I was going to hit the sack as I’ve been up all night but when I saw that Glenn Reynolds had been suspended by twitter it woke me up prompting a spake of tweets noting twitters double standards and the progressive increase in suspending conservatives from Stacy McCain to Milo to Him each one more prominent.
However Glenn Reynolds Instapundit did just fine before twitter and was set to do just fine after it so his initial reaction was rather amusing:
if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.
It didn’t take long for Glenn’s banning to be picked up by conservatives all over. After all it isn’t every day that a prominent law professor, USA today columnist and one of the most prolific bloggers in history who inspired a ton of us. CNN Commentator Hugh Hewitt had him on his radio show where he said:
HH: And what would you say to those people who are urging that you be silenced and shut down and fired? This is a 1st Amendment that we’re talking about here. What would you say to them, Glenn Reynolds? GR: That’s a lot for three words, especially considering all the hyperbole we’ve heard in this election already. We’ve heard plenty of people talking about the desirability of the assassination of Donald Trump and other things. It seems to me that that’s kind of a double standard, isn’t it? HH: Have you read Ross Douthat’s column this morning, Hillary Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem, about the cultural… GR: I have read that column. HH: What did you think of it? And do you fit into that narrative now? GR: Oh, I don’t know. You know, there is a big lefty cultural apparatus that tries to enforce its views on everything. And frankly, it is probably the thing that is keeping Donald Trump alive, and it may be the thing that gets him elected, as Ross Douthat says. I think that’s totally right. And I think it’s funny, because you know, I grew up in the Civil Rights era. My dad was a moderately well-known civil rights and Vietnam protestor. And to be honest, it seems to me that then, the left was really all on for free speech, and now that they feel like they have gathered all the reins in their hands, they’re not so big on tolerance anymore.
Shortly after that was posted Instapundit’s suspension was revoked.
I have no idea if any explanation was given, I joked it was because he knows a lot of lawyers but re-reading his post on the subject I think I have isolated the twelve words Glenn wrote that really caused the suspension to be lifted
Twitter can do without me, as I can certainly do without Twitter.
Glenn Reynolds is a traffic machine, anyone who has ever gotten an instalanche knows this to be true, The only real value that twitter has is the ability to provide advertisers access to the tens to hundreds of thousands of people who want to see the tweets of a traffic machine like Glenn.
The Day the various traffic machines decide, like Glenn did, that they can do without twitter they are finished. Twitter not only loses its purpose but it’s ability to generate profit, in fact it might even lead to celebs demanding twitter pay THEM a per follower fee annually for using their platform and generating the traffic & eyeballs they need to have any chance of being profitable.
Twitter could survive anger, outrage or even venom from a major traffic generator like Glenn, but it can’t survive indifference.
Update: Stacy McCain comments thusly from his still continuing twitter exile:
What are we permitted to say about marauding gangs of thieves and thugs? The owners of Twitter have evidently hired Democrat Party activists to control the narrative on their platform, effectively turning it into a propaganda platform for a violent anti-white terrorist organization (to call #BlackLivesMatter what it actually is). Twitter’s policy can be considered an “in-kind” political contribution to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which is counting on #BlackLivesMatter to help her win key swing states like North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Do law-abiding citizens have no right to defend themselves against mob attacks? If a family is in their car on the highway and find themselves surrounded by a gang of criminals who have been roaming the streets committing violence, what are they supposed to do?
Why you are supposed to let yourself be killed of course
If you like what you see here and want to help support it.
Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.
If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.
And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
If colleges are indeed training the nation’s future leaders, America is doomed. On Sunday, the Daily Caller reported that Rohini Sethi, a student government leader at the University of Houston, was suspended and ordered to diversity training for engaging in the heinous act of free speech. In this case, the offensive speech was a Facebook post that read, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like AllLivesMatter.”
…concerning the University of Houston the first thing that came to my mind was this.
I can’t believe in an age when there are so many lawyers out of work that a University is willing to be this stupid.
Granted Universities have become rather insular in their thought to the point where actually educating people on thing that matter has become secondary but I suspect this is going to provide an education to those who attempted to put on this sanction.
Because this type of thing no longer takes place in a vacuum and because of this, the words of a political leader who I suspect is popular with the left, namely “GET IN THEIR FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD:” will come into play here.
This means that right about now tens of thousands of conservatives on social media are discovering this story, tweeting about this story and getting outraged over it, which will cause Rohini Sethi who meekly submitted, likely thinking that nobody was with her to realize she is not alone.
Of course that means that among those upset will be Police Unions around the nation will also be discovering this who will pass this along to their members.
Even better this is an issue ready made conservatives both in Texas and for the Donald Trump campaign, all he has to do is send out a single tweet and literally tens of millions will be hounding the University of Texas
And as the Student Government had to pass an “ex post facto” rule to allow her to be sanctioned and that such sanctions involve money this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Which likely means that groups like FIRE will get involved and they tend to get results to wit:
Adams State University will settle a federal lawsuit brought by a former ASU professor who says the school violated his free speech and due process rights when it banned him from campus over blog posts criticizing the university’s pay practices.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado announced in a press release yesterday that ASU agreed to rescind the “No Trespass Order” it enacted against Danny Ledonne and will pay $100,000 to settle the lawsuit the ACLU of Colorado brought on Ledonne’s behalf in February.
Ledonne was banned from campus in October 2015, two days after he began blogging critically about ASU administrators on his Watching Adams blog. Ledonne taught in the Mass Communication department and did media production work for ASU between 2011 and 2015. After ASU didn’t renew his contract in the spring of that year, he launched Watching Adams.
Now it’s very possible that despite all this potential Rohini Sethi might decide to continue to meekly submit in the hope it all goes away.
But I submit and suggest that it’s very likely that she might change her mind and fight and if she does she’ll discover that she has a juggernaut of opinion and law behind her and in the end the only power the University of Houston has is the hope of keeping her intimidated.
Personally If I ran the University of Houston I’d quietly reverse myself now before the storm comes and they get an education.
Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.
Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
You might have forgotten the swatting of Stacy McCain and the threats against his family but the law didn’t:
The FBI contacted me earlier this month to tell me that the guy responsible for targeting me in a March 2013 SWATting incident was scheduled for sentencing in federal court, but I couldn’t report anything about it until after the hearing. Because of last week’s Dallas attack, the hearing date Monday slipped my mind, but here’s the official statement:
Mir Islam is now in federal prison, but there are still guilty people who have yet to face justice, and they should be afraid — very afraid.
If Mr. Islam wanted to silence Stacy maybe he should have just gotten a job at Twitter then he could have done so without worrying about the law
Now we don’t know who those others might be but anyone who has been following the Kimberlin cases on Hogewash knows that the gears of the law grind very slowly, but they continue to move forward and I would not be surprised if some names readers of this site recognize get caught in them
Of course given that Stacy McCain supports Donald Trump and James Comey is in charge at the FBI who knows.
Closing thought, Why do I have a feeling that there is a job waiting for Mr Islam at Twitter as soon as he gets out?
Like many others they argued that the rule of law was paramount and that Davis’ civil disobedience could not stand against the judge’s order.
The couples appealed to Morehead Sheriff Matt Clark, the Washington Postreports, but he told them there was nothing he could do to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision.
“She will likely be found in contempt, as we know,” he said.
Davis faces fines or jail time if she doesn’t begin issuing the licenses Tuesday.
And in the comments sections their readers reacted with glee.
And Davis did go to jail but stood her ground, eventually being released and after a compromise crafted by the newly elected governor who ran in support of Davis remains free to do her job without damage to her conscience.
The irony of course is before Kim Davis was ever a news story Gawker was also very publicly disobeying a judge’s order
And while Kim Davis is still collecting her pay as an elected official it is Gawker’s turn to pay the piper:
Weighing free speech against privacy, a Florida jury has decided to uphold the sanctity of the latter by turning in a $115 million verdict against Gawker over its 2012 posting of a Hulk Hogan sex tape.
Hogan brought the case three years ago after Gawker, a 13-year-old digital news site founded by Nick Denton, an entrepreneur with an allergy to celebrity privacy, published a video the wrestler claimed was secretly recorded. The sex tape was sensational, showing Hogan — whose real name is Terry Bollea — engaged in sexual intercourse with Heather Cole, the then-wife of his best friend, Tampa-area radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge (real name: Todd Alan Clem). Gawker’s posting of the Hogan sex tape was accompanied by an essay from then–editor-in-chief A.J. Daulerio about celebrity sex and a vivid play-by-play of the encounter between Hogan and Cole.
That number doesn’t isn’t the end of it either as that figure doesn’t include punitive damages
It also found Gawker founder Nick Denton and the ex-editor who posted the video, A.J. Daulerio, personally liable.
Jurors awarded Hogan $55 million in economic damages and another $60 million for emotional distress.
Under Florida state law, Gawker must post a $50 million bond about one month after jurors decide on punitive damages — which could have disastrous consequences for the company.
Strangely enough the end result of this defiance of a court order does not seem all that interesting to Gawker, while we have pictures of Kim Davis’ mug shot and several stories hitting her after the case was done, Gawker doesn’t seem to find the verdict in this case newsworthy at as 18 hours after the ruling we still don’t see a word about it on the site. This is quite a surprise as they took a very loud stand on the rule of law and obeying court ruling just a little while ago.
Perhaps they are waiting for the large protests in favor of Nick Denton, or the new Papal Nuncio to set up a meeting between the Pope and Denton before breaking the story.
Perhaps someone can convince Kim Davis to start a blog so she can provide the coverage of Gawker’s situation that the site is lacking?
Before there was Milo Yiannopoulos there was Robert Stacy McCain. A chain smoking, beer drinking, coffee guzzling hard nosed reporter who rather than simply going with the flow and repeating the conventional wisdom dared to go out into the field and actually see and report for himself.
And when he didn’t have a spot in the MSM to do it anymore on a regular basis he began his web site The Other McCain (named to differentiate himself from his distant cousin John in the Senate) and with funding provided by his readers (and sometimes without it going places on a wing and a prayer) he would travel the country from Alaska to New Hampshire from Nevada to New Orleans to cover stories that the MSM would not.
He has managed to do all of this while raising a family of six which now includes two grandchildren who are his joy (although they have considerably slowed down his travels, after all family comes first).
Bottom line though not a rich man Robert Stacy McCain is an American Success story he has built a nationwide, dare I say worldwide following presenting his viewpoint and highlighting the public viewpoints of others who would rather keep their actual words and opinions under the radar because Robert Stacy McCain is loyal to his family, his God, his friends and the Truth.
I know this because I’m proud to say he is my friend. I’ve learned an awful lot from him the most important thing being there is no substitute for actually being there, gathering factual evidence, seeing for yourself and reporting the truth.
I guess that’s why Twitter’s new Star Chamber has decided to Suspend him sometime yesterday evening:
The hashtag associated with McCain’s suspension (#FreeStacy) was actually allowed to trend, at one point, but as Mike Cernovich points out, now it won’t even autocomplete. That’s one of the tools Twitter has been using to slow down hashtags, as of late. GamerGate no longer autocompletes, either, even though several anti-GG hashtags do.
Now in fairness Twitter is a private company and they do have the right to run their business as they see fit.
But I submit and suggest to twitter & their investors that the way to success is not to alienate half of your potential customer base particularly in an election year, furthermore as anyone who knows anything about tech can tell you today’s popular site can become tomorrow’s AOL & Compuserve in a heartbeat.
As for myself I’m going to monitor Stacy’s account on the “quitter” platform, anything he tweets there I’m going to tweet on twitter until they get around to suspending me, I’ve also tweeted out to some of his friends in the MSM like Jake Tapper of CNN and Dave Weigel of the Washington post suggesting that this might be a story worth covering.
I would also remind our friends on the left who might be celebrating that trends tend to ebb and flow and the day may come when you might find yourself silenced by the heavy hand of government or industry. Perhaps you might be counting on us on the right to aid you due to our principles despite your silence or celebration today. I’ll let Amy Pond answer that one:
Either you’re for free speech or you’re not, it’s time to choose sides.
Update: From the latest post Stacy authored on his blog
My paratrooper son spends his days jumping out of C-130s and marching for miles with 70 pounds of gear on his back, but Rutgers students “broke down crying” and were “scared to walk around campus” because Milo gave a speech? Are there any sane students at Rutgers? Are there no responsible adults in the administration or faculty? Like every other university in America, Rutgers has been descending into decadent chaos for years,
I often joke that such people are screaming to HR people “don’t hire me” but perhaps they are just the type of people twitter is looking for.
They had better hope twitter still exists by the time they graduate.
Update 2: A great quote from his old blog at the start of the Sparkman case really says what Stacy McCain is all about:
If it turns out that Sparkman was lynched by the Clay County Glenn Beck Palinista Wing Nut Militia, OK. If it turns out he was murdered by dope growers or ‘shiners, OK. If it turns out he was murdered for perverse motives by some toothless inbred banjo-picker who thought Sparkman bore a fetching resemblance to Ned Beatty, OK.
But if you’re not going to do any reporting, Andrew, your baseless speculation about the Sparkman murder is as far from actual journalism as your idiotic obstetric theorizing about Trig Palin.
Just the facts and it’s worth noting who he gave credit to for his ability to find them
I would never have been able to do that reporting without the generosity of the tip-jar hitters. When I got the wild notion of traveling to Kentucky to cover the Sparkman case, I wrote:
Figure 1,200 miles travel round-trip, at 25 cents per mile, that’s $300. Five meals at $5/each, that’s another $25. A carton of smokes, $50; ten cups of coffee, $20. If you add$125/night for a hotel room, I could make it a two-day trip for $500. . . . So if the tip jar contributions between now and Sunday evening reach $300, I’ll take it for granted that the rest will come through while I’m on the road. I could be filing reports with a Kentucky dateline by Monday noon.
That’s why Stacy will forever be hated, because the only person who owns him is you.
My politics are conservative, my economics are Austrian, my faith is Christian. It’s that simple — and certain people HATE me for it. But those people hate everybody who is not a Democrat. Fine. I understand that kind of hate, having once been a Democrat myself, but Democrats think of their personal hatred as “social justice.” And so I understand them better than they understand me…They do not fool me, nor should anyone else be deceived by their bogus hustle, and the fact that my @rsmccain account got suspended? Just further proof of what I keep saying: Feminism is a totalitarian movement, and the First Rule of Feminism is, “Shut up!” Sarkeesian and her crowd cannot sustain their arguments against well-informed criticism, and so they attempt to “win” the argument by silencing all criticism.
This is why you can’t even state FACTS about these people on Twitter without being accused of “harassment.” Facts are harassment and truth is hate
Glenn Reynolds says he’s losing patience with Twitter. Professor, I lost a whole lot more than patience with ’em last year when I was suspended based of lies from Brett Kimberlin. Twitter is clearly an untrustworthy business partner. The only reason I use their service is the lack of a viable competitor. As soon as one appears, I will be an early adopter.
This is what we free market capitalists calls a “business opportunity” Charlie Baker take note.
Update 6: Author Vox Day links, I’m sure he’s high on the Twitter kill list also now a reddit thread. I think Twitter’s plan is turning out to be less cunning than any of Baldrick’s
Update 7: Stacy finally officially weighs in at his site:
Unexpectedly, and without explanation, my @rsmccain Twitter account was suspended Friday evening. Based on past experiences, my guess would be that this resulted from a complaint by one of the leading “social justice warriors” (SJWs) who have been at war with #GamerGate since August 2014. However, there was no reason stated for the suspension, and who knows? So I’ve switched to the @SexTroubleBook account I created to promote my book and meanwhile, friends who are fed up with Twitter’s bias and censorship started the #FreeStacy hashtag.
and of course stacy has an Instalanche ensuring the story gets even bigger.
Why do I have the feeling people at twitter are running to their safe spaces?
Twitter isn’t merely targeting spammers. For weeks, users have been reporting that tweets from populist conservatives, members of the alternative right, cultural libertarians, and other anti-PC dissidents have disappeared from their timelines.
Twitter, as a private company, has every right to do what they want. However, if they are going to censor or ban on ideological grounds, they should be honest enough to put that in the TOS and let the market decide.
But Leftism and honesty are not well acquainted.
Update 9: Some things are so predictable, yet still disappointing
McCain is a conservative blogger who has keyed on the decline of campus culture generally and in particular due process for defendants in campus sexual assault allegations. He is also a vocal critic of Twitter’s de-verification of @Nero’s account.
Taken together this paints a concerning picture. The Trust and Safety Council is a dressed up censorship board and will provide cover if and when Twitter shutting down or diminishing disfavored accounts.
I’d like to say I expected stuff like this, but of course I did not think it could be so soon, or so overt. This was pretty quick.
It’s as if the grown-ups left for the weekend, and the SJW interns are in control. It was only supposed to be just in case the circuit breakers popped — it is a weekend, after all — but then those interns saw an injustice that needed to be fixed, and it couldn’t wait ’til Monday.
Twitter may or may not see this as a mistake. I assume they will adapt to the complaints.
Twitter is a private company, of course, and if it wants to outlaw strong language, it can. In fact, it’s well within its rights to have one set of rules for Robert Stacy McCain, and another set of rules for everyone else. It’s allowed to ban McCain for no reason other than its bosses don’t like him. If Twitter wants to take a side in the online culture war, it can. It can confiscate Milo Yiannopoulos’s blue checkmark. This is not about the First Amendment.
But if that’s what Twitter is doing, it’s certainly not being honest about it—and its many, many customers who value the ethos of free speech would certainly object. In constructing its Trust and Safety Council, the social media platform explicitly claimed it was trying to strike a balance between allowing free speech and prohibiting harassment and abuse. But its selections for this committee were entirely one-sided—there’s not a single uncompromising anti-censorship figure or group on the list. It looks like Twitter gave control of its harassment policy to a bunch of ideologues, and now their enemies are being excluded from the platform.
Update 14: Drudge has linked to Legal Insurrection’s post on the subject this likely means Limbaugh will be talking the story on Monday and yet Twitter has not reinstated Stacy. I’m wondering if they’ve decided to go all in.
Thug: I wouldn’t come down here if I was you. This is Limehouse and we don’t fancy you’re sort of bloke in these parts.
Dr. Watson: the fellow’s absolutely right shouldn’t we…
Sherlock Holmes: Quiet Watson,This is still a free country a man may walk where he pleases.
Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror 1942
It’s a good thing that The Few Sacrificed so much to prevent the Nazi’s from conquering England and installing a government that would punish men for saying what they think. Perhaps they shouldn’t have bothered.
Police have arrested a 40-year old man in Scotland over a number of allegedly “offensive” Facebook posts about refugees.
Police in Scotland said that a man had been held under the Communications Act, which bans “grossly offensive” and “menacing” posts on online platforms.
Ahhh those quaint old days when England believed in personal freedoms. Pam Geller is right, the nation that gave us Magna Carta is dead. Perhaps we should strike the “Great” from Great Britain
That this happened in Scotland is even more interesting, Can you picture a Scotsman being arrested for speaking his mind? I’m sure Edward Longshanks would have approved. No wonder so many Scots came to America.
This is coming to America, have no doubt about it and don’t doubt for a second that there are people on the Supreme Court right now who would go along with it.
As anyone who has ever read this blog knows, I’m an implacable foe of Radical Islam. I am a supporter of Pam Geller and Robert Spencer and think they are two of the bravest and most honorable people I know. I think CAIR is a front group for radical Islam and I think everywhere it exists from Syria to Iraq it must be opposed and exposed and of course as a Catholic who has read the Koran It is my opinion that it is cheap rewrite of the Bible to and the religion based on it is to put it kindly full of holes.
Voters gave Abu Musa and Anam Miah another term in office. Saad Almasmari was elected for the first time. Now four of the six City Council members will be of Muslim faith.
It’s said to be the first majority Muslim City Council not only in Hamtramck but in the entire country.
Listen in America we have these things called elections, and if the majority of a city wants to elect Muslims to the city council it’s their call. Furthermore if a population of a city is majority Muslim and wants to celebrate their faith it’s their business.
If a local business in a majority Muslim area or has a large Muslim workforce and adjusts their schedules and even their paid holidays to accommodate their workforce I have no problem with that either.
And if a local Muslim speaker or even an Imam wants to disagree with US policy, even as it applies to radical Islam & ISIS they have the freedom to do so.
If I wish to have my religious rights protected as a Catholic or a Jew or a Protestant of any denomination I certainly can’t object to others wishing the same. If I think my religion is true I’m not going to be threatened by a Muslim else making the argument for their faith and trying to make their best case for what they believe.
Those are the rights of Americans and US muslims who live in it
That also being said rights come with responsibilities.
If a majority Muslim city council attempts to impose the jizya on Catholics, Protestants or Jews, if they want to restrict the rights of Christians or Jews to worship or even proselytize, in short if they attempt to enforce anything resembling Sharia Law, then I have a problem with it.
If a business decides they wish to accommodate their Muslim workforce, yet won’t make allowance for Catholic, Protestants or Jews then I have a problem with it.
If a local Muslim speaker or Imam chooses to offer material support to those we are fighting, if they choose to encourage their young men to fight against us, then I have a problem with it.
If Muslims wish to have their religious rights protected in America they had better not do anything to restrict the religious or non religious rights of others.
That is the bargain that (Obama administration notwithstanding) all Americans make with each other in America and if American Muslims hold up their end of it, so will I.
This is hysterical, insane nonsense. Having the option of listening to a dissenting voice against the Left’s prevailing orthodoxy on gender roles in no way represents an imposition of harm, let alone “physical harm.” Such intolerant, sub-moronic delirium must be aggressively defied and mocked, not coddled and indulged. Event planners warned Venker that her upcoming address was “stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus,” prior to its eventual cancellation. Williams had “never experienced this kind of resistance” to a speaker, she was informed.
I don’t know enough about Venker to know whether her talk would have been particularly enlightening. But judging from the reaction of some Williams students to the mere prospect that she would speak on campus, it’s quite clear that enlightenment is something Williams desperately needs.
While these critiques and ridicule of Williams College are well deserved it doesn’t solve the problem of how to teach these students to think.
Fortunately there is a rather easy solution.
Williams College Uncomfortable Learning Department should sponsor a public screening of this week’s episode of South Park “Safe Space” and invite its creators to comment on it.
Now South park is a show that has been running or 19 years. It is a pop culture icon. I would be real money that at the very least a significant minority of the students on campus have seen it.
If the episode is shown either with or without the creators it will be a slap in the face to the politically correct on campus that banned Venker, but given songs in the episode like this…
…I suspect that the reaction of those who went absolutely crazy will be most gratifying. I would not be surprised to see them call for both the episode and the South Park creators to not be allowed on campus.
More importantly it’s a no lose situation. If the episode is shown on campus and the creators speak (and such an event is likely to draw huge attendance, it can’t help but bring important free speech issue to the forefront to a group of people who desperately need to hear it.
However if the episode and the creators of South Park are banned the reaction from people completely unaware of Venker but very familiar with South Park will produce a reaction so loud, so uniform and so embarrassing that it will do more good than a million posts by outraged bloggers or stories on the news.
If we’re going to defeat these people let’s fight back using the culture, Andrew Breitbart would
As I’ve been writing a lot about the Kim Davis situation I was very interested in how it would come up in the Presidential debate on Wednesday, however the subject didn’t so much point out the differences in the GOP position as it pointed out the seemingly contrary positions of both media and the selective enforcement of federal law and selective interpretation of the constitution depending on who it involves.
Jake Tapper:I want to turn back to Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an example of the criminalization of Christianity.” There are several people on the stage who disagree with you. Governor Bush, for example, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Governor Bush on the wrong side of the criminalization of Christianity?
Gov Mike Huckabee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with anybody else. But I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage. It’s a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it. I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics. The courts cannot legislate. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can’t implement it. They can’t force it. But here’s what happened: Because the courts just decided that something was going to be and people relinquished it and the other two branches of government sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of government, they were all equal to each other, we have separation of powers, and we have checks and balances. If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny. The reason that this is a real issue that we need to think about…
Jake Tapper:Thank you, Governor.
Gov Mike Huckabee: No, no. Let me finish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t gotten that much time, so I’m going to take just what little I can here. We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky? What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?
Jake Tapper: Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…
Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right.
Jake Tapper:OK. Please do.
Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.” But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…
Jake Tapper:You did…
Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.
Gov Chris Christie:I was —
Jake Tapper:Governor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”
Gov Chris Christie:She is, and so if she, based on conscience, can’t sign that — that marriage license, then there should be someone in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Kentucky, which is what she’s advocating, it should be changed.
Ok so we have a question of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accommodation based on faith” presumably based on the 1st amendment but oddly enough when Mr. Tapper asked this question on federal drug laws
Jake Tapper:Senator Paul, Governor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re getting high in Colorado today,” where marijuana has been legalized, “enjoy it until January 2017, because I will enforce the federal laws against marijuana.” Will you?
The arguments on enforcement suddenly changed. While Senator Paul invoked the 10th amendment suggesting the feds had crossed into a state issue. During his answer he mentioned a person on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all emphasis mine)
Gov Jeb Bush:So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a serious epidemic of drugs that goes way beyond marijuana. What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision. But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem. Rand, you know this because you’re campaigning in New Hampshire like all of us, and you see the epidemic of heroin, the overdoses of heroin that’s taking place. People’s families are — are being torn apart. It is appropriate for the government to play a consistent role to be able to provide more treatment, more prevention — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every circuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance. That’s the best way to do this.
Hold on a second. The laws concerning drugs are Federal laws, laws actually passed by the congress and signed by the president as opposed to the reinterpretation of a constitutional amendment. How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but public servants in the state of Colorado who are not claiming this has anything to do with religion, are not?
As the exchange continued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on medical marijuana: again emphasis mine
Sen Rand Paul:Well, you vote — you oppose medical marijuana…
Gov Jeb Bush:Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the legislature passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this problem. Medical marijuana on the ballot was opened up, there was a huge loophole, it was the first step to getting to a (inaudible) place. And as a citizen of Florida, I voted no.
So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state legislature in Florida passing a bill directly contradicting established federal law and apparently he’s not alone here. (again emphasis mine)
Gov Chris Christie:And Senator Paul knows that that’s simply not the truth. In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana. This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use against marijuana. If he wants to change the federal law, get Congress to pass the law to change it, and get a president to sign it.
So Christie, like Bush is willing to support and implement laws that contradict existing federal law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is willing to do this without claiming a religious or constitutional reason. It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” apparently doesn’t apply if the law is supported by yuppies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.
Now let’s take a look at another subject. The Question of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Senator Rand Paul) said scholars said no but when asked by Jake Tapper, Carly Fiorina (after making a great point concerning the Democrat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the problem said this: again emphasis mine
Carly Fiorina:…the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court. And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…
So Mrs. Fiorina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pundits and people like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amendment specifically section 1 which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yet five members of the Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage that every other justice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that overrode every single state constitution that said otherwise.
So my question is this? If justices can magically reinterpret the 14th Amendment to find a right to Gay Marriage in a document that doesn’t mention marriage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t interpret that same 14th amendment to say it doesn’t grant citizenship to people born here if their parents came illegally not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Bottom line, apparently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amendment is flexible and the enforcement of federal law is not, but some of those same people believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright citizenship and federal drug laws. The 14th Amendment is rigid and the enforcement of federal law is flexible.
You might have noticed lately a rush to remove the Confederate Flag from public & private spaces on the grounds that Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof was shown in photo waving the Confederate flag.
The argument is removing of the Confederate flag from any place of honor becomes a simple matter of honoring those murdered at a Charleston Bible study by a man who visibly waved it.
Well one of those who vocally supported said removal Mr. DeRay McKesson was at a protest in Charleston lately. WISTV covered it:
Images of a flag burning incident at Marion Square in downtown Charleston over the weekend has ignited controversy across social media platforms.
DeRay McKesson, a civil rights activist with WeTheProtesters.org, posted photos and video on his Twitter page Sunday showing a group of people in Marion Square burning the American and Confederate flags.
WeTheProtesters lists McKesson as a member of its planning team, and the Founder and Co-Editor of the Ferguson Protester Newsletter.
I found that photo fascinating because apparently not only does Mr. McKesson’s group seems to not only have the same opinion of the US flag as Mr. Roof
But they apparently believe in directly mimicking his actions:
So I have a question for all of those on TV that have been self righteously telling us that because Young Mr. Roof waved the Confederate flag that flag must go, Gone with the Wind must go, and even games about the civil war must all go to honor those he murdered.
Since Mr. Roof’s mass murder suddenly made any association with the Confederate Flag beyond the pale of respectability should we not also consider the group We the Protesters and Mr. McKesson also beyond the pale since they not only copied the exact actions of this mass murder but did so proudly and in public just outside the building where one of the victims was lying in state?
Because their actions suggest this observation from Sweetness & light is exactly correct:
Well, we know that Dylann Roof would have approved of the burning of the American flag. (Since he did so himself.) But that’s probably just one of the many similarities he shares with Mr. Mckesson.
I’d love to see the media members who have given Mr. McKesson credibility answer that question and have all those who have expressed support for his group answer this question but I suspect that will not happen anywhere this side of the 2nd coming.
Update: It goes without saying that those actions are protected by the first amendment the question isn’t if said actions should be illegal, it’s if said actions mean the group should be embraced by the media and the left.
As I look at the Subpoenas from the Justice Department concerning Reason Magazine over the top commentators I can’t help but be reminded of Stacy McCain’s pieces on feminism and the lack of common sense of its defenders and stupidity all around.
Stupidity A: Silk Road’s founders idea that an extra governmental platform for international buying and selling would NOT become a haven for illegal and destructive activity. Human nature dictates this and it takes an awful lot of ignorance to not realize this (of course one will never go broke on betting on the ignorance of intellectuals when it comes to human nature).
Stupidity B: The Government life sentence. Given that there are millions to made in the drug trade no sentence was going to stop the next silk road which will be based in countries with less restrictive laws or law enforcement more easily purchased, but if the goal was to deter the next college genius from doing something stupid a 20 year sentence would more than do the trick without creating a cause celebre.
Stupidity C: Was the idiotic idea to go online and post stupid threats against a federal judge. Stupidity here exists on so many levels that it deserves its own section.
#1. Such behavior does not advance one’s argument, it just makes one, at best, sound like an ass.
#2 You are making such a threat in public and in writing, that makes any argument that it was just “temper” much weaker. e argument that the
when you go after an elected official, a cop or a judge, you are attacking the system of justice and the rule of law which keep us from falling into anarchy and oblivion. It’s a serious thing and law enforcement treats it as such.
#4 You are making such a threat in a time of war when the government is keeping an eye on this kind of thing. Jazz Shaw again:
Would we all be rushing to the defense of both the magazine and the rights of the commenters making the threats if they were implying that they were going to go chop off Pamela Geller’s head? Assuming the writer turned out to have no history of violence, is that just free speech? Or were they possibly on the cusp of having been turned to the dark side by jihadist web sites and videos? That’s a pretty tough call to make for the layman, but would you deny the DoJ the chance to figure out who they were and how serious there intents might be?
Yet the court found that the government had a “compelling interest” in investigating all threats, however ridiculous:
The government must take seriously all threats against a major presidential candidate such as Ms. Bachmann, unless and until it is satisfied that there is no likelihood that the threat was legitimate. Part of taking a threat seriously may include attempting to convince a grand jury to return an indictment. . . . .But it is for the Executive, not a court, to decide whether an investigation is even worth pursuing.
Would you want to be the official who decided this was no big deal if some idiot went after the judge who had been threatened?
#5 We are dealing with an administration that has gone after enemies before
But the final bit of this stupidity stupidity D: Is the Government issuing the subpoenas to Reason.
While one doesn’t have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre the right to free speech & expression is sacred in America. Given the number of online sites and the number of actual threats it is the interest of the government to eschew non serious threats from internet blowhards and concentrate on threats that are more realistic. As Ilya Somin put it
To put it mildly, comments such as these are hardly valuable contributions to public discourse. But if federal prosecutors investigated every similar anonymous comment on the internet, we could probably devote the entire federal budget to hunting down these types of blogosphere trolls, and still not find them all.
Although frankly if our friends on the left could swell the federal payroll with their friends in a unionized ISA (“I” for “internet”) they’d do it in a heartbeat.
Furthermore they compounded this foolishness by trying to BS Ken White:
In other words, two days before he told me that he believed there was a gag order on the subpoena, Mr. Velamoor told Reason.com that it was not required to keep the subpoena secret.
A sober Government lawyer might have approached Reason Magazine about putting up a post saying something like:
We understand that people have strong opinions on the Silk Road case and the sentence that was given. We also understand that on occasion one’s passion on various issues can lead to hyperbole online beyond what one would normally say or what one actually means.
But we would remind people that physical threats against a federal judge or any federal official are a serious matter and that in an age when the internet postings of bad actors are a tool used by law enforcement to prevent or punish such event we would urge people to not cross the line between strong and principled 1st amendment objections that are the heart of a free society and physical threats which would oblige us to divert vital resources to investigate said threats from actual enemies whose goal is the destruction of the very rights that those making threats purport to be exercising.
It is our duty to protect the free speech of the citizens of the United States as well as the officials who work for them. We would urge people not to make these tasks more difficult via threats.
A post like that might not stop idiots but it would be a sober response unlikely to create a new cause celebre. Furthermore if someone choose to continue to make threats after such a warning, then the response of the government would be on them. Alas such a sober responsible response would not be in character for the Obama administration.
Stacy McCain has gotten a ton of flack from feminists from preaching common sense to people who do not want to hear it. I submit and suggest a bit of common sense at any of these stages listed above would have kept things from getting to the point they are.
I wonder reaction that statement of common sense will produce?
Given my rather loud protestations in defense of Pam Geller’s event in Texas and my excoriation of the DC Metro over their first amendment retreat at this site it would be a logical assumption that an event like this:
On Friday, May 29, 2015, a group of bikers in Arizona plan to host an anti-Islam demonstration outside of the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix. Dubbed as “Freedom of Speech Rally Round 2,” a reference to American blogger Pamela Geller’s ‘Draw Muhammad’ cartoon contest in Garland, Texas earlier this month, the event, organized on Facebook, is described as a “response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorists with ties to ISIS, attempted to kill a bunch of people.”
would have my support. After all it’s in direct response to the attack at Pam Geller’s event and the Islamic center is as the organizer Jon Ritzheimer said “a known place that the 2 terrorist [sic] frequented.” and their attack was religiously based.
But to my mind it is also in direct opposition to the first amendment right of the Muslim Community to worship God as they see fit.
I don’t have an issue with the protest in itself, but the first amendment that protects the bikers right to protest also protects not only the Muslim’s of Phoenix’s religion but the free exercise thereof.
Consider how freely can one worship if you have a large protest taking place outside of your place of worship? How free would a Muslim family feel to take their children to pray in the mosque? How is it any different that if a radical feminist group held a protest in front of a Catholic Church during mass over the church’s stance on Abortion Gay Marriage or Homosexuality?
The first amendment right to worship God as one sees fit is no less sacred than the first amendment right of the bikers to protest. For all of the breast beating about Pam Geller’s event it didn’t inhibit a single muslim from the free exercise of their religion in any way.
The same can not be said concerning the biker event.
And if a Muslim family might hesitate to attend their regular Friday’s service because of the protest how much more would they hesitate if they read this:
The rally’s organizer, Jon Ritzheimer, has called on the group to “to utilize there [sic] second amendment right at this event just incase our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.”
Would you feel safe taking your family to a church under such conditions?
It’s not only the wrong thingbut it’s the dumb thing. If the event was held at a different time or place the Bikers could highlight a possible terror connection to the mosque that the gunmen in Texas worshiped at. Instead the bikers by making them a target of intimidation the Bikers create a propaganda victory for their enemies at home and abroad that they will have no hesitation to exploit.
Today is the birthday of the great Catholic apologist C.K. Chesterton and via Jake Tapper I’m going to quote him
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” Happy birthday GK Chesterton
But for all the international critique of Israel as violent oppressors and for all the pols who have insisted buffer zones are needed to protect innocent abortion providers from ladies with rosaries praying near them, neither the anti Israel ads, nor the pro abortion ads nor any other were rejected on the grounds that they posed a safety hazard to the public.
he says current board members are “obviously in a bind because we know what happens when you criticize Muhammad, we know how some people react to that. I don’t think we ever had a situation [in the past] where someone threatened to blow up a bus.”
Graham says he’s not aware of any credible threat in response to the ad, but that, “We know worldwide what has happened to others who have gone down this path.”
What does that tell us? Since no other ad has caused this kind of reaction we must conclude that in the Metro’s opinion Muslims are so violent, so savage, so barbaric that the risk of a murderous response by members of the Religion of Peace™ exceeds the risk of offending any other group in the Metro’s history.
Three years ago I commented on the silence of the west on the exile of Molly Norris:
their unwillingness to question call on the west’s Muslims to speak against the violence coupled with their previous actions concerning the Mohammad Cartoons and their silence on Molly Norris suggests they believe the west’s Muslim’s are barbarians pretending to be civilized men and are afraid of angering them for fear of their own lives.
That makes the MSM by their own standards, both racists and cowards.
We must conclude from this decision that if western Muslim are in fact barbarians giving the pretence of being civilized men, said pretence is not very effective.
If I was a Muslim I’d be insulted by the implication that my religion is full of barbarians, unless of course I prefer the power of people deferring to me out of abject fear.
Now I’ve read the Constitution and I never noticed that pesky “hate speech” exclusion, but in fairness he is citing a court case “Chaplinsky vs NH” where a person was arrested under a law that prevented
“any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place,” or “call him by any offensive or derisive name,”
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [n2] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [p572] and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [n3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [n4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. [n5] Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.
“For them” suggests a flexible standard that one could easily use to silence opposition. If you can redefine what constitutes “hate speech” than you can silence anyone you wish at any time and justify it for the public good. Sounds positively totalitarian to me.
Over time federal courts have narrowed that ruling to make clear that it only applies, in Ken White’s words, to “face-to-face insults that would provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person.” In other words, says Instapundit, a “personal invitation to brawl.”
And even fighting words are not what they once were:
There are indeed limits on the First Amendment; the Supreme Court has held that “fighting words” and incitements to specific and imminent violence are not protected. But as recently as 2011, the Court ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to picket a military funeral and wave signs that read “You’re going to hell” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
The word “offensive” is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight
Now let’s apply the standards I’ve quoted to the events in Garland which is what Cuomo was really trying to tar here..
Rather than being on the public street this was a ticketed event at a closed venue. The subject of the illustrations in question was not only not present but as he has been dead for 14 centuries is beyond making personal objections.
“Would a reasonable person be offended by this image?”
or as the court put it back in the 40’s:
The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight
Would this image cause the average man to fight?
the answer is clearly no, although I suspect that our media are doing their best to convince the common man that it is.
And believe me they are trying to do so with a lot more than just this.
Update: Apparently Isis has defined “hate speech” for them.
ISIS appears to declare war on controversial blogger Pamela Geller on Tuesday in an ominous online message claiming it has fighters across America ready to attack “any target we desire.”
The threat, posted on anonymous message board JustPasteIt, singles out Geller, who helped plan a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that was attacked by two gunmen in Garland, Texas, over the weekend. ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting early Tuesday, marking the first time the terror group called an American attack one of its own, though lawmakers believe the two men were influenced by the group, not guided directly by it.
Under the Chris Cuomo standard they are perfectly within their rights.
Exit question: In the war between Pam Geller & ISIS which side will the media & the left take?
Update 2: You know your point is pretty bad when evenSalon & Greg Greenwald are running rings around you.
If you want journalism owned by you instead of the left elites I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.
My goal is Twenty grand a year
That gets all the bills paid. If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.
Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.
Subscribe at $50 or more in April and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.
The cartoonists and writers at Charlie Hebdo never stood a chance against their killers.
The reason that Pamela Geller, who I know and respect (and have always called Pamela, instead of Pam), Robert Spencer, Gert Wilders, Bosch Faswstin, and the attendees of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) Sunday event in Garland, TX survived the terrorist attack is because the terrorists were met with immediate deadly force.
The media is twisting itself to present the terrorists as weak, as victims of a tragedy. Ponder this headline for a moment, from the Dallas Morning News,
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;
Whose misadventur’d piteous overthrows
Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife.
I repeat: The IS, perpetrators of a long roster of the most heinous acts of depravity in recent years, is claiming responsibility. Whether they are opportunistic or not, the fact remains that they want to portray themselves as part of it.
No matter how you break down the details, this was an incredible display of bravery and marksmanship by this 30+ year veteran of the Garland Police Department, who not only resisted the natural urge to create distance between yourself and rifle-armed assailants, but who appears to have done precisely the opposite, and who advanced while firing accurately, bringing the attack to a swift conclusion without a single additional casualty once he brought his weapon to bear.
Determined people with good training and a decent handgun can indeed defeat the most zealous fanatic.
Again, Terrorism is most definitely not a weapon of the weak; it is a weapon used against the weak. I’ll add that an unarmed citizenry is the weakest of all.
Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s blog.
Listening to Morning Joe today as person after person agreed that of course Pam Geller has a perfect right to do what she did but questioned the wisdom of doing so suggesting perhaps for the general safety for all concerned maybe it shouldn’t be done.
This message was and continues to b mimicked by practically every MSM segment that has discussed the events in Garland.
Hearing this over and over it struck me that this has cut the Gordon Knot for the Gay Marriage Christian Bakers issue.
Imagine a Gay couple comes into a Christian Bakery asking nay DEMANDING that on pain of the penalty of law they MUST bake a cake for their wedding as is their constitutional right. I can picture the baker smiling sweetly and giving, with profound regret, this answer:
” You know I understand that while I disagree with what you are doing and it violates my faith you certainly have a right to demand a wedding cake from me and I deeply sympathize. But there are Christians, some of them violent and radical like those who have attacked abortion clinics, who would be quite offended if I did so. I can’t take the risk of provoking such people into violence against either you or me.”
I can see the couple protesting that Christians would not do that and the baker smiles and nods but says:
“While it’s true that the vast majority of Catholics an Protestants, while they would be insulted by the my baking your cake would not dream of committing an act of violence in the name of Christ, there is that small violent minority of Christians that the media reminds of us of that we have to consider, after all there is a reason why abortion providers INSIST buffer zones around abortion clinics are necessary. So while I’d certainly like to help you It would be irresponsible of me to knowingly put myself and you in danger from these extremists.”
The MSM the SPLC are constantly telling us how dangerous Christians are, I guess we should take them at their word.
There is a mosque in Garland, Texas. It was there yesterday, it’s there today, and it will be there tomorrow. After two radical Muslims attempted to massacre some infidels down the road a bit, there was no angry mob of Texans storming the place with F-350s and rifles.
They’ll be there, never fear, the MSM knows how violents those Crusading Christians are.
Abdul:What is your name? Father O’Malley:William O’Malley. Abdul:I did not call you. Father O’Malley:You called for all the Jews. I’m Jewish, just like Jesus Christ. You take one, you gotta take us all.
The Emmy-winning host was dismissed over the racist remark said during his live segment on the entertainment news show “El Gordo Y La Flaca,” HuffPost Voces first reported. Univision confirmed the news via e-mail earlier today.
“Mind you, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she’s part of the cast of ‘Planet of the Apes,’ the film,” Figueroa said.
Even more interesting is this update (emphasis mine):
UPDATE 3/12 6:00 p.m.: In an extensive open letter to the first lady, Figueroa offered a formal apology for what was said but explained that it had been taken out of context. He also said he was verbally notified that he was being fired because of a complaint from Michelle Obama’s office and that he felt Univision had publicly humiliated him.
Now consider the following. Mr. Figueroa made a single remark, perhaps in poor taste, poking fun at Mrs. Obama’s appearance, and it drew a complaint from the First Lady’s office and resulted in his dismissal.
On the other hand That’s My Bush mercilessly poked fun at the President & the first lady. As you might guess from a series made by the creators of South Park a lot of these jokes were not what one would consider tasteful.
Yet despite the cries of the left about the repressive Bush years not only did the show run a full season but if you click on the names of the actors in every episode you will find that with a single exception all have continued to work regularly since the end of the series to the present day or until their death and South Park has completed its 18th season on the air.
Tell me given this comparison which administration respects the first amendment right to make fun of the president & his family and which one does not?
Back in June of 2013 I wrote about my fear that the left in general and the president in particular will eventually provoke the people into violence:
If enough people start thinking that in our well armed society, bad things happen.
As I wrote this warning I was working under the assumption that our friends agreed that such a result would be a horrible thing that should be avoided.
But As I watch the president continue to take provocative unconstitutional actions a question is gnawing at the back of my mind.concerning this.
What if the folks in the White House want to provoke violence?
What if the goal is to push and to push and to push some more to the point where people react in a violent way in order to justify the use of force to suppress said violence and bring in even more sweeping restrictions of rights?
Hey if you can’t find a violent Tea Party murderer to justify your arguments why not do your best to create one.
My suggestion? Resist this trap, the Obama Administration has a limited lifespan we need to loudly oppose them without giving them the excuse or the propaganda excuse to do worse.
Exit thought: Do you know what the worst part of this question is? Five years ago if anyone suggested to me that an American administration would think along these lines I would have considered them crazy.
But then again if you suggested to the average russian in 1919 that the state would eventually starve millions they wouldn’t have believed you either.
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.
“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.
Think about what this is saying for a moment. If the Government things exercising the first Amendment rights guaranteed by our constitution will upset violent fanatics said government will do what it can to prevent said people from doing so.
Apparently Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and other assorted religious groups have been doing it all wrong. If we would only ignore what our religions actually say and mimic the actions of the significant minority of well-funded Muslims who are willing to commit violence to keep people from insulting or blaspheming our relative religions, our government would lead the charge to make sure we were never insulted in media, film or on TV again.
Alas, it is unlikely to work, because even if you found say, a crazy uncle Catholic willing to do this kind of thing, not only would such acts be rejected by the faithful en masse (unlike some polls we have seen in Islamic countries) but, unlike the Imams who you can easily find online supported extremists , you would likely not be able to find a single Catholic priest, let alone a bishop or Cardinal who would do anything other than denounce such threats or violence as Mortal Sin.
This administration is creating an incentive system for violence and when you reward an action you tend to get more of it and the longer they do so the more likely something like that will happen.
It seems that no matter how low my expectations of this administration get, they are still willing to confound them.
Daniel Boone: I can’t think of a better reason to be for it.
Daniel Boone Ken-Tuck-E 1964
One of the things that have noticed in a decade of being on the next is how the word “troll” has been redefined.
It once was that a person referred to as a “troll” was used sparingly, only one whose provocation was bcene or completely without argument would be labeled such, even one who used sarcasm to make a point wasn’t considered a “troll”.
The idea was that the internet was this wonderful place where people could safely say what they thought and engage each other, maybe even persuade each other, without worry or fear. Positively utopian.
What a quaint idea.
The reality is that in the early day of blogging and the net, you have a small subsection of the population (much like the crazy uncles) who had something in common in the net and thus, to some degree were able to use that common connection to mitigate other reactions that might normally come.
But once the net, and blogging were found to be commercially viable, politically valuable, and accessible to the vast majority of the public the realities of dealing with human beings trumped all.
1. If you were trying to use the net for propaganda the last thing you want is someone contradicting you on your site, particularly since a contrary argument & the evidence to back is up is only a click away .
2. If you are using the net for revenue and do not have a niche market, the last thing you want is anything that can threaten that revenue stream, such as anger, debate or controversy of any type.
3. And of course you if have all the normal foibles and faults of humanity those foibles and faults are not going to go away just because.
Because of this we’ve reached the point where all it takes for someone to disagree in a comment thread, reply to a public twitter message or link a piece that you might have blogged to find yourself labeled as, at best a “troll” and at worst a “stalker”.
I think this is all nonsense so for the benefit of those sensitive types out there let me point out some basic facts.
1. If your ideas are worth the pixels they are being displayed in then they should be able to handle critique, if they can’t the fault is not in your critics, but in you.
2. If you put something out on the net available to the entire world then you have no business complaining when people in the world link to it, comment on it and ridicule you for it, that is what public speech is. Blogs, listservs and twitter have private settings so you can limit your exposure to those who you wish to speak to, if that is your wish.
3. If one choose to be anonymous on the net I dont’ care, but if you choose to try to deprive a person of their living and their livelihood be aware that there are thousands if not millions of people who can figure out who you are simply by a few google searches so act accordingly.
4. Like all other freedoms they come with a price, freedom of expression does not mean you are free of the consequences of that expression.
5. If you are that worried about what a bunch of strangers think of you on the net, you really need to get a life.
6. All the various net platforms are all owned and run by someone, while people may think of them as a public platform unless you are paying for a subscription service you are playing in someone elses yard. Even if I disagree with how they keep that yard if they are paying for it then they get to run it and if it’s their site and their comment section they can run it as they see fit. If you don’t like this, there are plenty of places on the net where you can put up an opposing view.
As for me, let me repeat my own rules here:
1. Comments that agree or disagree are welcome. I expect you to not use vulgar language that I would not have in my house, or to at least edit it down.
2. I like sarcasm & humor, even if directed at me, one of the joys of the English language is how it can be used in this way. You will not be banned or blocked for that and if you can’t take a joke, well that’s on you.
3. If you want to comment please have it be relevant to the topic of the post. I dont’ mind you linking to your site or others but don’t just put an off topic link, stay on topic and you’ll be fine.
4. If you want to spread what I consider calumny against a 3rd person not present do it elsewhere.
5. There is no automatic comment approval here, I approve them all and might edit out profanity. I reserve the right to edit but will not do so without
A. giving you the chance to edit an objectionable comment first.
B. Noting that said edit was done by me.
6. I have a life and I don’t have a smartphone that means that if you leave a comment and it’s not approved with 5 min it’s not because I’m ignoring you, it’s because I’m out, or on a contact job or away from the computer or asleep etc etc etc.
8. Because my time lately has been at a premium and even when it’s not I’m a poor speller I will on occasion mangle a word or phrase or hit publish before I should, correction comments are most welcome.
9. This isn’t the NYT, the layers of proofreaders at this site consists of me. If you want to argue that my points or tweets are without merit because of bad spelling or grammar you are welcome to do so, and by the same token I’m welcome to make the point that you’ve got nothing in terms of an actual counter argument because if you did you’d use it.
Personally I think that if more people used rules like this we’d all be better off but if you disagree, that’s what the comments section or a link that refutes this post is for. Have at it!
He [Theodore Arduino] got there [ Santa Monica ] from Nazi Germany and immediately became chronically depressed because everybody was so cheerful, relentlessly cheerful and that they were caught up in consumerism, he was depressed because they were not nihilists like he was.
Andrew Breitbart Sept 16th 2011 in Lexington MA
You pay me tribute by which you become my slaves, I have the right to order my slaves as I please
Bey of Algiers to Captain William Bainbridge USN
Penny:Oh my God I need help.
The Big Bang Theory, The Barbarian Sublimation 2008
The more I think about what happened with Sony the more I realize how incredibly unsurprising this is.
One of the things that Andrew Breitbart talked about often was the strategy of the left and the enemies of America to attack the nation through its culture since its economic and military might was too great to overcome. Six months before he died he discussed this in Lexington MA
The Sony Hack is the logical conclusion to what we have seen during our lifetime.
From prayer in schools to team mascots, to testing standards, to the words “Merry Christmas” & even “Father & Mother” and Public Statements of basic biology (To wit: No amount of surgery or hormones treatments actually changes a man into a woman or vice versa) through a series of intimidation and annoyance we as a culture have allowed a small but well funded minority of people to literally dismantle the culture to the point where a member of the greatest generation (You know that generation that saved the world from the Nazi’s) would not recognise it.
At each step in this culture war people have advocated appeasement, it’s just a small thing, it’s not worth the lawsuit, they’ll make too much trouble for us, it will break our budget to give in and finance these type, much like the European Powers once paid off the Barbary Pirates or the British the Danegeld and with each such payment and concession these forces have simply gotten stronger as Kipling once warned:
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say: — “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.
Short sighted people who look only to their own comfort and advancement have found the culture war quite profitable. By giving lip service or actual aid to these forces they have been granted short term legitimacy, personal comfort and to some degree power but once you empower such people you are owned:
It tells you a lot about media/Hollywood priorities that a person at the heart of an unprecedented cyber-sh*tstorm that’s brought her company to its knees and is rapidly becoming an international crisis with a nuclear-armed North Korea felt she’d better take time immediately to kiss Al Sharpton’s ass as penance for a tacky joke. (Trey Parker and Matt Stone, whose own movie ended up as collateral damage in the aftermath of “The Interview” being pulled by Sony, understand what public contrition for racial offenses entails.) Sharpton’s obviously enjoying it too: The money line from his presser yesterday is “the jury is still out on where we go with Amy,” a sly but probably correct insinuation that whether she gets to keep her job at Sony going forward depends on how accommodating she is to whatever demands he comes up with for absolution. If I were her, I’d cut him a seven-figure check (if she hasn’t already) and hope, in the spirit of the Christmas season, he doesn’t tell her to make it eight.
And as such people fighting this war have overwhelmingly gone to media & education (you don’t expect them to go into any kind of field that actually involves building or creating something did you?) they have found themselves in the best possible spot to distract the uninformed & misdirect the inexperienced.
That incidentally is the entire basis for the march of the current breed of feminist, by this method they have actually reached the point where you have men making declarations like this:
If you’ve been socialized in dominant constructions of gender in the US (and many other parts of the “Western” world for that matter), no matter how much you try to be an ally, you’re going to screw up. This is because it takes tremendous work on self for those socialized into privilege to fight that socialization. . . .
This is the reason why the founding fathers had to be discredited and minimized in the schools, because if you learn about and respect men who say things like this:
“With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves.”
You’re certainly not going to give into 3rd rate apparatchik who says he is offended by your nativity scene, or your political donations.
There is only one solution to this kind of cultural rot and that is the one that Kipling gave at the end of his poem
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: —
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that pays it is lost!”
Unfortunately years of conditioning and giving in makes this kind of retaliation and courage difficult. It sometimes takes a really big shock to realize the state you’re in so you can regain your lost dignity.
Let’s hope the Sony situation is that shock.
If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below.
The meeting we had earlier at the church at 9950 Glen Owen Dr, St Louis, MO, alot of us attended the meeting but what happened with the attack on a peaceful protester was wrong and should have been handled a different way. Some of us already know that no live-streaming is allowed at the meeting and but when they told him to stop live streaming he probably didn’t hear or understand and when everbody just rushed him and told to stop live streaming and get the F××k out and then all of sudden he gets jumped and attacked.
There has been talk that the Ferguson protestors are trying to negotiate with Police, I have a suggestion
Perhaps part of the deal #Ferguson protesters make with police could include not beating people & sending them to the hospital #tcot#p2
The Justice for Mike Brown site is not happy about this:
But like I said again, for some of yall to just attack him having him, running down Chambers St towards West Florissant to the Walgreens scared for his life and he steady screaming crying and flagging down cars asking for help, but he only gets help when he runs inside the Walgreens, that was wrong and F××ked up it really was he was they took him to the hospital by ambulance to be treated for injuries. That’s making us look bad, the ones that come out to protest peacefully, smh, and he is white but that don’t mean to attack him like that!
Yeah I can see why they’re worried about PR. Beating someone in a church meeting & sending them to the hospital seems is unlikely to win a lot of support outside of Eric Holder’s justice department who I’m sure will be sending a team right down there to investigate.
via Gateway pundit who notes that some do not agree with the facebook post objecting to this behavior
Yo this had nothing to do with the kid being white,in STL if u don't respect some1 saying don't record us & u record,u asking4 it #Ferguson
Exit question. I found this part of the damage control on the Justice for Mike Brown site telling
He is a student at UMSL college and he has been out there with us protesting on regular nights. Some of us know who he is, his name is Chris Schaefer, and NO, he’s not working with the police, he is on our side.
That leads to an obvious conclusion:
Note man beaten was protesting with his attackers for weeks, just think what they'd do those who disagree if they could? #tcot#p2#ferguson
The Ferguson Police Department is currently investigating claims that Lesley McSpadden brought a group of people — including her own mother — to beat vendors and rob them of their “Justice for Mike Brown” merchandise Oct. 18, The Smoking Gun has learned.
One person was hospitalized in the reported attack and another unidentified alleged victim was reportedly beaten with a pipe.
McSpadden’s former mother-in-law, Pearlie Gordon, was among those beaten by “a large group of about 20-30 subjects” who had “jumped out of vehicles and rushed” the group of sellers, according to the police report.
J. B. Books:I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
The Shootist 1976
One of the real weakness in today’s society is a lack of basic understanding of what freedom means. With our education system moving ever leftward let me explain to those who do not understand the basics or who choose to deceive others what the basic freedom of religion is:
1. Freedom of religion is the freedom to worship God as you please, to raise your children to worship God as you do, to proclaim the word of God as you understand it in public and to defend those words it public if ridiculed to the best of your ability and means. It is the freedom to proselytize, evangelize, and to convert any who are willing to be converted.
Finally Freedom of Religion is the freedom to obey the word of God as your faith teaches it without the state forcing you to violate it or to impose a penalty upon you for obeying it.
That is freedom of religion now here is what freedom of religion is not:
2. Freedom of religion is NOT the freedom to force others to worship God as you do or to force them to raise their children as you do. Freedom of religion is not the freedom from critique or public ridicule of your religion, nor is it the freedom from proselytizing and evangelizing from other faiths or the ability to stop people from leaving your faith.
Freedom of religion is not the ability to use the state to coerce others to obey the word of God as you see it nor impose a penalty on those who choose to cling to their own faith or no faith at all.
If you wish to do the first, I will defend your right to do so, even if you are propagating a religion I think is wrong, although I reserve the right to advise against it and point out your errors and the danger of them.
If you wish to do the 2nd, I’ll fight you.
Update: added evangelize to the paragraphs above per this excellent piece by the Anchoress:
Evangelization differs from Proselytizing — and gets closer to the Incarnational example of Christ Jesus — by being non-confrontational. Rather than repelling people by preaching at them, it attracts in large measure through a kind of positive passivity that allows room for the Holy Spirit to work.
We remain 5 grand away from making our expenses for the year and a sold $1000 away from making them this month.
If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below to meet our annual expenses.
During the 4th of July parade each year we see in the Fitchburg Parade a great symbol of what America is, three floats generally go by one after the other, one flying the Israeli flag and blowing the ram’s horn, followed by a Christian church with a cross and right behind them the local Mosque.
This morning after mass I saw another such symbol.
My own church is closed for the week as the carpets & cushions are being dried so I’ve been attending another for daily Mass.
This church St. Camillus at St. Bernards parish has a chapel of divine mercy where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed for adoration. After mass I went into the chapel for my daily prayers sitting in the front in a big recliner to the right of the Blessed Sacrament as I prayed.
Sitting diagonally to me was a spanish woman saying a rosary, after some time she came forward to kneel and pray before the Blessed Sacrament, as I sat directly to her right.
As she knelt in supplication a black woman wearing nurses scrubs entered the chapel and sat on the opposite side of the front row directly to the Spanish women’s left.
As I prayed my Rosary, I imagined the picture it would be. Three Americans, three different races, three different cultures, untied together in prayer and supplication to God, able to do so without fear thanks to the guarantees that the founding fathers established and generations fought for.
There is nothing more American than this. May we never forget nor fail to appreciate what has been done for us, may we also resist all efforts to take this legacy away.
It brings to mind how once Democrats were in the minority in the house, suddenly what a house minority leader had to say was worth covering.
While both of these things are of some interest what I find most interesting is the tactic because as a Catholic it’s so familiar.
After Vatican 2 and Humanae Vitae the left in the Church and the media who supported them were disappointed by the result. While there were changes in the Mass and an increase in the use of the laity it was not what they had dreamed of. So rather than talking about what doctrines actually were and what the counsel documents actually said they created a false narrative aided and abetted by many in ministry who preferred the church in their own image rather than the church as it was.
Thanks to the get along to go along attitude of many who knew better entire generations was either catechised falsely or not at all and the church & society paid for it.
This is the goal of the left in the Ginsberg dissent to create a de facto narrative in their minds similar to the Bush Gore election, and by that narrative hope to effect both how the issue is reported and perhaps even how some of the liberal judges rule on future cases as more Christian businessmen assert their rights.
Of course this is not the 70’s. Both the internet exists as does a strong cadre of conservatives ready to push back, and the reality of the decision in encoded in US law so don’t expect the kind of legal apostasy that we saw in the church but rest assured they’ll give it the old pagan try.
There are a lot of things we can say about the 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.
We can say it’s an important win for religious liberty (it is) we can say that differentiating between a “closely held” corporation and a big publicly held one is far (it is). You can claim that it’s a horrible defeat for women (that’s nonsense) and you can fundraise off of visions of coathangers (I suspect that’s blast mail has already gone out). You might even claim it’s in the long run a win for Obamacare because it removes one of the drivers for the full repeal movement.
But while religious groups will be happy with the ruling & businesses will be happy as well in the list of winners would be incomplete if it didn’t include the group that won biggest by this ruling. the Establishment GOP and that victory driven not by Hobby Lobby’s victory but by the fact that it was 5-4.
After Mississippi, the tea party and the base have been rightly outraged. There were plenty of people asking themselves if it might be worth it to lose a seat like Mississippi on the theory of: If we don’t make the GOP pay now? When do we?
Hobby Lobby gives the GOP exactly the right answer.
If Hobby Lobby had lost it would have pushed the full repeal of Obamacare to the forefront. This is something that even if the establishment wanted to deliver (and it’s becoming apparent they do not) they could not as long as President Obama is in office).
If Hobby Lobby had won say 6-3 or better than the protections for religious liberty would have been pretty secure, secure enough that there would be no urgency.
But this ruling was 5-4, and that means that the left has the four votes needed to bring a new case to the court and is only a single vote away from reversing its course.
That makes control of the Senate and the ability to block a potential Supreme Court Justice during the last two years of the Obama administration where he would have absolutely no reason to restrain himself (Think Justice Bill Ayers or Elizabeth Warren).
I am a Tea Party supporter and I believe that the GOP has not earned the loyalty of its base, but elections take place every two years, Supreme Court appointment do not and when they happen they happen for life.
If the choice is between punishing the Mississippi GOP in general and Thad Cochran in particularly for their actions or having that 51 vote in the senate to stop a Barack Obama Justice I’ll put up with that graft for another 6 years. If the difference between Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell deciding if a Supreme Court nominee goes forward is Scott Brown being that 51st GOP Senator from NH then I say Go Scott Go!
If I’m Reince Priebus I’m thanking my lucky stars.
The McCullen v Coakley case that removed the three-point lines in Massachusetts is the potential to have some interesting effects on both the national level and the local level.
Locally of course Coakley is Martha Coakley the current AG of Massachusetts now running for governor. Earlier this month Steve Grossman managed to get the endorsement of the Democrat party for the nomination while Coakley is still leading in the polls.
Coakley will likely be able to parley her name on that case to gain further sympathy from hard core pro-abortion activists, while Grossman can argue that Coakley team did a poor job arguing for the law before the court, so poor that she lost unanimously.
There is also the possibility that outgoing governor Deval Patrick might try to rush a new law through with his large majorities, as both Coakley & Grossman are in state government it’s unclear who that would help.
On the Republican side the issue is a godsend for Mark Fisher. Fisher has already gotten the endorsement of Mass right to life and can engage the base by his celebration of the result.
“Charlie hopes the current law is upheld,” a Baker spokesperson told BostInno. Though vague in nature, the statement could be taken in a manner that Baker is, in fact, pro choice, or that he’s simply a proponent of laws enacted at the state level. Either way, his show of support for the cause, however broad in his choice of words, a positive direction for bipartisan collaboration in customarily blue Massachusetts.
Now Fisher is going to need a lot of breaks to beat Baker and this certainly isn’t enough to make the difference but it’s important to note that last thing Baker needs is a reminder to activists that he is squishy on life, particularly if we end up with a 3rd party candidate that’s pro-life on the ballot.
Any believing catholic wanting to avoid mortal sin (you know the type that sends you to hell) would be duty bound given the choice between pro-abortion candidates & a pro life one can only vote one way. As for myself as a Catholic no election is worth my soul.
While this case is likely to make things a little more interesting in Massachusetts it’s going to make things a LOT more interesting in New Hampshire.
Scott Brown ran as a pro-choice candidate last time around, I still remember the ads, they made me sick but as there was not a pro-life choice it was possible to morally vote for him.
In the GOP primary in NH that’s a different story, Senator Brown already has a guns issue that could cost him the 2nd Amendment voters, this case can’t help but highlight that he is a pro-abortion republican which will certainly energize pro-life republicans to turn out in a primary against him.
Nationally the ruling might be a wash simply because the case was 9-0 (take a look at the twitter to see leftist heads explode over the unanimous decision, but Ed Morrissey when reading the decision proper noticed what I did:
There was a considerable amount of disagreement on the idea that the law was content-neutral, and this is the crux of the problem for free-speech advocates. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scalding concurrence in part, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joining, warning that this decision makes proving a violation of content neutrality in speech restrictions all but impossible:
The four conservatives justices sans the chief wrote concurrent opinions bluntly saying this was unconstitutional on its face while the actual decision practically listed the ways Massachusetts could pass a law that the court could support.
That suggests that the decision was written the way it was in order to get the 9-0 result rather than the 5-4 at best result that would have given conservatives the whole 10 yards. It’s not unusual for a Chief to try to get a unanimous court but those who pay attention might read the tea leaves and decide that it’s more important to get the majority in the Senate to keep the president from replacing any of those 4 liberal votes that was against him today.
The only law related to free speech is in the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Article I of the Bill of Rights. Stated therein:
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.
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Therefore, if you are not or I am not Congress, we are unable make any law abridging free speech. If a private corporation or a private association is not Congress, it is unable to make any law abridging freedom. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not address what any parties which are not Congress may or may not do with respect to freedom of speech. Again, none of the parties mentioned in the cases above are Congress, nor are they any other branch of government. Each case involved something called a contract between private parties.
A contract is a written promise. Contracts can have all kinds of terms, some of which may involve what parties say in public. Other terms can stipulate how a party can react when the other contracting party violates any of the terms. Things like termination and fines are examples of such penalties, and you can bet that both A&E and the NBA listed these things on the contracts they offered to the Robertsons and to Sterling.
Observers are free to give their opinions on what they think and how they feel about these public controversies and their outcomes, but, in the end, it comes down to what was promised contractually and whether any of those promises were broken. If Duck Dynasty fans or A&E fans or NBA fans or even Donald Sterling fans don’t like how these private parties have resolved their contract problems, fans are free to no longer be fans. But, not being Congress, neither A&E nor the NBA have violated Phil Robertson’s or Donald Sterling’s 1st Amendment rights, respectively.
Each entity is free to act according to the terms of their respective contracts. And, you and I are free not to give them our money if we don’t like what they do.
AFTERTHOUGHT: A&E fired Phil Robertson for his comments, then re-instated him; the NBA banned Donald Sterling for life. Both A&E and the NBA reacted to the sentiments of their respect core consumers. Business is business.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
While opinions on the retired Justice’s Democrat wish list generally follow one’s political allegiance, I think folks are missing the real significance of Justice Stevens’ work.
By declaring the constitution needs phrases allowing the restriction of money as a form of speech, limiting the reach of the 10th & 11th amendments, specifying the death penalty as cruel & unusual punishment and explicitly stating the right to bear arms exists only for the purpose of a militia he is in effect declaring, in a very public way, that no matter how much he might wish it did, the constitution as written doesn’t do any of these things.
Whatever Justice Stevens purpose in writing his book, the essential effect of this volume is to give all those who wish to advance conservative jurisprudence a powerful argument against the left’s quest to substitute liberal opinion for the Constitution’s carefully chosen words and highly debated words.
I’m simply delighted and I thank the Justice, he has unwittingly done conservatism a great service.
The time has come to ditch the weekly goal to focus on the monthly figure, that’s where the real action is at.
In order for this to be a viable full-time business this blog has to take in enough to make the mortgage/tax payment for the house (Currently $1210 monthly) and cover the costs of the writers writing here (another $255)
As of this writing 7 AM EST we need $1305 to meet this goal by April 30th.
That comes out 52 people kicking in $25 over the rest of the month or basically three people a day.
I think the site and the work done here is worth it, if you do too then please consider hitting DaTipJar below .
Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.
I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison 1831
You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.
Others stopped short of calling for Mr. Eich’s ouster but expressed frustration that Mozilla was being tarred with his views, and hope that they could rehabilitate Mr. Eich’s ideas about gay marriage. Several supported Mr. Eich staying in his role, though still strenuously distanced themselves from his position on gay rights. A few were thoroughly conflicted, but saddened that the debate had engulfed their beloved organization.
But it should be equally undeniable that the organization dedicated to the internet as “global public resource” should understand that the “global public” also contains people who—on their own time—espouse, advocate, and sometimes monetarily support foreign, even ugly, views.
Weren’t the professional red-baiters of the 1950s simply exercising their rights to free speech? Wasn’t Ann Coulter within her free speech rights when she issued her infamous and odious call for liberals to be “physically intimidated”?
Indeed she was. But the law is not everything. Our society will fall apart if we justify every abominable action with the words: “Yeah, but that action was technically legal.” It used to be understood widely that civilization depends on the majority of citizens observing rules of behavior that can never be legislated.
In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees. In fact, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, his longtime business partner who now defends the need for his resignation, said this about discovering that he gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign: “That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” It’s almost as if that donation illuminated exactly nothing about how he’d perform his professional duties.
But no matter.
Do you see the common thread here? All these people are talking about how he was quiet and submissive, not advancing his beliefs in any way nor making them apparent as if that’s what makes his firing so unjust.
That’s the trap and the trick, our friends are willing to concede that Mozilla went too far as long as we are willing to concede that the definition of marriage that was held by every human civilization and imposed upon the united states by four liberal Massachusetts judges 10 years ago is beyond the pale and should not be publicly expressed in a company.
Note the implicit suggestion of the opposite, if he publicly affirmed Gay Marriage and any Christian or Muslim who worked there who didn’t liked it, well their just bigots or christianists and just have to deal with it.
I’m not falling for that business. I’m against people redefining marriage from one man and one woman for their own purposes. It’s wrong when it’s done by segregationists to reinforce their own bigotry and it’s wrong when it’s dons by “progressives” to reinforce their own narcissism.
Elizabeth Scalia has this advice for the gay community:
I would ask my gay friends to openly reject this movement to oppress so-called “wrong” thinking — suffocate it right now, as it is being born — because eventually it will grow into a monster that will consume anyone, indiscriminately.
My advice is for Christians or any people who stand on the side of marriage. I would encourage you to utterly reject the trap being laid out by those who would accept our right to exist if we just shut up and be quiet about it. We must fight back, loudly. I’d start with “hostile workplace environment” suits and go from there.
Epilogue: Saturday before heading down to the Nashoba Club Restaurant for my live broadcast I was in the middle of a heated argument on Gay Marriage when I tweeted out this challenge.
But there’s a hitch: OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.
He’s also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.
It’s tempting to hoist OK Cupid on its own petard but I reject the entire “anti-guy” premise and we are fools if we fall into the trap simply to get back at an insignificant website.
Here’s the thing though — the point many writing on this issue seem to be missing: Writing on his blog after Eich’s resignation, Catlin revealed that he actually wanted more than “an apology” made in some distant past — that he wanted Eich to publicly disavow his donation while making a specific and current political point:
“I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems. It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.”
How very kind of Catlin to suggest that Eich would be permitted to “keep” his personal beliefs. But if the notion that a man can lose his livelihood unless he both recants his previous actions and then promulgates a bit of political propaganda on behalf of those who would hold his job hostage is “heartbreaking” for some, others would call it creepy, and totalitarian. To be sure, it is completely at odds with the full expression of human dignity, which demands the most fundamental of rights: the right to think what one will, right or wrong, without fear of reprisal and without coercion.
It’s Tuesday and based on yesterday & Sunday our consecutive streak of failing to make our $365 weekly goal is in no danger.
I do promise you if you do hit DaTipJar and help us get to our $365 weekly goal I’ll keep fighting like Mrs. Palin. I’m not as valuable to the conservative movement as her but I’ll continue to do my part.
If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
She was the Seattle Cartoonist who suggested ” Everybody draw Mohammad Day” to protest the restriction of speech.
It wasn’t long before a FATWA was put out on her, She apologized for her actions but it didn’t matter. As far as radical Islam was concerned she had blasphemed, she went into hiding for fear of her life and remains so to this day.
This came to mind when I heard about Brendan Eich who was just forced out as CEO of Mozilla
But those credentials were not good enough. You see six years ago he donated $1000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 which outlawed Gay Marriage in California or would have if a judge had not overturned it.
That donation when brought to the press brought a roar of media & activist generated uproar.
Mind you Mr. Eich’s position was not unique 7,001,084 voted to pass the law and at the time of his donation he had the same position on gay marriage as Barack Obama did.
But that didn’t matter so Mozilla today issued this statement on their blog:
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality.
The irony of course being they are saying this while not allowing comments on the post where the announcement takes place.
Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Actually it’s not hard at all, you simply base your hiring decisions on qualifications nothing more.
the Prop 8 donor list has already been used as a blacklist to ruin other lives and careers. Vote the wrong way, and the brownshirts come for you, simple as that.
The only difference between the pair is the removal of Mr. Eich was done without threats of violence, but rest assured those days are not far away.
Count on it
Final thought: If I was a young ambitious lawyer looking for a big payday and publicity I’d find a few Christians in companies like this willing to sue for the creation of a “hostile work environment”. You will be amazed at how fast the worm will turn once companies realize they are susceptive to such suits from a pool of people who represents 77% of the population of the country.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
Sir Humphrey Appleby:East Yemen, isn’t that a democracy?
Sir Richard Wharton:Its full name is the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby:Ah I see, so it’s a communist dictatorship.
Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986
The freedom of the press does not discriminate amongst groups or individuals—it applies to all Americans.
Senators Cruz, Lee, Cornyn & Sessions on S 987
As we watch the spectacle of the mainstream media decide which internal investigations are believable (White House investigations on Benghazi & the IRS scandal) and which are not (Chris Christie Bridge Scandal) the Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing a bill “The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013” (S.987) that supposedly enhances freedom of the press by providing journalists with a legal shield in order to keep them from being forced to testify concerning sources.
While the actions of this administration might suggest a need of such a law, there is a huge catch in this bill that’s getting little play. In order to determine who gets this shield privilege the bill devotes seven pages to define who a “journalist” and who is not.
In other words, this bill codifies the government’s the power to decide who is alegitimate journalist and who is not, in effect licensing journalists.
With such a law, easily amended in place, an administration could dictate coverage, advancing rewards and confirming punishment on the favored few, it could advance the stories it wants while pushing others less favorable to the back of the bus. The implications of such power in staggering.
Picture for example if a Bill Clinton justice department could have eliminated the journalistic license of a Matt Drudge when he broke the Monica Lewinsky story that Newsweek refused to, or threatening the license of any journalist who covered it?
Picture a Richard Nixon justice department doing the same with a Woodward or a Bernstein on national security or other grounds and being able to threaten the Washington Post if they continued to employ them.
If the media is already ignoring or downplaying legitimate stores without an official government imprimatur, how much worse will it be when the government has the power to decide what press is legitimate and confer rights and privileges accordingly?
In an environment where opponents of the administration have been persecuted , laws have been altered by fiat or selectively enforced, do you really trust the government to decide what journalism is legit and what is not?
And if you are a person of the left do you trust your political opponents to use such power with restraint? Are you really willing to take that chance?
A bill like S987 should never be law in a land of free people. The use of such acts as “The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013” or as I call it “The Putin Press Bill” should be left to the likes of a Vladimir Putin, Assad or Kim Jong-Un in whose odious hands such laws belong.
Dire Straits isn’t just a music groups it’s when it’s a Saturday and you need $817 to pay the mortgage and have only 3 days to get it.
That’s better than $250 a day when we haven’t met a weekly goal all month, but as Yogi Berra says, it ain’t over till it’s over.
Keep it from being over, hit DaTipJar below.
If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year and things will be a lot more like Alito and Kagan around here than Kennedy & Roberts reliable..
That’s the thing about CPAC you simply can’t be everywhere you want to be.
It’s Monday and with 8 days left to the month I am still over $850 shy of the Mortgage that’s due in a week.
That’s why you don’t see the weekly goal this morning, because if I make that goal I’ll still be nearly $700 shy to pay the bills this month.
We had a good start yesterday but I still need a minimum of four $25 tip jar hitters every day for the next nine days simply to come up a mere $100 short.
It is still possible to make our goal but only you help. If there was ever a time for you to kick in if you were thinking of it, it’s now.
So I’m asking you to hit DaTipJar below if you possibly can.
With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.
Q: When do you know that everyone’s favorite Convicted Speedway bomber has finally crossed a line even the left can’t abide?
Stacy tells the story of the ACLU and former Kimberlin Lawyer Paul Alan Ley defending Ace is here and here A peek:
I doubt Kimberlin v. Ace of Spades will ever become a landmark Supreme Court ruling, something your grandchildren will read about in history books, but crazier things have happened, so you never know.
But here is the story from the horses’ mouth key bits:
Kimberlin was in prison for some horrifying crimes – the planting of several bombs in Speedway, Indiana – and we had no idea whether Kimberlin was telling the truth about Quayle. But the Justice Department was not punishing him on the theory that his speech was deliberately false and defamatory (in which case it would have been unprotected by the First Amendment; but how would the Justice Department have known whether Quayle was or was not a drug customer anyway?), and even thugs have the right to criticize public officials. So we pursued documents about his confinement under the Freedom of Information Act, hoping to set up a Bivens action against the responsible federal officials. (The action under Bivens and other authorities was brought by pro bono attorneys from Arnold & Porter and was ultimately settled after several denials of summary judgment and trips to the DC Circuit and even the Supreme Court).
Right away Mr. Levy points to Kimberlin as a person who was jailed for horrible crimes. That being the case it would seem to me that referring to said crimes and or distrusting said person based on those crimes would be not only normal but prudent.
As I usually do in these situations, I began by trying to persuade Kimberlin to drop his discovery request because the blog post in question is not defamatory. Kimberlin responded by detailing a number of different statements that Ace of Spades had made which, Kimberlin threatened, would be made the subject of an amended complaint. And when Kimberlin learned that I had not been dissuaded, he sent Ace of Spades an email threatening that, unless Ace immediately accepted Kimberlin’s unspecified terms, Kimberlin would unmask her and she might suffer the same fate as other bloggers whom Kimberlin had managed to identify (Kimberlin mentioned one blogger who had lost his job and suffered two years of unemployment).
I’m a big believer in trying to head off trouble politely Mr. Levy is to be commended as a person who both has contact with Mr. Kimberlin and his trust due to his earlier association in attempting to dissuade him from these actions. That Kimberlin rejected this wise advice and instead began threatening Ace in my opinion says that Stacy McCain , William Hoge, Aaron Walker & Patterico have him pegged exactly right from day one.
As for Mr. Levy he then talks about what he has argued that Ace of Spades….
…has real reason to fear retaliation if she is identified. This could involve either the economic consequences that Kimberlin threatened explicitly, or even physical consequences in light of the SWATting phenomenon visited by unknown persons on several bloggers involved in controversies with Kimberlin, not to speak of Kimberlin’s own violent past.
and if that last paragraph didn’t clinch that Kimberlin et/al are dangerous this one from the complaint should do it:
First, there is a serious danger of retaliation against Ace of Spades. Ace is concerned by Kimberlin’s past reputation for violent acts — resulting not only from Kimberlin’s convictions for the terroristic bombing campaign in Speedway, but also past reports about Kimberlin’s effort to procure the murder of the prosecutor of the bombing cases, and the police investigation into whether Kimberlin was involved in the gang-style slaying of Julia Scyphers and then planted the bombs to cover up that crime, reported in the Indianapolis Star. Gelarden, supra. Moreover, even assuming that Kimberlin was not himself involved in the SWATting of his critics (and as long ago as 2012, Ace of Spades specifically urged her readers not to assume that Kimberlin was the SWATter, because she does not believe that he was), the factremains that several of Kimberlin’s critics have been SWATted. Complaint ¶¶ 58-62. Given Kimberlin’s public identification of other critics as soon as his subpoenas revealed their identities, Ace of Spades has every reason to fear violence at the hands of Kimberlin’s admirers if Kimberlin obtains his identifying information.
To those who think this is all overplayed or not a big deal re-read that last sentence.
I have a lot of respect for all those who have taken on Kimberlin & co head-on, they are doing it not just for themselves but for those who follow who would be intimidated and silenced.
It’s Wednesday and the quest for the #350 to pay the pay Da Magnificent Seven and the less than magnificent mortgage continues.
You might ask why you should support some overweight guy in a fedora & a scarf writing a parody piece about the media ignoring Jihadists. I submit and suggest it’s BECAUSE I’m writing these pieces that the MSM does not that you should kick in.
10 $25 tip jar hits will do it for this week.
If you would to help Just click on DaTipJar below
Now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way
Please consider being a subscriber. Only 57 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis AND if you so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right
Please specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plus the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!
Why the Massachusetts abortion buffer law is an abomination against free speech in under 200 seconds?
Of course if you want the argument in detail you can read SCOTUS BLOG
In this case, the anti-abortion protesters say that the law works to interfere with their freedom of speech at abortion clinics in Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, Massachusetts. They argue again that the law permits viewpoint discrimination by favoring pro-abortion speakers over opponents, that the law singles out abortion clinics for speech restrictions that do not apply at other health-care facilities, and that at those three clinics there are not adequate alternative means to getting their message across to clinic patients.
Can someone explain why Problem Pregnancy, a place that actually facilitates human reproduction doesn’t have a buffer zone as a “reproductive health facility” but Planned Parenthood which ends human reproduction does not?
Thanksgiving is a season of both reflection and gratitude.
Each year during the fourth Thursday of the month of November, our nation pauses from its interminable business, social, and societal activity to enjoy a time of feasting and festivity.
Why do we set aside a special time to give thanks? Why is this tradition still important for those of us who live in the digital age that is the 21st century? There are many reasons to enjoy a special season of thanks, but perhaps if we take a look at the historical roots of our country we can see why a time of “thanksgiving” is vitally important for the renewal of our nation.
What many of us in America do not appreciate is that in the late 1500s and early 1600s, Religious Freedom was not an absolute right. In much of Europe, whatever the religion or faith of the King or Sovereign might be – his faith or lack thereof had a direct bearing on the religion of the people that he ruled. If the king was Catholic (Spain), then Catholicism was the official religion of Spain. If the king were Protestant (England), then the people of that realm became Protestants.
The Puritans were people who were directly affected by a worldwide movement known as the “Protestant Reformation.” The Protestant Reformation took place from roughly 1517 to 1646 (the Protestant Reformation inspired reforms in the Catholic Church that led to what is known as the Catholic Counter-Revolution that resulted in “The Council of Trent”).
Your ability to worship in Europe of the 1500s and 1600s without external disturbance was a tenuous right at best. One of the fortunate by-products of “The Protestant Reformation” is that it decentralized the ability of European rulers to control the religious affections of their subjects. The people of Europe began to slowly, but surely, as time went on experience a burgeoning growth in the area of religious liberty.
It is in a proper understanding of the growth of religious liberty that makes the Puritans so important to our nation’s founding.
The men and women who left Europe in 1619 and who signed The Mayflower Compact in 1620, came to America and left behind their worldly possessions; they sacrificed everything that they had or known in order to come to a place where they could worship GOD as their consciences dictated and as they believed the Holy Bible instructed them.
The original Puritans bequeathed a tremendous legacy of faith, life, freedom, and educational pursuits for their future descendants. A short list of some of their amazing accomplishments is would include things such as:
They founding and formation of what has become known as the Ivy League series of schools: Harvard (1636); Yale (1701); Brown; Dartmouth; Princeton; and the University of Pennsylvania.
Nearly 40 years before John Locke wrote his masterpiece “Two Treatise on Government,” the descendants of the Puritans had introduced a form of self-government or a representative assembly into the new world known as “The House of Burgess.”
The original Puritans introduced the concept of the “Protestant Work Ethic” into the new world that led to unprecedented level of material prosperity and upward mobility for all who would later come to America’s shores; and finally,
The Puritans in their devout Christian faith laid the foundation for a nuanced understanding of the natural law concept that later led to these immortal words in The Declaration of Independence “…that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”…
So, as we consume much food and drink and enjoy the presence of our friends and loved ones during the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend, let us remember that the American experiment rests upon the foundation of two distinct pillars of “Faith and Freedom.”
Let us rejoice in the tremendous legacy that the Puritans have left us and let us commit ourselves anew to transmitting the pillars of “Faith and Freedom” to our posterity.
Black Friday continues and we are only $179 away from the final goal for the month.
9 tip jar hitters at $20 or 7 at $25 and our first month with the Magnificent Seven is paid in full.
Help make this first month a successful one please hit DaTipJar below.