is the public and masterful character of the taking that gives stouthrief its special gravity.

    One would also expect the students who took part with her would likewise be prosecuted as guilty, actors or actor or art and part.

  • Flags with a red field have been carried by socialists since at least the mid-19th century.

  • Folks,

    Democrats are not going to give up baby-murdering today without a fight any more than they gave up slavery more than a century and a half ago without a fight. Democrats have not changed.

    Now this is something none of us should want, but this woman’s behavior is becoming more and more typical of Democrats. The only thing they fear is the muzzle end of a loaded firearm, hence their emasculation of the 2nd Amendment.

    PS, let no one out there misinterpret me and point the muzzle end of a firearm at one of these individuals however much she may merit it. Let the Democrats be evil and let us be righteous. Let them be utterly shamed by their godless, sinful, arrogant behavior.

  • Micha Elyi

    I believe its first use by socialists was during the June Days in 1848, although it had earlier been used by the Jacobins. That was a result of the government closing the National Workshops. Then, the Liberals secured a victory over the Radical Republicans, but at the cost of 1,500 dead in combat and thousands of summary executions of prisoners. The Assembly, one recalls, welcomed the surrender of the last barricade with cries of “Long Live the Republic!” What they got, inevitably, was Napoleon III

  • Pingback: Outside Agitators | The American Catholic

Do We Have Free Speech?

Monday, December 23, AD 2013

I dislike mentioning the First Amendment when controversies like the Phil Robertson versus A&E brewhaha break out. After all, the First Amendment applies only to Congress (and the Supreme Court has ruled [incorrectly, if you ask me] that it applies to state governments via the 14th Amendment), and the actions of a cable network don’t really implicate the First Amendment. On the other hand, Ace of Spades makes a fairly compelling argument that this is too narrow an interpretation of what the First Amendment is all about.

It’s also untrue. Yes, the First Amendment, strictly speaking, applies only to the government. But there is a spirit of the First Amendment too, not just a restriction on government action.


And that spirit is this:


That we should have, to the extent compatible with ordered liberty, the maximum possible right to think and say and believe what we choose, and anyone who attempts to use force to coerce someone to think and say and believe something that is alien to them is acting contrary to the spirt of the First Amendment.


I’ve said this a dozen times:


The real, tangible threat to our right to think and speak as we will, as conscience, faith, or reason (or all three together) might impel us, is not from the government, but from our employers, and from the massively corporate media institutions that impose real penalties on people — fines, really, imposed by firings, suspensions, mandatory Thought Rehab and so forth — for daring to utter words other than the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.


Yes, A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robinson. A&E also has the right to stand up for a broad and generous principle of Freedom of Thought and Expression.


Why does no one speak of that right? Sure, they have the right to act hostilely towards the spirit of the First Amendment and use coercive power to hammer people into only speaking the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.

As I said, this is a very compelling argument, though I’m not sure I completely buy into it. In the case of employers firing people for expressing their free speech rights, true government coercion, it could be argued, would be actively prohibiting employers from firing employees for expressing unpopular opinions. Now, I personally think employers should give their employees wide latitude when it comes to expressing their opinions, and there are few examples I can think of where it would be acceptable to fire people for their political opinions.*

Which leads me to one of the most outrageous examples of over-reaction I’ve ever seen. Justine Sacco was a communications director for a firm called IAC – I say was because she was fired after tweeting the following:

Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!

The tweet was obviously a (really bad) attempt at mocking the concept of white privilege. It did not sit well with many of the purveyors of decency on the left, and within hours there was a social media firestorm. This woman with barely over 100 followers had become the locus of hate throughout the twitterverse, and soon her employers were compelled first to issue a statement of regret, and then to sack Sacco (sorry).

What was particularly heinous about the incident was how it revealed the true ugliness of social media, and I’m not referring to Sacco’s tweet. Her tweet was dumb, but clearly an example of poor humor and not racism or maliciousness. Yet this woman was hounded by the likes of Buzzfeed and other media outlets, and her tweet drew far, far, far more attention than it really merited. Like a pack of ravenous wolves, they descended on the metaphoric body of the tweet and made sure that not even a bone was left on the carcass. And why? Because of a really bad joke.

Now Sacco certainly deserves some share of the blame. After all, she was a communications director, and as such should have known better. And there’s something to be said about taking a more careful approach with social media. But are we really comfortable with getting a woman fired for a poor joke? Was her company’s bottom line really imperiled by Sacco’s crack? And of the millions of dumb tweets sent every day, why was hers one that merited such attention?

Sacco’s firing troubles me much more than Robertson’s suspension, which is not to say I wasn’t troubled by the latter. Robertson is a public figure, and he’ll be okay in the end. On the other hand, Sacco was fired because she tweeted something that offended certain people’s sensibilities. It had no bearing on her actual work with IAC, and it’s doubtful that her company’s reputation would have been damaged had they retained her. The social media pack mentality also does not speak well for our society as how many individuals mindlessly joined the herd without giving a second thought to what they were doing?

Most importantly I am just concerned about where we are headed culturally when we can’t make a public utterance without fearing the loss of our livelihoods. As Dale Price said, “If you say you believe in free speech but are routinely demanding “consequences” for speech you disagree with…you really don’t believe in free speech.” Sure we should be responsible for what we utter in public, but we need to have some perspective. I do not want to live in a country where it is acceptable to be easily fired for the flimsiest of comments.

For example, if the Chief of Public Relations for the Democratic National Committee suddenly took to twitter to rip into Harry Reid and Barack Obama, then it would most certainly not be inappropriate for the DNC to take action against that person. More seriously, I’m also thinking of teachers at Catholic schools who publicly dissent against Church teaching.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Do We Have Free Speech?

  • “The real, tangible threat to our right to think and speak as we will, as conscience, faith, or reason (or all three together) might impel us, is not from the government, but from our employers, and from the massively corporate media institutions that impose real penalties on people — fines, really, imposed by firings, suspensions, mandatory Thought Rehab and so forth — for daring to utter words other than the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.”

    Bingo. One of many reasons I am glad that I have been self-employed for 28 years and counting.

  • Thought Police in practice Paul.
    You hit upon a true concern for all peoples who cherish freedoms.

  • Before he retired, my dad worked for a large local pharmaceutical company whose name would be immediately recognizable. That company, back then, modeled its behavioral codes after IBMs – pressed suit, black tie & shoes and the whole nine yards. He often told me about making sure that I was always aware of my environment, and that “propriety and prudence were a businessman’s best friends.”

    When I didn’t listen and shot my mouth off anyway, he’d be a bit more direct: “Just because you think you have the right to say something, it doesn’t mean you have to be a dumbass about it.”

    This advice, in either form, seems to be a lost art anymore. Shame.

  • “Just because you think you have the right to say something, it doesn’t mean you have to be a dumbass about it.”
    I would rather be a dumbass about it than let the villainy of tyrants echo through the silence. At first, I thought to write and I ought to have written: I would rather be a dumbass about it than let other dumbasses impose their tyranny on my posterity. Someone once told me that I have to have something to say. Shh, quiet, I am thinking.

    Before I comment on this post I am thinking that the First Amendment is supported by our Founding Fathers, all of them, who signed out Founding Principles and if E Pluribus Unum means anything, it means that any decision coming out of the Supreme Court must apply to all persons, living and dead, equally. When the atheist went to the Court, her opinion that God does not exist was never substantiated with testimony and or evidence. On the contrary, her existence and God as existence contradicted her plaint. If Congress, who is the voice of all of the citizens, each and every citizen, is prohibited by the First Amendment to hinder “…or prohibit the free exercise thereof” of any citizen in relationship to God and free speech is, first and foremost, speaking with and to and for God, then the First Amendment protects evangelization, proselytism, or speaking any truth. Only truth and nothing but the truth has freedom of speech.
    At will employment gives the employer the right to terminate any employee for any reason. The employee would have to prove through a preponderance of credible evidence that a crime of discrimination was indeed committed.This means the employee would have to know the mind of his employer. A paper trail of the employer’s violation of the civil rights of all people, all citizens, by turning out inuendos, insinuations, scandals, seductions, half-truths, proliferation of violations of virginity and innocence of our constitutional posterity and other immorality, the preponderance of credible evidence will tip the scales of Justice against him. On the other hand, the employer did not warn or post his statement of intent for such terminations, leaving the victim unawares and uninformed. It is possible that Phil Robertson spoke out to balance the falsehoods of the employer, being called upon by the virtual indecency put forth.

  • Dale Price said, ”If you say you believe in free speech but are routinely demanding “consequences” for speech you disagree with…you really don’t believe in free speech.”
    The consequences for speech you disagree with is your disagreement. Piling on the government, politically correct culture and termination, etc., is nuking a gnat. Fair is fair and bullies are bullies.
    The Chinaman came before a judge and asked for payment from a homeless man because the man came to smell his wonderful food. The judge asked the homeless man if he had any money. The man said he had a few coins. The judge asked the man to produce the coins. The merchant thought he was going to be paid for the wonderful smell of his food. The judge then asked the homeless man to raise the coins in one hand and let the coins drop to his other hand, thereby producing a clinking sound. The judge then said: “For the smell of wonderful food, you get the sound of money.”
    A&E has spit at a tsunami. Phil Robertson is owed an increase in pay for ameliorating and for being forced to ameliorate the evil spewed by A&E.

  • I agree with Donald and will add that what he quoted from the blog correctly describes Commercial Nuclear Energy in a nutshell in these United States (as well as a whole mess of other corporations):

    “The real, tangible threat to our right to think and speak as we will, as conscience, faith, or reason (or all three together) might impel us, is not from the government, but from our employers, and from the massively corporate media institutions that impose real penalties on people — fines, really, imposed by firings, suspensions, mandatory Thought Rehab and so forth — for daring to utter words other than the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.”

  • No, we don’t have free speech. This hasn’t been a free country in a long time. We are like a zombie. It looks alive because it’s still walking but if you get up close and get a good whiff you see that this thing has been dead.

  • The best way to evangelize our Faith is to proclain the “Good News” without any reservations and show our love for all the Gospel has to offer everybody. Verbal finger pointing won’t help in the le ast. People want to learn more about us than what we’re just against. What do we have to offer?

  • Steven, that’s a remarkable insight. Just think of what we can demonstrate by our lives. We can say just as much with deeds as we can with words. In fact the old adage has it that actions speak louder than words. I’ve been of the oopinion that people generally know what’s wrong. They knwo it at some level, but they suppress it. Who doesn’t know in America that Christ died for them? Perhaps they need to hear it form someone caring. More importantly, perhaps, they need to see the results of that–to be touched by it. It is love that moved us (Dante). It is love that will move them.

  • I recall a similar case of an executive for a corporation acting like a jerk and
    paying a stiff price for it– only the consensus here was that we were glad to
    see him gone. I refer to the man who berated the nice lady at the Chick-fil-a
    drive-through and broadcast his idiocy on YouTube. American Catholic had
    a post about it– “Jerkiness Cometh Before A Fall”, back in August of 2012.

    I’m not suggesting that what Mr. Smith did back then was defensible. He was
    a bully and a jerk to that nice lady, and keeping him on would have made the
    company where he was CFO look like it condoned his behavior– and, incidentally,
    would have called into question that company’s entire culture of professionalism.

    He was canned. We were glad to hear of it. I don’t think anyone here suggested
    that he should have been able to speak as he did without any consequences from
    his employer.

    What makes Ms. Sacco’s case so different from that of Mr. Smith? I am most
    emphatically not defending Mr. Smith’s behavior– I think firing him was
    the right thing for his company to do. The man’s behavior was egregious.

    I suppose the troubling thing is that our definition of egregious behavior seems
    to be shifting.

  • What makes Ms. Sacco’s case so different from that of Mr. Smith?

    Really? You don’t see a difference between publicly berating people and making a bad joke on twitter? Really?

  • *sigh*.

    Mr. Zummo, I would point out that it is Ms. Sacco’s employer who doesn’t see
    the difference between Mr. Smith’s egregious behavior and that of Ms. Sacco.
    In the end, they received the same penalty for their mistakes. Really.

    Would I have fired him? Oh, yes. With pleasure. Ms. Sacco? I’m not so sure.
    I must admit that for a communications director to publicly broadcast
    her monumental tactlessness– one must question her competence in her field.

    As I said before, what constitutes ‘egregious’ behavior seems to have changed
    rather recently, at least in the circles that hire and fire executives. Most companies
    hire executives like CFOs and communications directors with the contractual
    understanding that the executive represents the company 24 hours a day, and
    that anything done that might bring the company into disrepute could well be
    an offense that rates termination. So yeah, by taking that contract, I suppose
    an executive agrees to a limitation of his or her First Amendment rights.

    Mr. Zummo’s snark aside, these days there’s probably no difference between
    publicly berating people and making bad jokes on twitter, at least to the
    mandarins in charge of guarding a company’s PR. When I asked what the
    could be between the two cases, it was a rhetorical question. I fear that, these
    days, for the increasingly gun-shy HR departments out there it is not rhetorical
    at all. Why is that?

  • “So yeah, by taking that contract, I suppose an executive agrees to a limitation of his or her First Amendment rights.”
    It is a violation of Free Speech and First Amendment rights to abuse people in speech. The First Amendment in any contract demands charity. Prayer for Divine Providence is a good beginning.

  • Phil Robertson was uplifting people. A&E was demeaning Robertson, totally against the First Amendment. The issue is that A&E presumes their clientele to be so numbnuts that we would not notice. WE noticed.

  • Pingback: Francis: Christmas Is for Jesus, Not Parties, Shopping - Big Pulpit
  • Pingback: CHRISTMAS EVE EXTRA | iwannabeasaint
  • Here’s one for those who are afraid of making their mark on this secular society:
    “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either
    cold or hot. So, BECAUSE YOU ARE LUKEWARM, neither hot nor cold, I will SPIT you out of my mouth ” (Revelation 3:15-16.
    and Jesus also said, “If you are ashamed of me before man, I will be ashamed of you.

  • Interesting question in the last sentence of the article.
    What to do about Catholic school teachers who publicly dissent at the Church’s teachings?
    I am ok with firing the teacher.
    However, it seems to me that Robertson and Sacco are being mistreated.
    Am I a hypocrite?

  • Thank you Jonathan. Well, the biggest “Dynasty Soapie” since the days of JR & his dynasty in Dallas are no longer history, but were given a new lease on life. (So was the rump remains of the old Roman Empire under the good graces of Justinian and Theodosia, one of western history’s first “power couples.” How long did the rump limp on for after the power couple left the scene? Relatively speaking … perhaps as long as the Robertsons may the moment A & E gets a newer exec who’s given “broad discretion” when it comes to handling the “patriarch’s” next indiscretion. Safe to say who’ll come out ahead in the next episode. Stay tuned.

    Perhaps a visit or two to our local cemeteries or even a large state/regional Federal military cemetery might serve as a “cooling off antidote.” Not far from where I live there’s a couple of humble grave markers of two survivors of the MA 54th Regmt. memorialized in the film “Glory.” I don’t think anybody would dare to compare the freedoms and free speech they fought for on the same plane as that argued for by Duck Dynasty’s fans.

Government, the Biggest Bully of All

Saturday, June 29, AD 2013

4 Responses to Government, the Biggest Bully of All

  • The Nanny of the Month was once an elementary school principal, and of an age to be one of the irritating creatures in charge of my elementary school. I do not think the passage of time has improved that lot.

  • Several of my grandsons were suspended for interrupting school fights caused by bullying. Everybody gets suspended. This bill would empower individuals not elected, nor appointed and horribly unqualified to judge the young people and/or adults in any given situation. Are these “judges” to take the testimony of a liar or bully and continue the bullying on a legal level? Who is going to enforce this anti-bullying law? Biased, politically correct morons, useful idiots, or individual persons of integrity, honesty, and they who are statesmen, or are these decent citizens already incarcerated?

  • Time for a few Harden Up pills, methinks.

    PC is a tyranny that feeds on itself.

  • Man up is almost always good advice Don!

Shut Up, They Explained

Wednesday, March 6, AD 2013






Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy takes a look at a bill in Minnesota that would have caused many of my classmates back in my school days to stand mute.



use of one or a series of words, images, or actions, transmitted directly or indirectly between individuals or through technology, that a reasonable person knows or should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of interfering with the ability of an individual, including a student who observes the conduct, to participate in a safe and supportive learning environment. Examples of bullying may include, but are not limited to, conduct that:

  1. places an individual in reasonable fear of harm to person or property, including through intimidation;
  2. has a detrimental effect on the physical, social, or emotional health of a student;
  3. interferes with a student’s educational performance or ability to participate in educational opportunities;
  4. encourages the deliberate exclusion of a student from a school service, activity, or privilege;
  5. creates or exacerbates a real or perceived imbalance of power between students;
  6. violates the reasonable expectation of privacy of one or more individuals; or
  7. relates to the actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, national origin, immigration status, sex, age, marital status, familial status, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, academic status, disability, or status with regard to public assistance, age, or any additional characteristic defined in chapter 363A of a person or of a person with whom that person associates, but the conduct does not rise to the level of harassment.
Continue reading...

3 Responses to Shut Up, They Explained

  • 7) “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression,” Sexual orientation and gender identity, are physical conditions. “expression” is an act of the will and the person may be held accountable for it. For the government to protect “expression” is prejudiced and biased of the law for vice and against virtue. Confounding the act of free will exercised by the homosexual individual to act out his homosexuality, with the condition of homosexuality of the homosexual individual, prohibits the freedom of all men to act out the Justice of God, and the virtue of Justice among the constituents of the government, and their freedom to exercise their free will. This regulation criminalizes every human response to the evil of anal penetration, the evil of homosexual behavior and the evil of the act of free will to choose to commit the vice of sodomy.

  • Just received a USCCB Media email in Spam rather than the usual Inbox.

    Also, National Review.

    A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The William Whatcott decision presumes that the person is guilty of malicious intent before being charged in a court of law for distributing WARNINGS AGAINST A PATH TO PERDITION taken from the Bible. The Bible is a warning and a path to a decent life. If the warnings go unheeded and souls are lost, whose fault is it? The person who warns or the person who chooses to live an unholy life of fornication and the court that chooses to deny the warning? People reading the Bible as HATE SPEECH are hateful people.

    Censorship of the Bible as HATE SPEECH cannot be legalized because the Bible belongs to the church. The Bible does not belong to the state. If sinners do not repent and accept the warnings of the Bible and the path to heaven spelled out in the Bible, censoring the Bible as hate speech, as the state is doing, will not prevent or forestall the damage souls have done to themselves on their way to perdition. “I put before you a blessing and a curse, choose life then.”

    There is another matter and that is this:
    If the recipients of the warning of the Bible accepted the warning, the flyer on which it is printed:
    1) The have freely entered into a conversation about a lifestyle against which they are being warned. If the person who accepts the flyer does not agree, he is free to return it to the giver. This too, is free speech. This law infringes of free speech between giver and recipient.
    2) The persons who accepted the flyer are also censored in the manner of protective custody. The flyers were of a warning. The recipients are being denied their free speech. The Bible belongs to all people and the state may not decide for Bible readers their choice between blessing or curse, that is, their point of view. The principle of separation of church and state explicitly frees men from such tyranny.

    God created man, woman, gender, race, color, etc. Man distorted God’s creation into a transgendered creature and protects their monstrosity. Bathrooms for Male, Female and Altered are in short supply.

This is the Way Freedom Dies

Monday, March 4, AD 2013



Canada no longer has freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court of Canada killed it:

In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate-speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not however directly attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the decision linked above)

The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

The Supreme Court found however that with regards to hate-speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies. No longer can Christians give the defense before courts that one ‘loves the sinner, but hates the sin’.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

“Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were offended by his flyers.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to This is the Way Freedom Dies

  • Thank you for this Donald McClarey

  • The Canadian Charter is significantly weaker on liberty in general than is our Bill of Rights. In the hands of progressives, you get things like this.

  • Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the gift that keeps on giving.

    There is nothing to prevent the Canadian Parliament and provincial assemblies from shutting these lousy star chambers down. The Conservative Party of Canada has a majority in the upper and lower house of parliament and majorities in two provincial assemblies; a third assembly is controlled by a kindred provincial party. They are just too indolent and craven to fix this.

  • Pingback: When Free Speech Died in Canada | Acton PowerBlog
  • About ten years ago, during testimony in the CHRC case of Warman v. Lemire
    , Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Stacy was asked
    “what value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?”. His frank
    response, now infamous, was “freedom of speech is an American concept, so I
    don’t give it any value”.

    Lifesite News has an excellent article, ca. 2007, that gives an overview of how
    the CHRC has been manipulated to silence the left’s opponents.


  • Normally I would wave this off as “That’s Canada for you.” But, I feel a Canadian cold front moving towards America and welcomed with open arms. The icy hand of intolerance of the religious comes. I do wonder if they’ll prosecute anti-religion or anti-church speech in homosexual “rights” rallies as hate speech. Doubtful.

  • “Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.”
    The court has dictated that what the speaker had intended and what they changed the intent to be, are one and the same. The court changed the intent of the speaker’s speech; absolute perjury, bearing false witness and hearsay, tarring the speaker. The court changed the nature of the crime. The thought police. If “attacks on this conduct stand as proxy”, then the court needs to apprehend and prosecute the proxy, which bears a very strong resemblance to the court in its interpretation of intent.

  • The court articulates what many in America already believe; that “tolerance” absolutely requires setting aside all judgment. Since “tolerance” is now a value and virtuous living is not, these decisions will not be contained by a line demarcated on a map. Indeed, it is precisely the same view that drives homosexual activists to insist that the Boy Scouts promote homosexuality.

    In the ’80s, we were told to “live and let live.” Now we are told to reject God or be an outcast. One day we will be told to reject God or die.

    Are we ready for that? If not, and I fear that I am not, it is time to stand up and be counted. If not now, when? If not us, whom?

  • I loathe all liberal judges, especially those on appellate and “supreme”/”superior” courts. These arrogant careerists with lifetime jobs think that they have a mandate to remake society into their personal perverted vision.

  • While I don’t like this decision, I think the fact that the defendant was holding a book that said homosexuals should be put to death gives one pause.

    That said the best way to treat someone with that much hatred against homosexuals is with social ostracism. Having grown up Catholic in an area with virulent anti-Catholic sentiment, I know all about people who claim to love a group of people but hate everything they do. Such virulent hatred against law abiding citizens who are not harming you is just not acceptable.

  • In the ’80s, we were told to “live and let live.”

    I remember the messaging the homosexual lobby and lapdog media kept pounding on society during Texas v. Lawerence. “What happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business!” Since that time, what happens in the bedroom is in everybody’s business, e.g. marriages, company benefits, adoptions, marketing, TV sitcoms and dramas and on and on. Pandora’s bedroom has been opened.

  • Michael: ” I think the fact that the defendant was holding a book that said homosexuals should be put to death gives one pause.”

    I missed that one. Thank you for reminding us.

    Then the decision should have been made relating to “death threats”, not religion.

  • Thank you. Ray Marshall. I know to be prosecuted, a crime must be spelled out and the law quoted in a court of law.

  • I wonder how many people who support this vehemently denounce the old anti-blasphemy laws?

  • Pingback: WHEN FREE SPEECH DIED IN CANADA… | Conservative Critic's Blog
  • Pingback: When free speech died in Canada | News of Life and Death
  • The homosexual person is free to remain a celibate virgin. Some who practice the homosexual abuse of another person uses and objectifies that person as a means to his sexual gratification. Sexual gratification and the cross of having been created in same-sex attraction are very, very different and ought not be confused. Those who confuse sexual gratification with sexual attraction are leading the people into a chasm of darkness and unknowing, a ditch of ignorance and untruth. Truth is the substance of the Holy Scripture and Justice. Leading the people, the culture, into a ditch of ignorance and untruth is treason to our founding principles and perjury in a court of law. Therefore, those who hold that sexual performance both homosexual and heterosexual and sexual attraction are one and the same commit perjury, a lie in a court of truth and Justice, and HATE SPEECH.
    When and if the homosexual agenda demands from the people to have their treason, their lie, their perjury, their hate speech codified and imposed on the people, it ought to be ostracized and identified as liars. The homosexual person is free to remain a celibate virgin, the rest is HATE SPEECH.

  • Pingback: Shut Up, They Explained | The American Catholic
  • Here’s the thing: They’ve never HAD constitutional free speech in Canada. It was always an idea that the government payed lip service to, but mostly they borrowed from us. You should check out the terrible legal troubles that comic book artists and others have had publishing unpopular views as far back as the 1970’s. By law the Government has very right to do this– not that I agree with the decision. Canada isn’t the USA. What frightens me is how badly the USA wants to be Canada.

    While the Canadian Government can’t/won’t tell the difference, what I say is not meant to deride actual citizens of that country. I’m just saying that they need a constitutional overhaul even worse than we [here in the US] do– they need to insert critical foundations to begin with. We only need to roll back hundreds of years of ignoring what we already have.

  • I have heard that Canadians arrested in Canada are often shocked to learn that they do not enjoy all the rights they know by heart from watching years of American cop shows!

    I liked how one Canadian columnist put it in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision:

    “You can say what you like in Canada — to yourself, in a low voice.”

  • “You can say what you like in Canada — to yourself, in a low voice.” Thank you Donald– that is sad but even true here and now in various social situations.

    And it does seem Kyle, that the front from the north is just a hint of the increasing chill to be writ into law and not just enforced by politically correct social interaction

  • I wonder how long it will take before a Canadian Catholic priest or bishop is arrested in the pulpit…Also, even if the Canadian Parliament attempted to expand freedom of speech and abolish the Human Rights Commissions, the judiciary would almost immediately overturn those laws, as they have become more rogue than the US Courts.

  • People in Canada are not as free as they suppose. I think Richard Ehrman, the Episcopal priest, explained it best in “We Hold These Truths.” The gist of it seemed to be this: A Christian people knows the truth, and that truth is what sets people free. They are vigilant and no state can make lies believable; indeed they know the state cannot replace God. As people lose touch with that truth however, they move in the direction of slavery. That is one way to speak of our predicament in the post-Christian West.

  • Canada no longer has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Canada killed it.
    –Donald R. McClarey

    That nation shall henceforth be known as “Castrata”.

    Here’s the thing: They’ve never HAD constitutional free speech in Canada.

    The nation now known as Castrata is populated by many descendants of TWANLOC. Despite the best wishes of our own ancestors, their chains will not always rest lightly upon them.

  • Pingback: When Free Speech Died in Canada | Blog

Free Speech and the Left

Wednesday, September 19, AD 2012

 Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

Abraham Lincoln

One of the more refreshing aspects of the fallout in the wake of the Cairo and Benghazi embassy attacks, is the degree that it has brought out in the open the contempt that many people on the political Left have for affording constitutional protection to speech which they despise.  A case in point is Sarah Chayes.  Ms. Chayes is about as establishment Liberal as it is possible to get.  A graduate of Harvard, the offspring of Abram Chayes, and  Antonia Handler Chayes, both luminaries of the academic and political Left, she had a career as a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio.  Under Obama she was a special assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Her credentials and background therefore make her opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times of special interest.  In that opinion piece she argues that the Mohammed video would not be worthy of constititutional protection because it is meant to be purely offensive and intended to provoke a violent reaction.  It therefore constitutes the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater:


While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. “Based on my understanding of the events,” 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, “I think this meets the imminence standard.”

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard.”

Indeed, Justice Holmes’ original example, shouting “fire” in a theater, is not a call to arms. Steve Klein, an outspoken anti-Islamic activist who said he helped with the film, told Al Jazeera television that it was “supposed to be provocative.” The egregiousness of its smears, the apparent deception of cast and crew as to its contents and the deliberate effort to raise its profile in the Arab world a week before 9/11 all suggest intentionality.

The point here is not to excuse the terrible acts perpetrated by committed extremists and others around the world in reaction to the video, or to condone physical violence as a response to words — any kind of words. The point is to emphasize that U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk. Especially in the heightened volatility of today’s Middle East, such provocation is certainly irresponsible — and reveals an ironic alliance of convenience between Christian extremists and the Islamist extremists they claim to hate.

Interesting that she trots out Anthony Lewis to shore up her argument.  Lewis, now 85 and retired, was for decades the uber Liberal’s uber Liberal at the New York Times and regarded as a First Amendment absolutist.  Unless he is now in his dotage, one can only assume that, like many on the Left, his dedication to free speech ends when he disagrees strongly enough with what is being spoken.

The argument that Sayes is making is an old one.  It is called the Heckler’s Veto, and it has been used throughout American history to argue that speech should be suppressed because of the violent reaction it might cause.  Liberals, back when they were truly liberal, use to fight against it.  Lately they have embraced it, most notably in erecting bubble zones around abortion clinic, and banning pro-life protesters from those zones.  In the case of Christopher v. Hill,  530 U.S. 703 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld such zones 6-3.  The scathing dissent of Justice Scalia is instructive:

The Court today concludes that a regulation requiring speakers on the public thoroughfares bordering medical facilities to speak from a distance of eight feet is “not a ’regulation of speech,’ ” but “a regulation of the places where some speech may occur,” ante, at 14; and that a regulation directed to only certain categories of speech (protest, education, and counseling) is not “content-based.” For these reasons, it says, the regulation is immune from the exacting scrutiny we apply to content-based suppression of speech in the public forum. The Court then determines that the regulation survives the less rigorous scrutiny afforded content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions because it is narrowly tailored to serve a government interest–protection of citizens’ “right to be let alone”–that has explicitly been disclaimed by the State, probably for the reason that, as a basis for suppressing peaceful private expression, it is patently incompatible with the guarantees of the First Amendment.

    None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the “ad hoc nullification machine” that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Free Speech and the Left

  • I really would like many of these out-spoken anti-first amendment people, especially the women, to go live in a muslim country for awhile. I wish I had the money to pay for their trip. What happened to all the liberals who were up in arms when the British couple was put in a Saudi jail for being immodest on the beach? The thing I really, honestly can’t figure out is that it’s so completely obvious to me that if the muslims come to take over the United States, these liberals would be put first in the infidel line. I’ve often imagined the priority order of the infidel line. I really believe that pro-life Catholics would be last & the homosexual loving, pro-choicers would be first. Why can’t they see the obvious? They hate everything that a “normal” muslim family would like (big family, woman who doesn’t work). When I was in Jordan, I was not allowed to drive. It was recommended that I did not go sight-seeing, or even go to the store without my husband (it was a working vacation when we went). I got strange looks when I went to the hotel restaurant with just my kids for lunch. My impression when I was there, though, was that the Jordanians loved Americans, but they still have their culture & customs. So, when it all comes down to the basics, I just cannot understand why on earth any person who is from America would put their allegience to muslims, or anyone else for that matter, above the constitution. I have an acquaintance who is from France, but recently became an American. She will tell you how awful socialism is and how proud she is to be an American. She is very sad at what our Nation has been going through since Obama took office. She can see very clearly what is happening to our country & is scared.

  • They do not love Muslims. They hate America and our way of life.

    Free speech for me, not for thee.

    It’s okay to criticize and vilify Mormons but forbidden for Muslims because: one, Mormons don’t hate America and freedom; and two, Mormons don’t mass murder people that say things about them.

  • The Volokh Conspiracy has some good coverage of Obama and his ilk trying to bring the US Constitution into line with “international norms”.

    As one commenter put it, for folks like this “liberty is a bug, not a feature”.

  • The United Nations has long wanted a standing army, the power to tax the United States and this international criminal court, to levy taxes and arrest us if we do not pay. It talks about “economic interdependence” “narcissism”, an immature love for our First Amendment Freedoms and tries to seduce America into what the United Nations does not have, namely, FREEDOM. The United States of America is the only nation on the face of the globe that has the guarantee of Freedom.

    On American Exceptionalism: for the word “Exceptionalism” substitute the word and meaning of “SOVEREIGNTY”, as in the sovereign person who constitutes American SOVEREIGNTY. It would appear that all this “international law and comity” Is nothing more than the imposition of tribute to an unelected dictator, denying the endowed rights to the human being in existence as the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights and the Creator as the only Supreme Ruler in the world…Simply by convening an international CRIMINAL court and criminalizing any nation who refrains from submitting itself and its sovereignty to the international court, the United Nations has set itself over every nation in the world, entitling itself to supreme and uncontradicted power and authority without the mention or acknowledgement of the Creator and endower of unalienable rights to the human being. This international CRIMINAL court has made of itself the dispenser of JUSTICE, the particular realm of the author of all law, the Supreme Sovereign Being. The international criminal court has set itself up as GOD without GOD. Simply by changing the wording on law, long before anyone notices, this international criminal court will criminalize everybody and everything until it gets control of the whole world. The international criminal court will then call itself the WORLD COURT.

    In the matter of free speech in front of the abortion clinics: The pro-life people speak for all freedom, the unborn carry the genes of their fathers, who have been disenfranchised. These genes do not belong to the mother, these genes belong to the father and to destroy them is violence, as well as murder of another sovereign person. The pro-life advocates uphold the truth and rights of all persons especially persons who have not learned how to speak for themselves.

    Statesmen and politicians
    Statesmen are persons who comprehend and respect the laws of nature and nature’s God. Statesmen acknowledge the human being’s sovereign personhood, his endowed, unalienable human rights that derive from and are endowed in body and soul by “their Creator”. The statesman relies on Divine Providence to deliver and protect the innocent, the virgins, about to be born as citizens and the citizens who are born.

    Politicians are individuals who have forfeit their unalienable human rights through unlawfully denying to other sovereign persons, human rights. Human rights are unalienable rights that are endowed by their Creator, through the laws of nature and nature’s God.

  • T. Shaw: ” Mormons don’t mass murder people who say things about them.” The punishment must, absolutely must, fit the crime, for JUSTICE to be done.

  • “The United States of America is the only nation on the face of the globe that has the guarantee of Freedom”

    Not quite true – “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.” – Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen 26 août 1789, incorporated into most European constituions

    See also the European Convention on Human Rights “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

  • “but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”

    Abuses as defined by the powers that be.

    “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

    In other words freedom so long as the powers that be like it.

    I prefer the bracing words of the First Amendment without any ifs, ands or buts:

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

Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

Tuesday, July 31, AD 2012

Francis Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago is alleged to have predicted that for upholding the teachings of Christ he will die in his bed, his successor will die in a prison cell, and his successor will be executed in a public square in Chicago.  Therefore, I am unsurprised that he has written an open letter exploring the “Chicago Values” cited by Mayor Emanuel when he decided to attack the free speech rights of Chick-Fil-A:




Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago.  I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval.  Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?  Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it?  I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.”  Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.  Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?  What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.  Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago.  Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female.  The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.  Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital.  Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

  • Thank you for this post, Donald.

  • A square circle has been proven to be imposible and the best analogy for gay-marriage. I appreciate the way you described the situation in Chicago about the government approving a man’s value system. Will it come to the government forcing individuals to have sex change operations to realize its value-system?

  • I didn’t know the Cardinal had it in him. I just wish this had been his demeanor for the last 20 years. Apparently he has concluded his flock is under attack and he will not cede moral high ground to a bunch of corrupt, secular, depraved politicians who lack any moral standing whatsoever.

  • Darn, that was well-said. I pray the Cardinal’s prophesy about his successors my be wrong, but I fear he is all too prescient. Thanks for posting.

  • That quote from Cardinal George is very ominous. What was the context and are there any links?

  • He said it after civil unions passed in Illinois in 2010. I have been unable to find a direct link to the statement, but I will keep looking.

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Intolerance Equality | Big Pulpit
  • Marriage is primordial and, in the happy phrase of Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v Dalrymple, it is the parent, not the child of civil society.

    The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

    The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

    This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including such luminaries as Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.

    No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, is either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

  • The “martyrdom” quote has also been attributed to Abp. Charles Chaput. I also have attempted to pin down an exact time and place where Cardinal George said this and haven’t yet been able to find one. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that whatever its origin, it’s been attributed to Cardinal George so many times that he’s embraced it and doesn’t bother denying that he said it, since it does express his beliefs about the direction religious freedom issues seem to be going in the U.S.

    Famous people or public figures often have quotes attributed to them that they never said, whether it’s Abraham Lincoln’s alleged “Ten Cannots” (“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift….”) or Chuck Colson’s “I would run over my grandmother to elect Nixon” or George Carlin’s “Hurricane Rules.”

  • …but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens

    These are fighting words. I doubt that the Rahms will take heed. Either by accident or design, the US has come to a position where the Right has to put aside all the pointless courtesies, and fight the Left tooth and nail or stand in danger of becoming strangers in their own land.

  • Archbishop Chaput has denied saying it Elaine. The quote has aroused my suspicion now since I can find nothing on the internet citing the statement directly from anything written or said by Cardinal George. I hope someone asks Cardinal George about the statement so we can clear this up. I have modified the post to say that he is alleged to have made this prediction.

  • So much talk on Gay marriage and the push to make it culturally acceptable and respectable but many seem to accept unmarried heterosexual unions. So many couples shacked up, living together and bearing children with little concern about the long time welfare of the child. Which type of union is more sinful in the eyes of God? Which lifestyle will have the greatest negative impact on our culture. What will life be like in America 50 years from now? I’m afraid to guess.

  • Indeed, Ivan, for the Left has dropped all pretense; where before was metaphor, dissemblance and clever rhetoric, now stand naked hostility and unadulterated arrogance.

    They started this, and one or the other side will soon perceive itself painted into a corner. Then it’s a-gonna get ugly.

  • RPM, those are valid concerns, and I certainly don’t see anyone here condoning either situation. As for which is more sinful in God’s eyes, only He knows for sure – for us, it is clear both are gravely sinful (both are in the mortal sin category, but whether it earns the 4th or 5th circle of hell, I’d just rather avoid either).

    As for impact on society, one strikes at the fundamental structure of marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, and the unified purposes of the marital act; the other likely involves a larger absolute number of individuals, and if not altering the fundamental structure, at a minumum undermines the important pillar of stability that marriage (ideally) provides. Neither is good.

  • Please give Cardinal George a call and thank him for his leadership as Christ’s chosen shepherd: 312-751-8200.

  • RPM

    From the public’s perspective, the two cases are very different.

    As the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell observed, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That is why the state uses the institution of marriage to make the paternity of children clear, certain and incontestable. Were this not its primary legal function, it is difficult to see why the law should facilitate marriage in extremis. What other purpose does a death-bed marriage serve?

    By the same token, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile, are irrelevant to the institution of marriage. This is different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous.

    As the legislator has no authority in the other world, whatever may be the lot of its subjects in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this one.

    The question is not one of morals, but of civil status: (1) mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code and (3) the sex difference is central to filiation.

  • The nearest Chick-filet-a is 25 miles away from me, in Racine. And since the price of gas has skyrocketed to over $4.00 a gallon in Wisconsin (a pipeline to Chicago has broken and is leaking in central Wisconsin), I don’t think it would be prudent to make a 50 mile round trip to buy a chicken sandwich:-) But I certainly will, when gas prices go down a bit.

    I remember saying, at Gerard N.’s old blog *sigh*, that gay marriage was not a terribly important issue to me. Well, congrats to the gay bigots who have finally succeeded in making me an active oppoment to their agenda. Does anyone think it will stop with Chick-filet-a? No, I can easily see gays holding “kiss-ins” outside of our parishes on Sunday mornings, because Todd and Brad really, really want to have a Catholic marriage service, but those mean old “homophobes” are standing in their way. The harassment will never, ever end unless we make a stand now.

  • The fascinating aspect of this Donna is the rapidity of all this. Two decades ago only the lunatic fringe of the gay rights movement was even talking about gay marriage. Now the Democrats are enshrining gay marriage in their platform and denouncing as dangerous bigots anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I await with anticipation what next “right” will become a cause celebre on the Left, and an excuse for what too many Leftists seem to live for: an opportunity to engage in campaigns of organized hate against those who do not follow them in ideological lock step.

  • Rockport Pilot, Rockport Texas
    Friday, August 3, 2012Dear Editor;

    Since there are many businesses whose primary reason for existence is to spread hate, in addition to Chick-Fil-A, and since there are many executives who espouse bigoted traditional values and hate-driven biblical values, would not the actions of all good pure people – which includes, by definition, all Democrats – in avoiding these businesses be greatly facilitated if: 1. Christian businesses be required to display a Star Of Bethlehem sign in their businesses – and this could be a federal regulation whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, e.g. EPA, Health And Human Services, Department of Education, Homeland Security, and of course the Center for Disease Control; and 2. Christian executives be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have one tattooed on their forearms? And, to further the purity of Democrats and all others who are free of hate, why not have all Christians who go out in public be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have it tattooed on their foreheads? Of course a crucifix would do instead of the star.

    Am I remembering correctly something like this once happened? Was it in Europe? Wasn’t there some kind of conflict about this? How did the pure people do that time?

    Guy McClung

  • Truth Mr. McClung:

    When will our self-proclaimed moral superiors stage a kiss-in in Saudi Arabia or in a Nation of Islam meeting?

    Western oil purchases made Saudi Arabia super-wealthy.

    They cannot pull such publicity stunts because they don’t allow (Nicht Keystone pipeline; “not in my back yard”; save the snail darter; save Mother Erda!) energy independence.

    So it goes. Most of USA oil to make gasoline is imported from foreign cartels, e.g., OPEC, composed of countries that are tyrannies that execute gays.

  • Everyone must be tired of reading this but I must post it again, simply because it says what it says: one fake husband or one fake wife equals one fake marriage. The truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior does not pass the reality test necessary for admission into the culture. The fact that the homosexual agenda will not allow the issue to be put on the ballot is a very good indication of the level of indoctrination, physical coersion and the dirty politics involved. Whe I say dirty politics, I mean the denial of the human being’s immortal soul, unalienable civil rights, unauthorized use of the language and the strangling of FREEDOM by the perjury that is a fake marriage.

Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  I guess some public schools must not be quite clear on the First Amendment.  Jerry Buell is a 22 year veteran social studies teacher at Mount Dora high school in Florida, and he was teacher of the year for his school district in 2010.  However, after offending the gods of political correctness, he will not be in the classroom when school begins this year.  On July 25, 2011 he posted these comments on his Facebook page:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up.  And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

The school district suspended Buell because they are afraid that a homosexual student might be frightened or intimated by him.  Go here to see a video report of this farce.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

  • Democrats are practitioners of freedom only when you agree with them.

  • Democrats/liberals/progressives: You are either on the bus or you are under the bus.

    Brave new world indeed.

    I hope Mr. Buell is lawyered up.

  • Sadly, not just schools– although schools are probably why it’s spreading.

    I just lost a friend over what he would call “politics”– when I shared an article on facebook that pointed out the top 1% are earning 20% of the AGI and paying nearly 40% of the income taxes, he attacked my math skills and said of course lower taxes on those who make more will get more income, it’s only fair that people “give” more….

    Remember, attacks, be they personal, physical, or on folks’ ability to get a job are fair game…if it’s for the right cause.


  • One way to put it is to say that Democrats are Platonic while Republicans are Aristotelian. The Democrats know from an elitiest vantage point what’s best for everyone else. So they have a right to make that happen and that regardless of the means. Republicans think individuals make choices and should make good ones because it’s their responsibliy. So it’s a war between Platonists and Aristotelians.

  • There was a time when the ACLU would have had the back of a man like Mr. Buell.
    Sadly, the ACLU no longer seems to be in the business of fighting for the preser-
    vation of civil liberties. T. Shaw was correct in his post above– Mr. Buell should
    lawyer up.

    It’s amazing that the school district suspended this otherwise sterling teacher not
    because of anything that he actually did, but because a homosexual student
    might be frightened or intimidated by him because of what he had posted
    on Facebook. No student actually complained about Mr. Buell.

    Would it be consistent with the dubious ‘logic’ used by the school district to call
    for the suspension of those officials responsible for Mr. Buell’s suspension? After
    all, Christian staff and students might be frightened or intimidated by
    them because of how they punished Mr. Buell for voicing his religious and
    political beliefs outside of the school. Just sayin’.

  • Pat,

    I need to break out my philosphy primer because I don’t remember ever having heard Plato and Aristotle reduced to those points? Could you elaborate?

  • As I recall, in the famous painting, The School of Athens, Plato is pointing to the heavens and Aristotle to the earth. Plato represented the ideal, Aristotle the “real world.” Choose your philosophers.

    As for Mr. Buell, Bravo! I hope he sues the pants off the school district on 1st Amendment grounds.

  • Well, E-Veg, I meant it only on the most general level, in the sense that Republicans do acknowledge the world as it is. Demoncrats have a vision, think of the world in terms of that vision, and demand that it materialize.

  • The Democrat vision is murdered unborn babies, and homosexual filth sanctified as marriage.

  • So that’s the opposition I meant to clarity. Democrats have got a vision that’s impracticable given human nature, and they try to impose that vision anyway. Republicans acknowledge human nature for what it is and go from there. God has promised a New Jerusalem. But he never said that it would come about through human effort. It would arrive from outside and beyond. Nevertheless, secular and religious ‘Calvinists’ are always trying to implement it in their own power. Silly. Silly. Very silly. Not to mention all the harm they do, whether it’s Oliver Cromwell or Hillary Clinton.

  • When you’re young you’re a Platonist. As you age you turn Aristotelian. You get afraid. You see how people really are. You know that some things can’t be done. You deal with reality as you find it and go from there. Can’t impose that vision; the material you have to work with just isn’t fit for it. Further, you learn it’s not your job. People have to be respected for their individuality and choices. Share the light you have. But don’t think you can impose it after your fashion.

  • The crowd now ruining the country has no experience and so no knowledge (I’m being charitable not charging them with intentionally destroying the USA, which they hate) that think they know everything.

    Camus: “All attempts to create Heaven on Earth result in Hell on Earth.”

    Part of destructive plan is polarization. Name one policy or goal that d’rats push which benefits, or asks for sacrifices from, the entire citizenry as a unit.

    Question for whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when normal (not sexual vampires) children living in fecund, sanctified households feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of sodomy on them? We know what Stalin would do.

  • Well you hit on something interesting…there are people who think we ARE the problem in the world. There are folks who think America stands in the way of a better world. It’s rediculous, of course. But they beleive that. They beleive that if the world had our money and we had their brains we’d have universal peace. Silly. But they DO believe it. And remember, as in psychology, reality is ninety-nine percent perception. If someone believes a thing, they’re acting in accordance with that. So you get this political type, a certain kind of Democrat or whateverf, that sees America as bad and the rest of the world as benign and victimized by us. This democratic type really believesthat, and you’d best acknwoledge it. They’re acting on that perception!

  • What’s the difference between America and the People’s Republic of China? In America, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham marriages are real. In China, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham ordinations of bishops are real.

  • A follow-up question to T. Shaw’s for the whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when homosexual children feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of an expection that they must someday marry upon them – and sue that Bd. of Id.?

A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You

Monday, December 6, AD 2010

In yet another effort to remain relevant to our political discourse, David Frum is partnering with William Galston to launch a new project that is sure to to revolutionize politics in much the same way the New Majority Frum Forum has.  It’s called “No Labels,” and I’ll let Frum describe it:

On Dec. 13, more than 1,000 citizens from the 50 states will convene in New York to change the odds. They are founding a movement – No Labels. Among them will be Democrats, Republicans and independents who are proud of their political affiliations and have no intention of abandoning them. A single concern brings them together: the hyper-polarization of our politics that thwarts an adult conversation about our common future. A single goal unites them: to expand the space within which citizens and elected officials can conduct that conversation without fear of social or political retribution.

Their movement rests on the belief that the real American majority wishes to reassert control over a political system mired in brain-dead partisanship. Those traveling to New York are going at their own expense. No Labels is gaining a thousand fans on Facebook each day. Citizens across the country are asking how they can get involved.

Frum is discouraged by our current political discourse and wants to turn things around:

Our political system does not work if politicians treat the process as a war in which the overriding goal is to thwart the adversary. At a time of national economic emergency, when Americans are clamoring for positive action, our government is routinely paralyzed by petty politics. Through the summer, as the economy teetered between recovery and stagnation, the Federal Reserve lacked a quorum because a single Republican senator took it upon himself to block Obama’s appointments. Republicans were only doing unto the Democrats as the Democrats had done unto them: In January 2008, as the country geared up for an epoch-making election, the Federal Election Commission lacked a quorum because one Democrat had put holds on President George W. Bush’s nominees.

Nor does the political system work if politicians treat members of the other party as enemies to be destroyed. Labeling legitimate policy differences as “socialist” or “racist” undermines democratic discourse.

Frum is understandably concerned. 

Continue reading...

25 Responses to A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You

  • Thanks. Just joined the FB group. There’s no denying that we’re become more partisan over the last few decades. Can you imagine a 49-state presidential victory today? But I think it’s the issues, rather than the climate, that is driving most of the partisanship. Having said that, the climate isn’t helping. I think the right should cheer Frum’s counterbalance to Jon Stewart’s left-leaning Rally to Restore Sanity. There’s a dangerous but popular idea these days that sane = liberal and crazy = conservative.

  • To quote an old Illinois saying, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Anytime people are arguing about something important, emotions tend to get high and language becomes intemperate. Most political language fortunately does not descend usually to the billingsgate under which serious theological debate has sometimes been conducted.

  • Can you imagine a 49-state presidential victory today?

    Well, that victory was won by a man who ran on one of the most unabashedly, unambiguously conservative platforms in American history. As I wrote in the linked to post on Almost Chosen People, the main cause of the Whig Party’s death was its inability articulate a clear agenda. So I would argue that an electoral landslide of that magnitude is more likely when there is a clear ideological rift (perhaps the Eisenhower victories providing the counter-example).

    At any rate, I think we get bogged down by this notion that we’re living in the most partisan times ever. It might seem that way, and the mass communications revolution has probably made our politics seem more bitter and confrontational. Also, there is a bit of myth-making about our past, for example the romaticization of something like the “era of good feelings.”

    There’s a dangerous but popular idea these days that sane = liberal and crazy = conservative.

    The counter to that is not to join Frum’s never ending quest to mold the Republican party in his image.

  • I took a look at the FB page you linked to. I’m not sure the self-congratulatory “at least we’re not like that rabble on the extreme” message is really the surest way to win converts. Also, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to decry labels while at the same time labeling anyone who is even slightly a bit your left or right an extremist? Labels for thee and not for me? And instead of worrying about the tone of politics, isn’t it more useful to actually promote ideas people can get behind? I’m sorry, but I’ve just had enough of this kind of moral preening.

  • “There’s a dangerous but popular idea these days that sane = liberal and crazy = conservative.”

    Considering the recent election results in reaction to what Obama and the Democrat Congress did, RR, and further considering the fact that 40% of the American people now call themselves conservative, and that Republicans now outnumber Democrats, I’d say you’ve got that formulation backwards.

  • What is truly dangerous is the idea that sanity = perfect calm. If your house is burning down and you’re trying to reason with the flames, that makes you more insane than the man frantically looking for a water hose.

    Sometimes genuine rationality necessarily gives the appearance of what would otherwise appear to be irrational. Different situations call for different attitudes, dispositions, words and actions. To recognize that simple truth is sane. To struggle against it is either vanity or insanity.

  • The specific problems he describes derive rather less from political labels and such and rather more from the Senate’s asinine parliamentary rules. That is something the Senate can fix. And they won’t.

  • Yes! This is an awesome article.

  • The man who slandered Robert Novak and other conservatives who opposed the Iraq War as “unpatriotic” is lamenting the tone of political discourse?

    Frum is a hypocritical fraud.

  • Ideas such as “compassionate conservative” and “bipartisanship” has resulted in alot of bad laws (how about that Senior Citizen Drug benefit) I rather like drawn out battles I think it paints a picture for the citizens of this land I want contrast and real choice not compromise which leads to something that does not work and no one really likes.

  • Good catch, Jay.

  • The man who slandered Robert Novak and other conservatives who opposed the Iraq War as “unpatriotic” is lamenting the tone of political discourse?

    I cannot recall what he said about Mr. Novak specifically, but the main object of his critique was a circle of commentators associated with the Rockford Institute. I would not say ‘unpatriotic’ was the most apt term, but it would be fair to offer that the views of these characters have had certain ‘structural’ similarities to the views of someone like Victor Navasky, who definitely is unpatriotic. Among those who endorsed the critique was the historian Stephen Tonsor, who had in the past been considered one of their number (he disagreed, saying they were ‘flaky cranks’) and the widow of Leopold Tyrmand, who had founded the Rockford Institute’s monthly magazine in 1976; she said her husband would have been appalled at what his successors had done with his publication.

  • Here is a link to the text of the article Jay referred to:

    Frum I think was on target with some of his observations, although attacking the patriotism of one’s adversaries, rather than their policy positions, is almost always a mistake on many levels. As for Frum, this was back in the day when he was still attempting to pretend that he was a conservative, although he was still usually the same insufferable jerk that he is today.

  • For the record, here is a link to said column.

    In retrospect, perhaps Frum should not be condemned for the article’s title so much as the meandering, score-settling undertones. If he contented himself with noting some of the loopier elements on the right (Raimondo and Rockwell, for instance) it may have been a touch more fitting. In the specific case of Novak, he lumps him in with the rest of the “unpatriotic” conservatives without acknowledging the relative merits of his arguments. Say what you will about Novak and even Buchanan, even if they were wrong on the war they didn’t deserve to be so casually lumped in with the rest. In fact, as much as I dislike Buchanan, this is a pretty disgusting smear:

    Pat Buchanan, one can say, permitted a dual loyalty to influence him. Although he had denied any vital American interest in either Kuwait’s oilfields or Iraq’s oilfields or its aggression, in l991 he urged that the Sixth Fleet be sent to Dubrovnik to shield the Catholics of Croatia from Serbian attack. “Croatia is not some faraway desert emirate,” he explained. “It is a ‘piece of the continent, a part of the main,’ a Western republic that belonged to the Habsburg empire and was for centuries the first line of defense of Christian Europe. For their ceaseless resistance to the Ottoman Turks, Croatia was proclaimed by Pope Leo X to be the ‘Antemurale Christianitatis,’ the bulwark of Christianity.”

    How is this any different than accusing Jewish Americans of having dual loyalties to America and Israel?

  • Donald beat me to it. And his point stands – in the end, Frum didn’t do himself any favors by attacking the patriotism and not the substance of the arguments made by some the paleos.

  • This has got to be a parody article.

    “They are founding a movement – No Labels. Among them will be Democrats, Republicans and independents…”

  • Scratch below the surface, and Frum’s entire piece at National Review was an anti-Catholic screed.

    I’m certainly no paleocon (although I am becoming more sympathetic as the years go by), but I was and remain apalled that National Review printed Frum’s calumnious piece. The fact that that infamous editorial appeared in William F. Buckley’s publication will forever, in my mind, be a mark against National Review.

    Frum owes those he attacked in that despicable hit piece an abject and public apology. Alas, it is too late to make amends with Mr. Novak.

    Who knows? Perhaps Frum sees his leftward swing and talk of “civility” as a sort of penance for his disgusting slander of better men than he in his pursuit of the war agenda. An admission that he was wrong would, of course, have been preferable to trying to flaking out and becoming a parody of the typical liberal elitist Republican.

  • Jonah Goldberg has a great take on this “No Labels” idea here. The key grafs:

    What no-labelers really mean is that they don’t like inconvenient disagreements that hinder their agenda. And that’s what is so troubling, indeed so undemocratic, about this claptrap. When they claim we need to put aside labels to do what’s right, what they are really saying is you need to put aside what you believe in and do what they say. When activists say we need to move past the partisan divide, what they mean is: Shut up and get with my program. Have you ever heard anyone say, “We need to get past all of this partisan squabbling and name-calling. That’s why I’m going to abandon all my objections and agree with you?” I haven’t.

    No Labels says it’s “about taking the politics out of problem-solving.” It is amazing how cavalierly people say this sort of thing, as if this wasn’t the rationale behind pretty much every dictatorship since the dawn of man. Nearly once a week, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman gives voice to his full-blown man-crush on China’s one-party dictatorship because — according to Friedman — the Chinese, unlike us, can implement “optimal” policies without getting bogged down in such distractions as elections, the rule of law, human rights, etc.

    Look: You can’t take the politics out of problem-solving. Politics, even in China, is the art of problem-solving. People aiming to yank the politics out of government invariably end up removing the democracy instead.

  • for his disgusting slander of better men than he in his pursuit of the war agenda.

    I think as a practical matter one can generally refrain without much trouble from evaluating men as men and just look at their words. That having been said, given that his targets included Thomas Frank, Justin Raimondo and Samuel Francis, I would have to say your opinion of Mr. Frum as a human being must be quite severe.

  • I was speaking of Mr. Novak. And I have no problem making that assessment in comparing Mr. Novak to Mr. Frum.

  • As for the other gentlemen about whom Frum was writing, I know very little about them, apart from Pat Buchanan (of whom I’m not very fond, but still hold in higher esteem than I do Frum).

  • My regrets: “Thomas Fleming” not “Thomas Frank”. Thomas Frank is the author of What’s the Matter with Kansas. Thomas Fleming is the editor of Chronicles.

    It is true in that particular article he includes a list of people he has in mind which includes Robert Novak and Patrick J. Buchanan, which was ill-judged as they are qualitatively different from most of the other characters on his list. His specific comments about Novak’s writings seem within the bounds of civil (if not necessarily correct) criticism.

    Frum is perplexing, and perhaps an example of how middle-age has an unhappy effect on one’s faculties. Best ignored.

  • Frum in this article was doing what a paleos did before and since: excommunicating from conservatism all those who disagreed with his stance on the war. But instead of saying anyone who supports the war is a neocon imperialist, Frum decries war opponents, or a good chunk of them, as unpatriotic. I agree with Art that he’s got a point when it comes to some of the names on this list, but he goes overboard when he starts flailing away at Novak and Buchanan.

    Frum is perplexing, and perhaps an example of how middle-age has an unhappy effect on one’s faculties. Best ignored.

    Agreed, and I think most have already taken your advice. This was just too amusing to pass up.

  • Pingback: Dolley Madison: Peacemaker « Almost Chosen People