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.

 

My profile on Gab has increased dramatically lately that’s a good thing because stuff like the continuing exile of conservatives and the new censorship tools are leading to results like this:

Twitter shares sank Thursday after the social media company reported quarterly revenue that missed Wall Street’s expectations and issued guidance that fell far short of estimates.

Twitter posted fourth-quarter earnings of 16 cents per share on revenue of $717 million.

Analysts expected earnings of 12 cents per share on much higher revenue of $740.1 million, according to a consensus estimate from Thomson Reuters. In the previous year, the company posted 12 cents on revenue of $479 million.

Bloomberg story on the subject includes a visual that says it all

and a line I found interesting:

“Sales growth recovery for Twitter will be very challenging in 2017,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jitendra Waral. “Google and Facebook results show robust ad environment in the fourth quarter.” The lackluster sales growth at Twitter “is showing their strategies are not working.”

Now Google & Facebook don’t have a good history with conservatives but at least they’re not stupid enough to ban them.

If twitter keeps treating conservatives this way pretty soon I’ll reach the point where all my tweets on twitter originate from Gab or from blog post with the occasional reply to a tweet I see. Of course at this rate there mignot not be any twitter for me to ignore.

Perhaps other companies should take a lesson, it’s true liberals are a big niche market but do you want your company to be a liberal niche?

Closing FYI Incidentally, both mine and my youngest son’s favorite cereal is Kellogg’s product 19 & my wife loves Kellogg’s pop tarts.

Neither have been bought since Kellogg’s dissed conservatives values, nor will they until I see an apology.

In purely unrelated news:

Kellogg’s is shutting down 39 distribution centers across the country, the embattled cereal giant announced this week.

Good thing conservatives were never cereal eaters or they might have had something to worry about.

Update: I’m sure this is a coincidence too:

Gab was founded by Torba following Twitter’s suspensions of conservative and libertarian accounts and has attracted nearly 150,000 disenfranchised users, including Breitbart Senior Editor MILO.
Since the platform’s conception, Torba has been banned from a Silicon Valley startup group, suspended from Facebook, and had his Gab features copied by Twitter. Apple’s App Store have also banned the app twice . .

and this

And of Course Stacy McCain’s instalanche will just drive more traffic to the platform.

You really need to read Oleg Atbashian’s entire post about the disgraceful behavior by George Mason University that would have had their namesake rolling in his grave, but the whole thing can be summarized by this snippet:

I can argue that in our case, we were handcuffed and spent a day in jail not as much for the fact of posting the stickers, but for breaking a much more important, unwritten campus law – we confronted ideological uniformity, also known as political correctness, which in today’s American universities is as oppressive as racism was in Alabama in 1955.

I went to that campus to challenge that uniformity, not to get arrested. But if being thrown in jail will help break the cowardly silence on campus, I will consider it a small price to pay for starting an honest conversation about the festering ideological intolerance, lack of free speech, and totalitarian impulses at GMU and other American universities.

Who would have thought that a quarter century after the Berlin Wall fell that we would see an American University mimic the old Soviet tactics in defense of those who would murder jews?

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

Update 2: Via Patterico

“Run them down” is sounding more and more like self defense to me.

Update 4: USA today has decided to suspend Glenn for a month, so I’ve decided to block them on twitter and in my web browser for (at least) a month


If you like what you see here and want to help support it.




Olimometer 2.52

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.


Choose a Subscription level



The_Death_of_Socrates
The Death of Socrates (1797) by Jacques-Louis David. Socrates was “invited” to kill himself.

by baldilocks

At American Thinker, First Amendment activists Matt Patterson and Lindsey DePasse point to known history, show how to analyze it and how to draw conclusions from it.

The Greek city-state of Athens had no constitutional protections for people who advocated notions radically at odds with prevailing wisdom.

The result: Socrates was put to death for “corrupting” the youth.

Four hundred years later, the Roman province of Judea contained no constitutional protections for wild-eyed preachers who advocated radical alternatives to established political and religious orthodoxies.

The result: Jesus was crucified for claiming to be “King of the Jews.”

Sixteen hundred years later in Italy, there were no constitutional protections for thinkers who discerned profound restructuring of metaphysical realities.

The result: Galileo Galilei was tried and sentenced to house arrest by the Catholic Inquisition for advocating views contrary to Church doctrine.

Four hundred years later, the United States of America did provide constitutional protections of speech and assembly, allowing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to lead a movement that changed laws and expanded liberty for millions.

Socrates, Jesus and Galileo lacked governmental protection to say crazy things. As a result, they were put to death or imprisoned by the government for saying crazy things.

True, Dr. King also met with an untimely end, slain by a fellow citizen who denied him his constitutionally protected freedoms. But the others were killed or imprisoned by the government because they had no constitutionally protected freedoms.

That is all the difference in the world. And it is a difference that Dr. King died for.

Of course, no ancient history is taught in most public schools, much less the simple compare/contrast analysis displayed above. As a result,

A 2015 Pew Research survey found, “Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups.”

Let that sink in for a moment: 40 percent of Millennials favor explicit, unconstitutional censorship of “offensive” speech. The same Pew survey found that 35 percent of all Democrats and 33 percent of all women “say the government should be able to curtail speech that is offensive to minorities.”

When the government comes after the First Amendment, look for it to come for the rest. Some argue convincingly that it’s too late. We’ll see.

Related: Condition: Unknown, Unknowns

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game (click on left sidebar image), was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

When I saw this story at Yid With Lid

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.

First we have the story of the persecution of SGA Vice President Rohini Sethi on blogs and conservative sites and college sites from the Daily caller, the college fix, campus reform, college insurrection and campus reform and of course Breitbart News

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.




Olimometer 2.52

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.


Choose a Subscription level