Thanks to our colleges, high schools, Hollywood, and the news media; very few Americans truly understand the concept of freedom of speech in its entirety.   I see, on such a regular basis, so many misconceptions about one of our most important God-given Natural rights.  When it comes to freedom of speech, the behavior of a certain segment of the political spectrum has become most appalling.  Silencing those with differing political and religious beliefs has become a natural reaction to a great many on the political left.  If you don’t agree with that statement, please explain to me recent events such as: tens of thousands showing up in Boston to silence a small group standing up for free speech, riots at Berkeley because one individual was scheduled to speak, Antifa beating people who dare to share opinions they don’t agree with, safe spaces on college campuses,  and so much more.

Freedom of speech is not granted to us by the First Amendment.  Each one of us is granted that right, along with all of our rights, directly by God.   The First Amendment preserves that right by preventing the federal government from interfering with that right in any way.  State Constitutions contain a Bill of Rights which protects free speech, along with other Natural Rights, of those living in that state against violations by the state and local governments.  If the First Amendment granted us the right of freedom of speech then deleting or changing that amendment would take it away.   The federal government, mostly through the efforts of an out of control Supreme Court, has distorted the meaning of the First Amendment so much that it is now used as a weapon to silence individuals and groups.   That violates the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is far more important than people’s feelings.  There is no right to live your life free from being offended.  Everyone has a right to be offended by whatever offends them however no one has a right to silence anyone for any reason.  Not listening or saying something back is the only valid responses.  Political correctness is fundamentally wrong because its adherents seek to silence anyone and anything that offends them.  Political correctness is nothing but censorship by mob rule.  This does not violate the First Amendment because that amendment only restricts the federal government.  PC censorship does violate the God-given Natural Right of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.  This includes the vilest, most hate filled individuals and groups.  This view was shared by those that wrote and ratified the First Amendment.  Even though I completely detest the Ku Klux Klan, along with everything they stand for, I fully support their right to spew their hate filled garbage.

Freedom of speech protects hate speech.  Far too often hate speech is nothing more than speech that offends someone.  It is all too common today for members of the political left to label speech, ideas, and philosophies of those on the political right as hate speech and attempt to ban those ideas.  This behavior is rampant on American colleges and universities.  Even truly hateful speech is protected.  As stated before, even the garbage spewed by the Ku Klux Klan is protected by freedom of speech.

No one has a right to use their speech to silence anyone.  Mobs or individuals shouting down or drowning out other speakers is not an exercise in free speech. It is a violation of the free speech of the original group or individuals that are trying to speak. It is also a violation of the right of an audience to listen to what they want to hear. Everyone has a right to speak and be heard no matter how vile and disgusting they are. Everyone has a right to listen to whatever they want to listen to. With the mob approach, free speech is only reserved for the largest and angriest mobs. This approach will only lead to violence, which has happened all too often recently.  The events in Boston last month were a disgusting display of misguided individuals silencing others.  The media falsely labeled the original rally as hate speech by white supremacists and tens of thousands showed up to silence them, drown them out, or force the cancelation of the event.   Even if the rally was organized by white supremacists, no one had a right to silence them in any way.  Silently protesting them; while carrying signs, or peacefully and respectfully trying to engage in debate, would have been proper techniques to protest such an event.

Freedom of speech is a two way street.  Everyone has a right to criticize speech and behavior they do not agree with.  Criticism is in no way a violation of the original speaker’s right of free speech.  I am regularly critical of speech I do not like along with individuals and groups who engage in speech and behavior I don’t like.  Often I use harsh or angry language when I criticize what I don’t like.  Everyone is free to do the same.  I never call for anyone to be silenced no matter how vehemently I disagree with what they have to say.

Speech is never violence.  This claim has repeatedly been made by the group Antifa who use this claim as an excuse to use violence against those they disagree with.  Because of this behavior Antifa is nothing more than a mob of angry thugs.

Violence is never the answer to anything.  That includes speech that you do not agree with or that offends you.

Censorship is always wrong.  Facebook and Twitter regularly censor conservative and other right leaning posts, advertising, articles, and memes.  The First Amendment and state Bills of Rights do not prevent this behavior because they are private companies.  This censorship does violate the God-given Natural right of freedom of speech therefore it is wrong.  Individuals have every right to not use those social media outlets and implore others not to use them.   I regularly use those social media outlets to rail against their vile censorship.  I will share this article on both sites.

Forcing others to be patriotically correct or morally correct is just as wrong as forcing others to be politically correct.  We on the right also engage in our own censorship, although it is not as out of control as that of the political left.  There is nothing wrong with encouraging others to speak and behave as you wish.  It is absolutely wrong to force others to comply and to silence them if they do not.

If you agree with this article, can you please share it on Facebook and Twitter?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence 1776

I really dislike having to write this post but we’ve reached a point where our culture and society have decayed for far that unfortunately this is necessary.

The Following things / groups are Bad

Neo Nazis/Nazism:  Nazism (National Socialism) is bad because its philosophy restricts freedom, oppresses people, considered them subservient to the state,  and justifies violence and murder against those who disagree with it.  Nazis themselves are bad because they espoused and carried out said violence, murder and oppression.    Modern Neo-Nazis despite their insignificant numbers in American, are in one respect even worse than actual Nazis because they still espouse the Nazi philosophy even after it had been demonstrated that said philosophy when tried leads to mass murder, massive oppression and one of the most destructive wars in the history of the world.

Communism/Communists:  Communists (another branch of socialism) is bad because it advocate a philosophy that restricts freedom of the individual, considers them subservient to the state and justifies oppression and murder against foes (and even friends) by defining them as “counter revolution enemies of the state”.  The worst thing about modern western Communists and their defenders, particularly in academia and media of which there are surprisingly many,  is they continue to support and defend this philosophy even though its implementation as demonstrated in country after country, has led to the mass murder of people in numbers that make the Nazi’s look like a bunch of pikers and that’s not even considering those imprisoned for political reasons and oppressed in other ways.

Klu Klux Klan/White Supremacists:  the KKK is bad because it advances a philosophy that elevates people based on race over others based on race rather than actions or merit.  They furthermore co-ops Christian symbolism which specifically states the equality of all people before God for the advancement of this goal.  Furthermore the KKK is bad because they have a recorded history of targeted terrorism and violence and dispensing extrajudicial “justice” and murder to enforce this philosophy.  While the modern Neo-Nazis modern Klansmen/white supremacists are a relatively insignificant number of people, they are also guilty of embracing a philosophy that has already been demonstrated as being evil and immoral and contrary to rights and freedom.

ANTIFA:  ANTIFA is bad because while they claim to be anti-fascists they are in fact violent fascists who advocate and practice violence, intimidation and vandalism to restrict the rights of people to peaceably assemble and exercise their rights as individuals and they also make common cause with Communists above when their targets dovetail.  Furthermore they do this even if said people or groups have followed all the legal requirements to peacefully assemble and target the police when they are used to.  Finally they calumny any voter or group that supports the current administration lumping them in with Nazis and White supremacists to justify violence against them as moral and just.  The fact that neither the media or the professional left chooses condemn them either due to fear or the fact that they target voters that they dislike doesn’t make them any less bad.

Political Violence:  Political violence is bad because it is used to restrict the speech and actions of individuals and groups for the sake of intimidation and control.  Said violence, even if directed against groups that are bad or committed by groups one has common cause with is unacceptable because it eliminates the free exchange of ideas and causes people to self censor out of fear of said violence.   Nor does the directing of such violence toward property rather than individuals make it any less acceptable or justifiable.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  A condemnation of political violence is not the same as precluding self-defense when targeted by said violence.

The following thing is good

The First Amendment:  The first amendment is good because it guarantees people the right to freely speak, assemble, worship in the way they see fit and to freely report and comment on events.  It provides the maximum amount of freedom to not only live and think the way they see fit but to freely comment and discuss events and opinions concerning not only philosophy but the actions of local state and federal government in the public square.  While it allows the freedom to advance fringe philosophies even if they are bad (see above) it freely allows such speech to be countered by more speech both publicly.  It is one of the cornerstones of the freest society in history and the envy of people around the world.

So the basic rundown

Nazis BAD!
Communists BAD!
KKK/White Supremacists BAD!
ANTIFA BAD!
Political Violence BAD!
Free Speech and First Amendment Rights GOOD!

For any American this list should be a no brainer and it can be summed up in a single image.

Now in fairness as an american you, of course, have the right to disagree with this list and critique it. In accordance with my own rights I submit and suggest if you are unable to agree with this entire list without hesitation, you should be excluded from any list of decent Americans.

Or put simply, if you can’t call Nazis,Communists, the KKK and ANTIFA out the problem isn’t America or anyone else, it’s you.

Update:  part of last sentence was missing in version that went up, fixed


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a full paycheck for the week I have to take off (I’ve just been called back to my job starting today) while Stacy McCain is here ($460) please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



We’ve talked about how the events on the Boston Common justified some folks on the left and a few days later we named the Honorable Mentions in the Contest of being the big winner from events on the Boston Common.

Now the time has come to name the biggest single winner from the events of last weekend: Donald J. Trump.

To some of you this might seem counter intuitive. Since Charlottsville the entire MSM has fully embraced their new “Donald Trump/Nazi/KKK” meme to the point where you have to make real effort to find the word “Russia” in any kind of coverage anymore.

Furthermore in Boston for a week we’ve heard about a Nazi/Klan rally about to happen in Boston and once the event took place the media fully embraced the tale of tens of thousands of ordinary citizens assembling without violence united to counter the Nazis and their hero Donald J Trump.

Unfortunately for the MSM there were two problems with their uncritical assessment of the events of Boston. First of all the conspicuous lack of Nazis to protest.

IF ONE LINE captured the essence of Saturday’s Boston Common rally and counter-protest, it was a quote halfway through Mark Arsenault’s Page 1 story in the Boston Globe:

“‘Excuse me,’ one man in the counter-protest innocently asked a Globe reporter. ‘Where are the white supremacists?'”

That was the day in a nutshell. Participants in the “Boston Free Speech Rally” had been demonized as a troupe of neo-Nazis prepared to reprise the horror that had erupted in Charlottesville. They turned out to be a couple dozen courteous people linked by little more than a commitment to — surprise! — free speech.

And then there were the actions of some of the protesters particularly the ANTIFA folks which while downplayed by the national and local media were highlighted by Boston Police Tweets like this

and this:

and covered like my own and others showing ANTIFA thugs being, well Antifa thugs

And a few days later in Arizona, they were going after police again:

A group of anti-Trump demonstrators used gas canisters, rocks and bottles to assault police Tuesday night and create havoc at what officials said was mostly a peaceful protest in Phoenix.

Video captured by a local reporter also shows a smoking object being thrown at police while hundreds of officers attempted to keep order at a rally after President Trump’s speech at the Phoenix Convention Center had ended.

Targeting police might be popular with the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat party, but swing voters who don’t like their car windows smashed or their small business vandalized might not be all that anxious to vote for a party whose foot soldiers are masked and whose violence the media is defending them and calling em peace activists.

And even if you accept that the violence was from a comparatively small part of the crowd in Boston, the chants calling the USA racist and fascists were not.

Yeah that will get you those votes you need to flip back swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Iowa.

And while you aren’t seeing the MSM play any of those chants trust me, videos like that one are being shared all over facebook and the fact that they can be seen on facebook and not on ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC or CNN will simply confirm the President’s charge that the MSM have been conveyors of fake news all along.

The events of Boston and Phoenix might make folks in blue states and a media obsessed with statues and millionaire footballs players without seven figure paychecks feel good about themselves

But the reality is those events are walking talking Trump 2020 ads that are going to coin votes for him in every swing state that the left has to win back if they are going to beat him next time around.

Now of course it’s possible that Donald Trump might decide that as much fun as it is to bait the left and the Establishment GOP he’d much rather go back to his old life.

But if he decides to run for re-election, in my opinion, the events of Boston and Phoenix have already done the job.

Useful idiots indeed.


if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a full paycheck for next week ($270 to go) please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – If you have not yet done so, please read DaTechGuy’s post on the Saturday protests in Boston.

I’m a college educated, professional woman and I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around all of this.  The irony is too great.

I’m trying to allow for the fact that I may have bias (my ancestors fought for the Confederacy), and certainly I don’t expect everyone to agree with my point of view.  Over a decade in blogging will teach you that right quick.  I support and even applaud your right to have a differing opinion and certainly support the right for everyone to be able to peacefully protest and express their opinion.

For me, from my perspective, I can’t help but tie these protests to New Orleans and the fact that Mitch Landrieu opened the door by moving the monuments there.

In Charlotte last week:

The group had gathered to protest plans to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, and others arrived to protest the racism.

And we know what happened: the protest turned violent and a man ran into the crowd with his car, killing one woman and injuring others.

This could have easily happened in New Orleans as well; protests there during the removal of the Jefferson Davis monument were terribly intense and many protesters on both sides had visible weapons.  What happened in Charlotte could happen anywhere.

What’s this all about, though?

Is it about statues?

Is it about Trump?  What does Trump have to do with monuments that have stood for over a hundred years?

Why do we all hate each other all of a sudden?  Can’t we differ without hating each other?

I’m not a tree-hugging liberal singing Kumbaya by any means. I’m a Reagan conservative and I support leaving these monuments where they stand because they are part of our history.  You can’t change history.

Here in Shreveport, Louisiana, our city has been embroiled in the Confederate monument controversy as well, although thankfully without these ugly protests.  A committee of local historians and officials was formed and they voted to keep the Confederate monument in its place on the courthouse grounds; they’ve also voted to erect flaking monuments to Civil Rights and Reconstruction and to erect signage with a lengthy denouncement of the monument, including this language:

“This monument, erected in 1905 is in memory of those who defended the cause of 1861 to 1865 and the cause itself. That cause was the attempt, beginning in December 1860, in South Carolina, by Louisiana and twelve other states unilaterally to withdraw from the United States of America and establish the Confederate States of America in order to preserve the institution of slavery of Africans and their descendants. …

…It was erected after the Civil War ended, after slavery and involuntary servitude had been ended by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”), after the abridgment of the right to vote “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude” had been prohibited by the 15th Amendment, and after the attempt at establishing state and local governments inclusive of former slaves and their descendants known as Reconstruction had failed due to their being disenfranchised by poll taxes and literacy tests, and by terror and threats of terror, including lynching, by whites. Thus, although they constituted 47 percent of Louisiana’s population in 1900, former slaves and their descendants had no say in whether or not or where the monument would be erected.”

Well.

There are some factual errors in that language and clearly some editorializing and bias, but the opposing side has the right (should the Caddo Commission approve this) to pay $10 a letter to put up this sign.

But why all this sudden fuss about monuments and statues?  Where does it end?

And why are we all of a sudden all fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists if we voted for Trump or if we support monuments?  THAT offends ME.

As DaTechGuy said in his post:

I was completely beside myself over this first of all Donald Trump won the majority of voters in 29 states. If a man can’t safely walk through Boston Common with that banner [“Make America Great Again”] no matter who is there that’s an incredible escalation as it is the dubbing of any person supporting Trump a fascist or a Nazi.

That’s just sad and frankly, wrong.

These protests happened all over the country during the weekend.  One in Dallas, “against white supremacy,” required police to chase protestors out of a Civil War cemetery which holds a Confederate monument:

Dallas police are using horses to try to break up a scuffle at a cemetery between people rallying against white supremacy and supporters of Confederate monuments.

Officers riding on horseback had waited as the confrontation became more intense, but they moved in to break it up around 9 p.m. It happened at Pioneer Park, a Civil War cemetery that houses the memorial to Confederate soldiers.

But wait – I thought the protesters wanted monuments out of courthouse squares and into museums or cemeteries!

The rules have changed?  Just that fast?

Where will it end?

Are we heading to another civil war?

It’s all too crazy for me.  As long as it was peaceful protests and working things out through legal channels, we can have that discussion. But when ANTIFA starts roping monuments, toppling them, burning them, without judgment or prosecution, things have gone off the rails.  Everyone does not get a trophy, you do not always get your way, and sometimes compromise is necessary.

We need a return to common sense and civility or our nation is finished.  We have to work out our differences peacefully. There is no other way.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

I’m rambling a bit here, but all these disjointed thoughts about some life issues seem to be drifting together.

There’s nothing new under the sun, says the book of Ecclesiastes. What’s strange to me is old news to someone in a different place or situation.

I’m thinking in particular of two women from Canada whom I recently met, and of the parents of Charlie Gard, whose story you may already know (see Pete’s reflection on Charlie’s death).

Charlie Gard is at rest now, and his parents in their grief are at least spared further attention from the European Commission on Human Rights, which denied them custody of their critically-ill son. When they started seeking treatment for their baby – AND raising money for it, so the National Health Service in their country (Britain) couldn’t plead lack of resources – I’m sure they were shocked to find out that a hospital could deny them custody. The “experts” knew better. The “experts” were going to ration care, since the parents wouldn’t ration it themselves.

It can’t happen here, I thought. We don’t have a single-payer system for health care (at least not yet). I ventured to say as much to a few people. Two of them gave me a where-have-you-been look and reminded me about Justina Pelletier. Shame on me for needing to be reminded.

Nothing new.

The Canadian women I mentioned were attending a pro-life conference with me, and we chatted over coffee as we waited for the day’s work to begin. They told me about their province where a “bubble zone” law is in effect and where doctors who don’t do abortions are obliged to refer abortion-minded patients to more accommodating providers.

I was surprised at what they said, until I reflected that my own state has a buffer zone law, although no abortion provider will use it for fear of litigation which will result in the law being thrown out. (Our law is modeled on the one the Supreme Court threw out in the McCullen case from Massachusetts.) Likewise, conscience protections for health care providers have been defeated again and again in my state legislature, although so far no statute requires abortion referrals.

Nothing new. The details are different between my state and their province, but the issues are the same.

My Canadian companions weren’t complaining, though. They spoke in matter-of-fact tones, without hand-wringing. They go out to witness near abortion facilities anyway. They support physicians and other providers whose conscience rights are at risk. They refuse to shrug and go home, thinking “game over.”

What a witness they were to me, in their quiet way.

For that matter, there was no “game over” for women at that pro-life conference who spoke about “adverse prenatal diagnosis.” Those moms we listened to were all told during pregnancy that they had defective babies. The language varied, but the message was the same. All were told they could abort. All said no (and I’m sure a few said “hell, no”).

The outcomes: some of the children died in infancy – but they died in the arms of their parents, not in the custody of the state. Other children were born and, lo and behold, had none of the maladies that had been diagnosed or predicted prenatally by the “experts.” Still others were born with complex conditions that proved manageable and treatable.

Among the lessons: doctors don’t know everything. Nothing new there.

That brings me back to the family of Charlie Gard. I’m sure that neither of his parents woke up one day and said, “Gee, I think I’ll be pro-life today!” They weren’t pursuing a cause. They were defending their son. They weren’t denying the reality of their son’s condition, but they defended their own right to be parents and Charlie’s rights as well, first to receive treatment and then to die in their loving arms.

One unexpected situation at a time, one appalling governmental policy at a time, all the people I’m thinking about refused to say game over. The family of Charlie Gard, the Canadian women who refused to be discouraged, the mothers who were told their kids were hopelessly imperfect: I have things to learn from each of them.

And that’s nothing new.

Rock: You are the survivors. The others have run off. It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted.

Star Trek: The Savage Curtain 1969

On April 19th in response to the Battle of Berkeley I asked this question:

So it’s time for administrators to decide, are they going to continue to sit back watch while the left gets beaten the same way the right was, or are they, now that their ox is being gored, finally going to decide the free speech and assembly are things that are going to be enforced in their cities and on their campuses?

Yesterday in Berkeley we got the answer. Both the left and the right showed up (without Ann Coulter) as did people ready to record the actions of the authorities and suddenly the rule of law was prevailed.

Police showed up in force

Empty leftist threats were laughed off

The laws concerning wearing a mask were being enforced:

The reading of Ann Coulter’s speech by Gavin McInnes didn’t result in a riot

And Lauren Southern spoke without harm to herself and others

In other words all went as it should, people spoke, other people who didn’t like the speech either didn’t show up or protested or went to their empathy tents and everyone went home without any bloodshed because the police enforced the law.

The question is why? What was the difference, why were the police enforcing the law instead of hanging back? Why did Antifa choose “Narp” instead of “Yarp“?  Simple

The people in danger of being beaten were not the conservatives who were speaking but the ANTIFA thugs who wanted to stop them.

Once it became clear that it was the hired thugs of the left and not the conservatives that they loathed in danger suddenly Berkeley decided that the rule of law was worth enforcing to make sure nobody got hurt.  It was Lexington Green all over again, only this time the Redcoats declined to start a war.

And the fact that the right is learning this lesson is making all the right people angry:

Strange, is it now, how the SPLC never seems to take notice of antifa or any other violent left-wing group no matter how many people they assault. But when people merely begin to plan to start defending themselves against the violent left that is attacking them, well, it’s THE SHOAH ALL OVAH AGAIN, again.

So let me congratulate the left, which has taught the right that showing up ready to fight is the best way to stay safe and and to show up and be aware that from this point on when the right sees something like this:

The Seattle City Council passed a unanimous resolution this week which declares May 1 a “day of action” on which city employees are encouraged to attend planned anti-Trump protests instead of going to work.

The resolution—drafted by Councilmember Kshama Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party—instructs supervisors of city government departments to remind their workers that they are entitled to take two days of unpaid leave for “days of faith and conscience,” and that attending Monday’s protests is a legitimate use of this leave.

and this:

“If we truly want to build a summer of resistance against Trump and the billionaire class,” Sawant said in a Tuesday interview on King5, an NBC affiliate, “then we will need disruptive action like shutting down airports, and shutting down highways.”

Other Seattle government officials, while eager to sign on to this “day of action,” are less keen about Sawant’s call for “disruptive action.” Mayor Ed Murray provided some rather impotent pushback saying, “We need to keep our freeways and our on and off ramps…the state, of course, needs to keep our on and off ramps open.”

Directed against them, rest assured they will not only be ready to answer speech with speech, but show up with enough muscle to make sure they can safely make said speech.

May you enjoy the incentive system you have created.


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

For the next three days I’m going to be flat out.  Fr. Stephen Imbarrato of Priests for life who you’ve seen hosting EWTN’s series Defending life, will be doing several events in several cities for WQPH 89.3 and I’ll be covering him and those who attend the various, events, masses and dinners over Divine Mercy Sunday.  You can get tickets for the various dinners and lunches here and the events are open to the public so I hope to see you in Boston, Malden, Medford and Fitchburg particularly at the Eucharistic Procession on Saturday in Fitchburg.

If you are only interested in mass there will be four two of which he will be the celebrant.

Sat 8 AM  St. Joseph’s Church Medford  Fr. Imbarrato celebrant

Sat Noon St. Bernards Church at St. Camillus Parish Fitchburg

Sat 5 PM Madonna of the Holy Rosary 118 Theresa st. Fitchburg 

Sunday 4:30 PM  Madonna Queen of the Universe Shrine Boston Fr. Imbarrato celebrant

(the Final Mass will be preceded at 2:30 by confession and a Holy Hour)

Full details are here.


Speaking of life the most pro-life president of my lifetime has once again taken concrete action defending it.

America’s largest provider of terminations, Planned Parenthood, described the new measure, which has delighted pro-life conservatives, as “designed to undermine women’s health”.

The new law nullifies a rule finalised in the last days of the Barack Obama administration that effectively barred state and local governments from withholding federal funding for family planning services, regardless of whether groups offering these services also performed abortions.

The new measure cleared Congress last month with Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

The Yahoo article describing this drips with contempt but this was also a win for States as Hotair noted:

When the vote was cast, Senator Joni Ernst praised the bill. “It should be the right of our states to allocate sub-grants under the Title X program in the way that best fits the needs of the people living there,” Ernst said according to a report in the NY Times. She added, “Unfortunately, like many other rules issued during the Obama administration, this rule attempted to empower federal bureaucrats in Washington and silence our states.”

I think it’s really something that the items this president has managed to advance have been pro-life.  I’m ecstatic.


Also at Hotair it seems like the most prolife president in my lifetime will be meeting with Pope Francis after all:

Just to John Gizzi’s point, I just want to make sure I note that we will be reaching out to the Vatican to see if a meeting, an audience with the Pope can be accommodated.  We’ll have further details on that.  Obviously, we’d be honored to have an audience with His Holiness.

Gronk scores? (Well, we’re used to that.) What’s odd about this is that several questions had come between Gizzi’s exchange and this later answer. The question on the table when Gronkowski interrupted was about NAFTA. No one had followed up on Gizzi’s question, but Spicer returned to it anyway. Hmmm.

At least as late as last night, the Vatican still hadn’t heard from the White House, either. America Magazine’s Gerard O’Connell reports that the Holy See’s diplomatic office is happy to arrange the meeting if they get the request:

While Francis has been a mixed bag great on confession and the danger of the devil and weak on Dogma (we still haven’t seen an answer to the four Cardinals dubia on the Amoris Laetitia footnote concerning marriage and communion)  on the issue of abortion he has been very clear in both speeches and encyclicals condemning it, although if you listen to democrats and the media it’s as if he never has.

Meanwhile Trump has so far been falling on the Paul of Tarsus vs the Simon the Magician side of the conversion scale.

They should have a lot to talk about.


Speaking of life guess what’s alive again? An Obamacare repeal compromise:

You can understand why the compromise might appeal to both the conservative and moderate wings inside the GOP. For the Freedom Caucus, it means red states will be able to shed onerous federal regs and offer a greater variety of health-care plans, replete with lower premiums for consumers. For the Tuesday Group, the fact that waivers are available but not mandatory means that blue states will be able to keep the more robust ObamaCare rules intact if they like. In that sense, the plan bears a slight resemblance to Bill Cassidy’s and Susan Collins’s proposal, which would have repealed ObamaCare and then let each state choose whether to “reimplement” it or to build their own tailor-made system. The new GOP deal doesn’t go that far but it’s a step in that direction vis-a-vis EHBs and community rating. If you believe a Freedom Caucus source who spoke to CNBC, there are 25 to 30 FC members ready to flip to yes to vote for this deal — a bit surprising given libertarian suspicions that waivers will be harder for states to obtain than everyone thinks.

And of course if it defends Planned Parenthood as well that’s going to be a biggie too.

There is a lot of talk about the first 100 days but I think that’s arbitrary, I’d just worry about getting it done period because it it gets done then we can always do more later.


You know what might also be alive again?  Ann Coulter’s speech not just At Berkeley but invited BY Berkeley which claims they have…

identified an appropriate, protectable venue that is available on the afternoon of May 2. While it is not one we have used for these sorts of events in the past, it can both accommodate a substantial audience and meet the security criteria established by our police department. Earlier today, we informed both the Berkeley College Republicans and the Coulter organization of this development, and we look forward to working with them. We will disclose the exact location of the venue once we have finalized details with both organizations.

Hotair explains the volte face:

She was going to show up anyway and create a security clusterfark for them when the usual suspects inevitably started smashing windows. That was the nuclear option. Berkeley doesn’t care about bad press from the right; the fascist left wears that as a badge of honor. They don’t care about First Amendment lawsuits either. But if the town is going to burn on the 27th and they’re going to get sued by the victims for not having done more to provide security, then sure, they’ll spring into action and find a “protectable venue.” If this standoff is destined to happen, better from the school’s perspective that it happen in an environment they can sort of control than one they can’t. Coulter forced them to choose. Any other conservative speaker with the guts and the dough to provide their own security, just in case, can probably get other public universities to back down with the same threat.

Coulter has told them they can go pound sand she’s coming the 27th anyway:

Hours later, Coulter shot down the invitation in a series of tweets and said she will speak at Berkeley on Thursday as planned not only because she “can’t do May 2,” but “THERE ARE NO CLASSES AT BERKELEY THE WEEK OF MAY 2!!!”

That week is “Dead Week,” a time when classes are suspended so students can study for exams.

“It’s at an awful time,” said Naweed Tahmas, 20, of the Berkeley College Republicans student group that invited Coulter. Also, the last day of instruction is three days later.

“Do not fall for b.s. Berkeley press release claiming they ‘rescinded’ cancelation,” Coulter tweeted. “GOOD NEWS FOR CA TAXPAYER! You won’t be required to pay $$$$ to compensate me & my crew for rebooked airfare & hotels. I’m speaking on 4/27.”

Your move Berkeley.


There was an interesting piece on Jake Tapper in the Washington Free Beacon worth quoting:

In a candid interview with GQ published Tuesday, Tapper acknowledged that after his tough interviews of administration figures like Kellyanne Conway, he picked up a following from many critics of President Donald Trump.

“It’s nice to be recognized, but I also know that a lot of the people who are happy with me now are not going to be happy with me in four to eight years,” he predicted.

Tapper said that he was just as tough on Obama, and earned his share of grief for it at the time.

“A lot of people sending me nice tweets today were cursing me when I was asking questions about Benghazi in 2012,” he said.

“President Obama was not friendly to the press, but the press was very friendly to President Obama,” Tapper told GQ. “I mean, President Obama did not like me, and I understand why. I was a pain in his ass and I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid, and, you know, a lot of other people did.”

This is what I’ve been saying for years, that once a Republican was elected, conservatives would think Tapper had turned on them, but he’s never been with us, he’s just been a reporter who actually reports.  Yeah he’s gotten a thing wrong or two on Trump (who he clearly doesn’t like) but I’m not going to throw Jake out of the bus for being what he’s always been, a journalist who asks a lot of tough questions that make people in power uncomfortable, whoever they are.


Some culture?  Olivia De Havilland (who I think my wife resembles) is the last great star of Hollywood’s golden age still alive, from Captain Blood (1933) to Gone with the Wind (1939) she’s done it all and this week demonstrated the class of that bygone generation in reply to questions concerning a new mini series Feud about Hollywood circa 1963.

De Havilland is played on the series by fellow Oscar winner Catherine Zeta-Jones as a regal friend and supporter of Davis, but she was not consulted by the show’s creators — Murphy recently told THR that he “didn’t want to intrude on Ms. de Havilland” — so THR emailed her (yes, she uses email) to ask for her thoughts about the show and the women at the center of it.

“I have received your email with its two questions,” De Havilland replied. “I would like to reply first to the second of these, which inquires of me the accuracy of a current television series entitled Feud, which concerns Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and their supposed animosity toward each other. Having not seen the show, I cannot make a valid comment about it. However, in principle, I am opposed to any representation of personages who are no longer alive to judge the accuracy of any incident depicted as involving themselves.”

Added De Havilland, “As to the 1963 Oscar ceremony, which took place over half a century ago, I regret to say that I have no memory of it whatsoever and therefore cannot vouch for its accuracy.”

I’m with Vulture.com here

Now, time to find a throw pillow large enough to embroider with every word of this email.


Susan Sarandon is one of the Stars of that series playing Joan Crawford.  She is an ultra leftist but as this story shows, she is an honest one:

“It doesn’t matter if you’re outspoken about Trump, because Hollywood hates Trump,” she says. “But it was brave of Richard to say what he said. He was drawing attention to the things that everyone has agreed not to pay attention to. That’s the sin.”

She’s talking about Richard Gere who has been blacklisted in Hollywood for the crime of Supporting Tibet and criticizing China and even indy films are iffy now:

Gere is now appearing in “Norman,” the story of a Jewish “fixer” who gets involved with an Israeli politician. He’ll soon star in “The Dinner,” a modest story about two couples arguing over their adult children’s troubles.

Pure indie filmmaking. Yet even some indie films are off limits to him now.

“There was something I was going to do with a Chinese director, and two weeks before we were going to shoot, he called saying, ‘Sorry, I can’t do it,’” confides Gere. “We had a secret phone call on a protected line. If I had worked with this director, he, his family would never have been allowed to leave the country ever again, and he would never work.”

It’s a reminder that China is the same dictatorship it always was, but just imagine if they told Hollywood to lay off of Trump or no $.  It would be fun to see which Hollywood types would bite their tongues off.  Sarandon wouldn’t, that’s why I respect her.


An earlier item mentioned Gronk that is Patriots Tight End Rob Gronkowski who was part of the Pat’s continent that visited the White House and caused the Patriots to call out the New York Times for Fake News:

and they posted a tweet comparing two compatible super bowl win visits

If you want to know why so many non-New England fans hate the patriots it’s because most can only dream about tweets that say “The last time the [insert their home team here] won two Super Bowls in three years”

and while the NYT has offered a mea culpa (via hotair)

You’ll notice that the 800+ retweets that got is a lot less that the Times original 50,000+


Finally while the Boston Bruins (down 3-1) and the top seeded Boston Celtics (down 2-0) are nearing first round playoff elimination and the Boston Red Sox season just starting (10-6) 3rd place in the East have are all newsworthy I think the big story is the real likelihood that Superbowl Hero Malcolm Butler might be done in New England:

New England Patriots cornerback Malcolm Butler has signed his restricted free-agent tender, which opens the possibility that the team could trade him.

Because a player can’t be traded unless he is under contract, Butler’s status was in limbo until he signed the $3.91 million tender.

Here’s why it makes it likely that he’s done here

The thinking would be similar to what the club did in 2016 when it shipped defensive end Chandler Jones to the Arizona Cardinals in exchange for a late second-round pick. The Patriots knew they were unlikely to sign Jones to a big-money extension after the season when he became an unrestricted free agent, so they decided that getting something valuable for him one year earlier was a worthwhile investment. They ultimately turned the pick they received for Jones into two players — starting guard Joe Thuney and promising receiver Malcolm Mitchell — en route to a Super Bowl championship.

Butler might even bring the Patriots a greater return in a year in which the club’s earliest selection in the draft is currently early in the third round, No. 72 overall. If the Saints were willing to return the first-round pick they received from the Patriots (No. 32 overall) in the Brandin Cooks trade, that might be enticing for Bill Belichick. Or a combination of high second- and third-round picks might even be viewed as more valuable to Belichick for a player who is unlikely to return to the team in 2018 after New England invested five years and $65 million in free-agent cornerback Stephon Gilmore.

Of course they might just decide they want to extraordinary CB’s this year to make the defense even more airtight.

He’s one of the few people to whom a Superbowl victory can be directly traced and is rightly considered by the NFL as the top Interception of all time:

I’d be sorry to see him go but if he ends up with a big contract elsewhere I’m happy to see him cash in, he earned it.


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

Ok you’re Berkeley, you imposed strict expensive conditions on conservatives to speak, they still come, when leftist Antifa thugs come to riot you’ve given them free reign to throw rocks, explosives and pepper spray at conservatives, they still come and eventually overpower and drive the thugs from the field, what can you do to keep conservatives away.

Why you ban them outright:

From the linked article:

“Yes, it was officially banned,” Coulter said of her planned April 27 appearance. “But they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”

Coulter had accepted an invitation from two campus groups — the Berkeley College Republicans and BridgeUSA — to deliver a speech about immigration, the topic of one of her 12 New York Times best-selling books.

“If that’s banned, then no conservative can speak,” Coulter told THR on Wednesday. “Meanwhile, corrupt banana republic leaders like Vicente Fox have the red carpet rolled out for them on the taxpayer’s dime.”

Or put simply you don’t need Antifa when the administration will silence conservatives for you, yet they are still claiming they defend free speech:

“It has nothing to do with anyone’s political views,” said Mogulof, the school’s spokesman. “We believe in unqualified support to the First Amendment. But we also have an unqualified focus on safety of our students.” He claims they’re trying to reschedule her for sometime in September, which is the smart thing to say if you’re a public university. Admitting that they’re shutting down Coulter because of her views would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment; insisting that she’s welcome eventually, just not next week, is more defensible as a time, place, and manner restriction. Problem is, there’s no reason to think campus will be any safer in September than it will be eight days from now. The idea that administrators can suspend basic liberties in the name of “safety” is a farcical campus mini-version of the rationale used by states like Egypt, which maintained a state of emergency for decades after Sadat’s death so that it could bypass civil rights. If the school can bar Coulter indefinitely in the name of the “safety of our students” then it has a de facto license to ban all right-wingers from speaking.

How is this anything other than an incentive for leftists to continue to make threats concerning conservative speakers and given this incentive system give me one reason why the right should not start following suit when leftist speakers come to campus to put them in the same spot?

Now I strongly suspect that if a right wing mob did show up and threatened violence if Vincente Fox or other left wing speakers came the university would have no problems providing all the security needed to make sure the speech went on as planned but one has to remember that like all totalitarians leftists demand tolerance when they are out of power then demand obedience once they have it.

I fear it will come to that because history shows that as long as such things do not affect the left the leftists who run college administrations and media will not consider it a crisis, but once their own are placed at risk then it will become a national crisis that needs to be handled.

Of course none of this would be necessary if the principles of free speech were upheld on the grounds of upholding speech, but then again power has always been the only principle of the left, not freedom of speech.

To those who like to argue that Islam is a religion of piece and those who wish to support terror and or kill Jews simply because they are Jews, this story out of Canada reported by CBC news:

Imam calling for Jews to be killed in sermon at Montreal mosque draws police complaint

Larger Muslim community wants apology from mosque and wonders why controversial imam was invited to preach

and at the Daily Mail

Outrage as Jordanian imam ‘recites anti-Semitic religious verse calling for Jewish people to be killed’ during sermon at Montreal mosque

  • A Jewish advocacy group filed a complaint Monday in Montreal, Canada
  • Spoke out against a sermon given by Sheikh Muhammad bin Musa Al Nasr
  • Jordanian cleric is believed to have been invited as a guest to the mosque
  • Quoted a verse that says: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’
  • The larger Muslim community has condemned the use of the verse and urged the mosque to apologize 

But in the rush to congratulate the larger Canadian Muslim community on demonstrating their outrage and tolerance themselves on showing how tolerant the media reporting this story are missing two important points. Today let’s deal with the first one:

Where was the outrage of Muslims WHEN IT HAPPENED?

The CBC story states

The sermon took place at the Dar Al-Arqam Mosque in the city’s Saint-Michel neighbourhood on Dec. 23, 2016.

That means this imam spoke three months ago to a crowd of listeners at a Mosque in Canada. If you look at the listeners in the video, did you see people objecting? Did you see people complaining, did you see anyone raising a hand in dissent or even looking uncomfortable? Did any of them run to the Newspapers or even send them a letter saying how outraged they were over the event?

Nope.

Furthermore note what follows

The video was posted to the mosque’s YouTube channel three days later.

So since December 26th this video has been out there in plain sight (at least until this report, I wasn’t able to find it myself) and for some reason neither the folks at the Mosque nor any other Canadian Muslim who happened to watch the video during that time was all that outraged, Nor did any of the Muslims who viewed it, even if they might have agreed with it, think to say to the folks at the Mosque in question: “You know you might want to take that down as it doesn’t reflect well on us.”

Why, I submit and suggest because Canada’s Muslim community didn’t have a problem with it until it became known to non-Muslims and was plastered all over the web so every non-Muslim out there could see Islam preached as it is, by an Imam who knows his faith to an audience of believers completely unfazed by what they are hearing.

That’s when suddenly Muslims in Canada not only made it a point to condemn it to the press, but according to the Daily Mail calling themselves victims:

Another imam, Ziad Asali, firmly condemned the use of the verse.
‘I do not understand how this person was invited to come and give a sermon and spread this hatred in Montreal against any community,’ he told CBC.
‘To use the themes of the Prophet to spread hatred is actually something that is disrespectful towards the Prophet himself.’
Asali also spoke out against any mosque spreading extremist messages.
‘These people, not only do they show hatred towards non-Muslims, they even show hatred to us Muslims,’ he added

Yup, nothing shows hatred to Muslims like the quoting a Hadith of Islam by an Imam of Islam to a group of Muslims.

That the CBC didn’t find this nasty bit of weaseling, worth questioning says something, both about Muslims in Canada and the press that enables them, but there is something worse, but that comes tomorrow.

Closing thought: Canada has no first amendment and considers such speech unlawful so while I consider such laws unjust they had better damn well apply them equally to those who profess Islam as to those who profess Christianity in its many forms.

But if it was up to me as a big first amendment guy if this Imam wants to quote stuff like this and people want to hear him I say it let him because of the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand it. And By the same token people like me must be free to not only expose him these words, but be free to publicly critique and rebuke him, all those who follow him for expressing such things free to condemn his religion as false and wrong. He has the right to offend, we have the right to express our offense and offend him right back.

The easiest way to find who you are enslaved to is to discover who you are not allowed to offend by penalty of law.
******************

If you like the idea of the new media asking the questions people like the CBC won’t and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

I was shocked and revolted as I watched the rioting unfold on the UC Berkeley campus back on February 1st.  Here is a link which consists of a collection of videos and tweets: Twitchy craziest protest.  The sole purpose of this senseless violence was to prevent one individual, Milo Yiannopoulos,  from speaking.   This should not happen anywhere in this country, let alone at Berkeley, which was the birthplace of the free speech movement.  It is true that only about 150 individuals, most likely outsiders, committed the violence and destruction, however a very large number of student protesters cheered on and gave the anarchists cover.  What did Milo do to deserve such an unfriendly welcome?  He is an outspoken, charismatic, and popular libertarian-conservative.  Yes, he is outrageous and provocative, but that is no reason to silence him.  There is no legitimate reason to silence anyone.  Most disturbing of all is the reaction of the university. They did nothing to stop the rioting, they did nothing to protect Milo’s right to speak freely, and they did nothing to protect the rights of those who wanted to listen to him.

Freedom of speech is one of our most important God given natural rights.  This right must include speech that others might find offensive.   We are all unique individuals.  What offends one person, others might enjoy.  Some of the most fundamental truths may offend a very large portion of the population.  Being offended is a purely emotional response.  We are all supposed to be rational and intelligent beings, ruled by intellect rather than emotion.  Only the most emotionally fragile of us need to shelter ourselves from everything that might possibly be offensive.  Free exercise of speech and free expression are far more important than the emotional well being of fragile individuals.  Unfortunately, political correctness has completely reversed this.  Far too many people believe that their right to never be offended far outweighs everyone else’s right to freely express themselves as they wish.  The right to not be offended does not exist.  It interferes far too much with everyone else’s right of free speech, therefore it is not a valid right.  If we have to refrain from possibly offending anyone we would never be able to speak.

Political correctness has always been a weapon used by the political left to try and silence those on the political right.  Far too often, conservative principles and ideas are labeled offensive or hate speech, and then these labels are used as a justification, by colleges, to ban individuals from speaking .  The latest buzzwords used as justification are white nationalist and alt-right.  Before this last election, I never heard of the alt-right yet, according to the left. it is everywhere.  I believe the white nationalist alt-right exists but it a very small fringe group.  Mainstream conservative publications, such as the Breitbart family of websites, have been unjustly labeled white nationalist alt-right, along with Steve Bannon and Milo.  These accusations, which have been loudly trumpeted by the media, were used as justification by the rioters at UC Berkeley.  Milo discussed the complicity of the media in this interview: Media Legitimizes Violence on Conservatives.  One of the organizers of the Berkeley riots spoke to Tucker Carlson.  Here is a link to the interview.   She used these accusations as justification for the riots.

Thanks to political correctness , conservative speech has become unwelcome on college campuses.  Immediately when a conservative or a libertarian speaker is announced, the cries to ban them begin at once, and then the protests start.  There absolutely nothing wrong with individuals peacefully protesting because they do not approve of the speaker.  People have a right to peacefully protest for any reason.  Blocking entrances, rushing stages, shouting down, and drowning out a speaker with your voice are not valid forms of protest.  These tactics interfere with the rights of the speaker and those in the audience who want to listen to the speaker.  Far too often speakers on the right are uninvited by the college the moment the protests start.  This is a gross violation of free speech.  Liberal speakers far outnumber conservative speakers.   College campuses have become “safe spaces” where conservative ideals are not welcome and often labeled bias incidents.  According to this article, seventy colleges now call authorities for bias incidents.

Thanks to decades of political correctness, more than half of all high school students believe the First Amendment goes too far when protecting free speech.  This is not just a disgrace, it is a national tragedy.   Here is a link to a survey on this subject.

Political correctness is predominantly a phenomenon on the political left, however those of us on the right have, at times, demonstrated our own bad habits when it comes to free speech.  At times we try to force others to be “patriotically correct.”  Everyone has a right to do and say things that are unpatriotic.  No one should ever be punished for being unpatriotic in speech or behavior.  We can criticize individuals for what they say if we do not agree with them because free speech is a two way street.   No one has a right to silence anyone.