The Rainbow Shirts

They are at it again.

The Rainbow Shirts (so named by me because they act like the The Brown Shirts of old) with fear, intimidation, and government threats. Plus, they get help from the weak-kneaded ,wanna-be-seen-to-be Politically Correct enablers (Disney, Marvel, The NFL).

Georgia wanted to pass an RFRA (Religious Freedom Restortation Act) but the Rainbow Shirts and their PC Allies took offense to it, naturally. After all, it had to be bigoted and targeted at THEM. Isn’t everything, when you’re power mad and have so much sanctimony that you could plug up a black hole with it.

H.B. 757, known as the Pastor Protection Act, gives faith-based organizations the right to fire people who violate the group’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.” It also gives faith-based organizations—many of whom enjoy tax-exempt status—the right to refuse to rent facilities for events they find “objectionable” and gives clergy the right to refuse to perform same-sex weddings.

Wow! They want to actually practice there religious beliefs in America!!!

Man what haters!!!  They must be stopped! 🙂

It’s a ” sweeping anti-LGBTQ law” after all, proposed by pure, unadulterated KKK-style  bigotry. It can’t be anything else. The Ideology says it can’t be. So it isn’t End of Story.

Imagine that, Christians who want to be Christians in a  Christian Faith Based Organization and/or in a Christian Churches!!!!

THE HORROR!

Wow! That’s really hateful. The KKK will be meeting there next.

I guess there are no other places for these events in the Whole of Georgia except at Churches.

And private businesses that practice The Christian Faith are the only place these want to be employed at.

Amazing coincidences, don’t you think? 🙂

And, of course, the neighbors are all a TWITTER about the Gay Couple that move in next door and ruined their property values! 🙂

So Government hasn’t kissed their ass in the last nano-second or two they MUST BE being discriminated against so THEY MUST crush someone for it.

It’s all Hate, all the the time. They are Warriors of Their Faith and they must crush you before you have a chance to defy them!

I wonder if that applies to Pizza places in Georgia too? 🙂

I guess they will have move on to the Mosques next. They are places of Religious Worship and Faith based “exclusion”, Just like a Church.

Oh right, Muslims kill Homosexuals in the Middle East for even daring to say anything at all. No hate there, that would be Islamophobia…So it’s Politically Incorrect to go after THAT group.

After all, they just blow people up and the same Leftist bow and scrap and kiss their ass, “thank you, sir, may we have another”.

Ideology is all-consuming. Ideology is Reality.

Common Sense, and “tolerance” need not apply. But “tolerance” and “diversity (with “inclusion”) are required when kissing the ass of a Liberal, you racist, bigoted, islamophobic, white privilege, dirt bag!

Bow down before your Masters, and their Rainbow Shirts.

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

My LIBERAL First Amendment that I wrote years ago: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, any assembly in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against Corporations and anyone opposed to the Politically Correct and to seek “social justice”  and “fairness” at all costs.

 

Dear Dumbasses

I keep forgetting that I’m doing my blogs after work… 🙂

 

Dear Whiners who want the government to have more power so you feel “safer,”

Idiots like you who simply fall for whatever line you’ve been fed are jeopardizing our freedoms. All of our freedoms. Because you’re wimps. Allow me to explain.

 

Today I was looking at a HuffPo article about the Apple vs. FBI debacle. The article tries desperately to pass itself off as reasonable. Problem is it’s HuffPo, so I wasn’t fooled. The article opens with this:

Apple’s decision to challenge a federal court order to help the FBI “hack” into a shooting suspect’s iPhone 5C is drawing into focus a battle which has been brewing for the past several years.

The way this debate has been shaped thus far is, as follows: which do we value more, privacy or security?

Firstly, let’s talk some facts about the incident in question. The government FUBARed what happened in San Bernardino. We’ve already documented a lot of it, so lemme break it down here: terrorists were allowed into the country. They killed 14 people. The local authorities got access to the iPhone belonging to Farook. They effed it up by trying to access it, thereby resetting the phone. Now the FBI is demanding Apple write software which will undermine the security of all iPhones to get into “that specific phone.” And if you believe the FBI will only use that new software to access that one phone, you were born in a land before toilet paper.

Before you nuclear turd bombs say “But, but, the FBI needs access for US TO BE SAFE…”

 

ManCryingwithMascarra

Don’t. Spare me your spineless, weak, desperate attempts to sound intelligent. You’re a wimp. If you’re a man and you are siding with the government over this iPhone debacle, you’re without testicles. Which is convenient for your skinny jean-wearing ways. If you’re a woman, you’re probably a feminist. There’s no hope for either of you. I’m merely writing this post to expose just how pathetic you are. Trigger-warning: comparisons to bodily functions abound.

Here’s the deal: Yes, the government has a responsibility to keep the nation safe. But when it comes to the FBI vs. Apple, we’re well past safety. The government did not keep us safe. Proof? The terrorists were let into the country in the first place and they killed people. Also, our borders are as effective as a strainer is at holding water. If you think gaining access to all iPhones is the best solution to keep the country safe…

Here’s where all of you butt wiping-ninnies are missing the point: You think it’s about a phone. Wrong.

This is about a much bigger issue that begins with privacy and ends with freedom, the phone is just the vehicle. Let me try to illustrate my point. Your phone is an extension of you. Yes, this might sound silly, but bear with me for a second. Your smart phone has more than your photos. It has your financial information. It may have an app for your bank. It contains personal conversations with your friends, family, co-workers. It is a map giving you directions. It knows where you have been and where you are going. It can track your health, it reminds you of your tasks, it contains a schedule of your life. It knows who you call, who you have called, who you plan on calling. Your phone is an extension of you.

What the FBI wants is the ability to access that phone, which Apple built to be secure. If you’re dumb enough to say “well don’t keep anything on your phone you don’t want shared with the world…”

Maybe, but I'm not that far off.

I volunteer you as tribute. Why stop at just the phone? Just let them into your house. If you don’t want the world seeing embarrassing things, don’t keep them in your house. You never know, one day the FBI might need to come in without a warrant. Your freedom, your privacy, is subject to the safety of the collective…as deemed by you.

That’s the real, bigger issue here. Safety vs. Freedom. It’s sadly a point that is lost on many who focus on a problem that isn’t the actual problem.

Are you seeing the bigger picture or you trying to figure out if the trees are poplars or pine?

You see, having freedom doesn’t always mean having safety. Yes, sometimes the world is a scary place. Sometimes when the government fails at what it’s required to do, like keep the nation safe from other nations or, in this case, terrorists who seek to do us harm, it’s easy to give up your rights in hopes you can sleep safely at night. But that’s how we lose our freedom. It’s been done countless times before, just ask any ten year old who’s been patted down by the TSA.

Balls

Having freedom, having privacy, requires personal responsibility. Sometimes that means you protect yourself. That’s why we at LwC love our Second Amendment rights. Which, incidentally, plenty of liberals also say we need to give up for the “safety of the collective.”

Sometimes you are not only responsible for your own finances, but your own safety. The government, after all, is just a collection of elected officials who employ other people and talk to the public with the use of a teleprompter. The government is people like a corporation is people. Except the government people take from the corporate people to finance their crap. Sorry, going down a bunny trail there…

They’re not better at life than you are. Surrendering a little bit of your freedom to these elected officials for a little more safety is insane. Also, “safety” is rarely defined. Put that in your pipe and smoke it before a liberal demands to stop smoking it because it affects them.

Here’s a mental exercise for you to bear in mind if you’re cheering on the FBI vs. Apple: Where’s the line? At what point do you say the government does not have a right to sacrifice your freedom for safety? Today it’s an iPhone, but what will it be tomorrow? Where is your personal line? If you think it’s okay for the government to have a backdoor entrance to iPhones, for terrorists or for you, you must have a personal line in the sand. So what is it? Think about it. For by the time the government has crossed the iPhone line, they’ll queue up to cross your personal line. If you’re willing to let go of freedom now for security later, you’ve already bought into the scam.

I’ll close with this quotation from our Founding Father Benjamin Franklin (often misatributed to Thomas Jefferson): “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

ClappingGroup GIF

~Written by Courtney Kirchoff.

bernie the pied Piper

Freedom is Slavery

Brown University. You know, the place where students are whining that they are failing their classes because they are protesting so much…

Fall 2015: “The right to free speech is a protection against the abuse of power, not a guarantee of a platform for all ideas,” a group of students wrote in an op-ed for the Brown Daily Herald.

We are taught to extol the virtues of free speech. White people in particular are taught that our voices are always worth being heard. When we believe in free speech, we do so because it works in our favor. The problem is that freedom of speech is not a universal reality. Free speech assumes a level playing field among speakers that does not exist. Power always affects interactions and what people can and do say in the context of a given relationship, institution or society. In this case, at an elite, predominantly white university, race and class are inseparable from any social interaction, let alone the curation of content in an established campus publication.

These arguments for free speech are often deployed to silence voices of color. Colonial histories of civility aside, calling for “civil discourse” implies that expressions of pain and anger by people of color are not civil and have no place in the conversation.

Censorship is the exercise of power to suppress challenges to the status quo. People of color calling attention to racism does not constitute an overbearing power structure that will limit free speech. The oppressed by definition cannot censor their oppressor. (Brown U)

This is your future. Idiocy as “sensitive” “moral” “standards”. Ignorance as Strength.

Isn’t it just grand. 🙂

Far more pernicious is the self-censorship that is promoted at many campuses that may fear ending up in the media spotlight should students protest. For instance, after Brown University students prevented former New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly from speaking, many other campuses may simply decide that it is not worth the trouble to bring a speaker to campus who is associated with controversial police practices (in Kelly’s case, “stop and frisk”). This silent fear is potentially crippling free speech.

“Free expression for me but not for you” is simple hypocrisy. However, deeper forces are also at work. (USA Today)

Last fall, the student groups held an outdoor event displaying posters with examples of expression that had been censored on campuses across the country. Three other students filed formal complaints, claiming that some of the posters were “offensive” and “triggering.” In response, USC served Abbott with a “Notice of Charge” letter and launched an investigation for “discrimination,” threatening him with punishment up to and including expulsion for his protected speech.

Abbott and the campus chapters of YAL and the College Libertarians are now suing USC for violating their free speech rights.

The University of South Carolina is so intolerant of free speech that students can’t even talk about free speech,” said Catherine Sevcenko, FIRE’s director of litigation. “Ironically, the university’s current marketing campaign features the slogan ‘No Limits.’ But as Ross and his fellow students learned, that does not extend to their free speech rights.”.

The Futures so Bright I have to wear a muzzle. 🙂

The End

Well, it is the end and The moment has been Prepared for.

My Prediction: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder today helped the Left disband The Constitution of The US to be replaced by the Orwellian Diversity, Fairness, and Inclusion Contract on America.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, the San Antonio Express-News reported on Saturday afternoon. He was 79.

Scalia passed away in his sleep while on a hunting trip in Marfa, Texas. Foul play is not suspected.

But the Foul stench of Sith Lord Obama is going to smell up the place for generations.

But Paul Ryan and The Republican will stop him….Really? If that’s our only hope then we need help, serious help.

No, it’s campaign season, and Hillary Clinton is fired up. Unfortunately, she’s fired up about who should nominate a judge to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Harry Reid and his coalition, which very likely includes the president himself, are urging President Obama to put up a nominee as soon as possible, while Mitch McConnell and crew maintain that the next president should make the decision.

Clinton has weighed in, and, as usual, the “progressive who gets things done” takes a shot at conservatives.

Mind you, she NOTHING BUT PARTISAN Herself.

Talk about NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE!!  I’m surprised they haven’t got a nominee already (hence the Holder allusion at the beginning of this blog) for entirely partisan reasons.

And we all know how much the Left respects The Constitution. 🙂

It’s certainly no surprise that the No. 1 trending topic in the United States tonight is #Scalia, but why is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas trending just a couple of steps behind?

The Liberals are on Death Watch. They are praying as hard as their non-secular hearts can go for all the Conservatives to just DIE!

Leftists, ever tolerant, loving assholes that they are, want him to die this weekend too.

— Amy Curtis (@moderncomments)

They have your best interests and the interests of The Founding Fathers and the Constitution at their core. 🙂

Their care and compassion overflow this Valentine’s Day with Love. 🙂

The love of Death to your enemies.

This is going to sound cold, but one down, one to go. Uncle Ruckkus (Clarence Thomas) needs to go next. Then our country can start healing.

— George freeman (@Numbers28)

Spread the Love. Here Comes Big Brother to give you Bear Hug. After all, The Constitution and Conservatives are the evil that must be exterminated for real compassion, caring and sensitivity to take over.:)

Now we just need the Grim Reaper to take out Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell and there’ll be #DancingInTheStreets! 😃👍

— Rosetta_GhoSTONED ;D (@RedRoseQueen1)

So a moment of silence for the end. She was a grand country, but the rot is nearly complete.

Conservatives will be hunted down and “re-educated”.

The End is nigh.

(if you’re expecting the Establish Republicans or Paul Ryan to save you…Why?)

DUKEing It out

Fed up with the politically correct orthodoxy they claim has created a “climate of fear” on campus, students at Duke University are banding together to call for the restoration of academic freedom.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

DIVERSITY IS SEGREGATION 🙂

ORTHODOXY IS DIVERSITY

“We seek to invigorate the Duke community’s commitment to supporting an open intellectual climate on campus,” the Duke Open Campus Coalition (OCC) declares in an open letter addressed to University President Richard Brodhead published in The Duke Chronicle Wednesday.

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment.”   

Hell NO! That’s politically incorrect and “insensitive” . 🙂

 

“During our time here at Duke, we have encountered a community that values identity politics over reasoned discussion and debate when confronting real—and at times misperceived—instances of injustice,” the students explain. “Actions taken that emphasize identity politics create a climate of fear on campus whereby people who publicly dissent from the policies being proposed are afraid of being personally attacked and slandered.”

They should be, because the Politically Correct will. The Ministry of Truth is all powerful, didn’t you know ? 🙂

The letter was signed by 12 students representing every class year, who say they were inspired by a similar group at Princeton University that was established in November after Princeton capitulated to an ultimatum from a group calling themselves the “Black Justice League,” particularly the university’s endorsement of a demand to create “safe spaces” for students based on race.

Malcontents and radicals… 🙂

The Princeton OCC acknowledged the Duke chapter’s formation on its Facebook page, applauding the Duke students for following Princeton’s lead and encouraging students at other schools to do the same.

Yet while the Duke group is reacting to issues that have arisen at colleges and universities across the country, the students feel that the climate of fear “has a particular character on Duke’s campus” that threatens to stifle open discussion.

Not only do “some students consider it morally acceptable to remove copies of The Chronicle from campus when they disagree with its content,” the letter claims, but “select members of Duke Student Government’s Executive Board have taken to intimidating first-year student government representatives to affirm ‘politically correct’ views regardless of whether they agree with them.”

CONFORMITY IS DIVERSE. 🙂

“With grave concern about the tactics of some protestors and the substantive demands they are making, we call for an open and inclusive campus—a campus where all members of the Duke community can communicate openly as Blue Devils without fear that they will be censored if their views differ from, or even offend, other people,” the letter states before outlining the group’s specific objections.

INCLUSION IS EXCLUSION

“First, while we are disturbed by acts of racism, homophobia, and bigotry on this campus, and agree that more can be done to combat intolerance, we do not believe that acts of bigotry committed by individuals implicate Duke as an institution,” they say. “We share the goals of increasing tolerance and punishing individual students who engage in behavior that harms other people, but we do not think these goals are best served by the policies some protesters have prescribed to advance them.”

One such policy involves expanding the university’s definition of hate speech to include “speech that offends or insults,” which the OCC describes as “a slippery slope to censorship.”

FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP

The students likewise object to the demand that Duke introduce mandatory diversity and bias training, predicting the effort “will amount to mandatory reeducation classes” and further discourage faculty and students from expressing dissenting opinions.

They also contend that the activists’ demand that faculty demographic makeup be made consistent with that of the student body, arguing that “Instituting a quota system on staff members based on a student population that changes every year is not only unfeasible, but is wrong,” because it necessarily reduces quality to a secondary consideration in hiring decisions.

“Moreover, mandating minimum or maximum thresholds on employment or student enrollment on the basis of skin color or gender reduces people to immutable characteristics of their identity,” the students add, saying they “strongly denounce the idea that our interactions with one another should be defined by demographic traits like race and gender.”

QUOTAS ARE DIVERSITY.

The group also takes issue with the methods employed by student activists, claiming that “students from across the political spectrum were unsettled that protesters would vandalize Duke property, refuse to allow Duke administrators to ask questions during a community conversation, and seek to remove students on the Chronicle staff with whom they disagree politically.”

[RELATED: Duke students petition to ‘fire’ opinion editor for ‘inflammatory’ column]

{The change.org petition castigates Zhao’s alleged furthering of “racist stereotypes” and “misinformation about an entire group of people–a group of people to which the writer does not even belong.”

Zhao, who is a rising senior at Duke, came under fire after arguing in his column that the hurdles in the way of advancement for “black America” is no longer racism or social injustice.

“Instead of paving a road to prosperity,” Zhao wrote, “the self-defeating economic policies advocated for by the black community are shackles of poverty and disillusionment, miring blacks in a cycle of underachievement and social immobility.”}

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment,” the letter contends, calling attention to the contradictions in the activists’ demands. “The administration should not institutionalize a space where any member of this community, student or faculty, is protected from having even their most core values challenged and scrutinized.”

The OCC concludes the letter by commending the administration for taking steps to “methodically study bias and hate issues,” but counsels “creating an administrative channel to scrutinize policy proposals and streamline deliverables [to] help ensure all parties have a stake in ensuring we can combat bigotry.” (Campus Reform)

That’s what they have done. It’s called The Ministry of Truth.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

FEAR IS HOPE

CENSORSHIP IS FREE SPEECH

 

Words

Words. Without them we’d just grunt at each other. Given how some people use them, that might be an improvement. But no matter how you use or misuse them, they’ve always had meanings. At least until now.

Words always have evolved, naturally and over time. Some simply have fallen out of favor and no longer are used. “Swell” mostly has been retired, as has “groovy.”

That’s not what we’re talking about here. Now, statements given in plain language are followed by “clarifications,” and flat-out lies are treated as truth. It’s getting to the point we might as well grunt at each other.

President Obama can say ISIS is contained the day it kills 130 people in Paris, and we ignore the disconnect. He can declare the homeland safe from ISIS the day it slaughtered 14 in California, and everyone acts as though neither happened.

A man can go on a shooting spree near a Colorado Planned Parenthood, and before he’s even finished, he’s immediately declared indicative of every Christian and every conservative. But a radical Muslim couple goes on a well-planned killing spree in San Bernardino, and for days the media just can’t put its finger on a motive.

The purveyors of this bastardization of language are, oddly enough, those who work in words the most – the media. The media declared guns the problem after the San Bernardino shooting but rhetoric the culprit after the shooting in Colorado.

It took days of wild speculation about everything from bullying to postpartum depression before unequivocal evidence and an FBI decree forced journalists to admit radical Islamic terrorism in California. It took until paragraph 59 of a 61-paragraph piece on Colorado for The New York Times to report the monster in that case, according to an acquaintance, “‘wasn’t sleeping at all,’ and had ‘been talking about the Devil getting in his head and such.’”

One awful event led to the demonization of any and every American who has a moral opposition to abortion and the other to the demonization of one of the victims as a bigot who had it coming.

One attack led to fundraising by celebrities and media who had ascribed a political motive to the actions of a man who said he was trying to stop Satan from “getting in his head;” the other met with mockery of prayer and stoned silence on the killer’s self-declared “very liberal” politics.

Words have no meaning.

One party is on the verge of nominating someone whose husband questioned the meaning of the word “is.” Hillary Clinton also has vowed to have told the whole truth after each version of her evolving email server story. It was “no classified material” to “no material sent or received that was classified at the time” to “no classified material sent or received that was marked classified at the time.”

We’re now up to nearly 1,000 emails deemed classified. It’s like coming across a unicorn farm maintained by mermaids – we were told these things did not exist; now they’re everywhere.

Still, no consequences or continued questioning for Hillary. Which is weird considering each of those lies were told to journalists, each was “the whole story,” and none of them care.

Have you heard about Hillary’s emails lately? She spent 11 hours before Congress provably lying about it, and the media treated her appearance as if she’d cured cancer.

Now comes proof the military was not too far away to meaningfully help in Benghazi and that, in fact, it was “spinning up” to go to the aid of the Americans under attack but never received approval. A lie that undermines everything Obama and Hillary have said about Benghazi, but the consequence will be nothing.

Barack Obama allows only favorable media near him, as does Hillary. Her last interview was with a former employee and major donor to her charity who is now declared a “journalist” because ABC News wants it to be. Honestly, is there a bigger lie than calling George Stephanopoulos a journalist and allowing him to interview the woman he’d helped quell “bimbo eruptions” with?

If any of those words had meaning, last Sunday’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” would be one of the greatest punch lines to a joke ever. As it stands, the joke is on us.

As college campuses fall to language police, there may be little left to defend in the world outside the quad. If what we say isn’t what we mean, if it’s open to interpretation, clarification or justification after the fact, there’s little point in saying anything in the first place. Which, when you think about attacks on speech and those who speak them, is probably the point in the first place.

But I am Your King!

Now, 25 Republican governors – and one Democrat too – have said they don’t want Syrian refugees in their states, as President Obama recommitted the U.S. to take a portion of this population fleeing from ISIS.

Military age males…unable to vet properly (according to FBI and Intelligence agencies) from the country is the #1 sponsor and producer of terrorists in the world and one of the Paris Terrorists was a “refugee”. I don’t understand the reason for them to be cautious. 🙂

‘It is very important,’ Obama said. ‘That we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.’ 

Yeah, don’t equate my Agenda with fighting terrorism. 🙂

my little trojan pony

Oh, and the Leftist yesterday were also going all “Supremacy Clause” on me so you know it’s about the Agenda and The Narrative and not about national security. It’s pure partisan politics.

You will do as your King commands or else!

The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. (Think Progress)

So you KNOW it’s just partisan politics. You might remember this one. It;s where the State of Arizona decided that since the Feds were not enforcing Federal Law, that they would and Obama and Holder slap them down basically saying if the they want to ignore the border they can.

Mind you, the Left also says the refugees and illegal immigration are two different issues, but they combine them anyways when it’s about their politics and their Agenda.

So you know it’s all politics.

‘If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation,’ Cruz said, who criticized the Obama administration for ‘pretend[ing] as if there is no religious aspect to this.’

Could be because he’s partial to Muslims over Christians. 🙂

But i’m just being “Islamophobic”, “heartless” and “aprtisan” right? It’s because Barack is black right? 🙂

Above, states where governors have voiced opposition to Syrian refugees are in dark red, with states voicing support for the resettlement in pink. Gray states have not made a statement, suggested a review of the policy or have said that they do not expect and refugees would be sent to them. Kentucky's outgoing Democratic governor has indicated that he will follow the federal government's lead on the issue, though the governor-elect, a Republican, has said that he would not
And you know the Left is in full manipulation mode when they start quoting The Devil Himself, The Great Satan, George W. Bush…

The Democratic president said he had a lot of disagreement with Bush on policy. 

‘But I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam,’ Obama said. ‘And the notion that some of those who’ve taken on leadership in his party would ignore all of that – that’s not who we are.’ 

The president called on Americans to follow Bush’s example.  (UK guardian)

So you know it’s an Agenda policy item and nothing else.
You are being manipulated.

European parliamentarians were warned of the “real and genuine threat” of the Islamic State putting 500,000 Islamic extremists in April this year. The British politician, Nigel Farage MEP, warned the EU its immigration policy placed a “direct threat to our civilisation”.

Mr Farage told a meeting of the European Parliament in French city of Strasbourg: “There is a real and genuine threat. When Isis say they want to flood our continent with half a million Islamic extremists, they mean it.

“There is nothing in this document that will stop those people from coming. Indeed I fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war-torn region into Europe.

“It is ironic that nine days before a British General Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are not engaged in this debate, and in fact the UK can do nothing. We are impotent, we have surrendered our ability to get involved (with stopping the immigrants).”

Despite Farage’s warning the EU continued to push ahead with its plan to force each EU country to take a percentage of the refugees. This left countries unable to secure their borders, and the Schengen Agreement meant most EU countries have dropped their passport controls. Only the UK and Ireland have a permanent exception from Schengen and are therefore allowed to keep passport controls.

Following news the French would treble their military presence against the Islamic State the UK admitted it had foiled seven major attacks recently. Islamic affairs expert, Alan Mendoza, said: “It is essential that Western nations now rethink their military strategy towards Islamic State. We have fought ?a phoney war to date and it has led to real casualties on European soil.

“We now need to redouble our efforts to expunge this scourge from the territory it holds. In Britain’s case, this will mean committing to military action in Syria, or risk becoming an international also-ran in terms of our influence.”

At tonight’s Mansion House speech in the City of London the Prime Minister, David Cameron, once again justified the British approach to dealing with the Jihadis. He said: “The more we learn about what happened in Paris the more it justifies the approach that we are taking in Britain.

“When you are dealing with radicalized European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, you need an approach that covers the full spectrum – military power, counter-terrorism expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil.”

His speech did not make any pledge to protect the UK from mass immigration, despite the public anger about it. However he had already pledged a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for terrorists in Britain, something that was immediately condemned by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

A petition demanding to shut the UK border to Syrian refugees has now reached 410,000. It is unlikely to be acted upon. (Townhall)

So do you want to be next? Is the risk of being “islamophobic” higher than the risk of MORE terrorists getting into the country?

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE

YOUR KING HAS SPOKEN

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

2015 – The Year Everything Became “Offensive”

Crowder:

I know, I know, some of you are already mad just from having clicked the title. You’re thinking, “This is going to be another insensitive, anti-authoritarian, right-wing screed as to why we needn’t be so sensitive to everyone’s needs, justifying the mocking or humiliation of unprotected minorities!”

Nailed it.

There’s no doubt political correctness has been with us for quite some time. It’s nothing new. Developed as a political weapon for German Marxists in the 1920’s (video coming soon), silencing dissent for political power or cultural influence has appealed to leftists for decades. To some degree, we’ve all grown up with it. To some degree, we all agree it sucks. Badly.

But recently, there’s been an acceleration of PC culture the likes of which we haven’t seen before. More and more words and topics of discussion are being blacklisted, as the ever-prevalent, oppressed minority acronyms get longer.

 

Remember the “LGB” movement? Well it’s not even the “LGBT” movement anymore. No, it’s not even “LGBTQ” anymore. It’s actually “LGBTQAI” or depending on the circles you run in, “LGBTQAA” or “LGBTQAAP.” No I’m not kidding. The “A” is for “Asexual” or “Allies” depending on who you ask, while the “I” is for “Intersex” and the proposed “P” is for “Pansexual.” Not “Pedophile.” That would be ridiculous. Don’t be ridiculous.

If it sounds frivolous to even mention, well here’s why it’s so important; every single one of those letters is now a “protected” class. That not only means (to the left) they must be free from scrutiny and critical discussion, but from any kind of mockery or source of humor whatsoever.

“So a tranny walks into a bar…”

You’re now guilty of hate-speech. It may sound inconsequential enough. Sticks and stones, right? Wrong. Because as seen across nearly all of Western Europe, leftists are actively marching toward the end of free speech as we know it. Of course, that’s not what they’ll tell you. They’ll actually tell you the opposite. That they love free speech, they support free speech, but for there to be true freedom of speech, your free speech just has to be limited. For the feels.

Doublethink is your friend! 🙂

Don’t worry! Not all of your speech. Only your hate-speech. And your intolerant speech. (anything they disagree with) And your offensive speech (when you disagree with them). And your insensitive speech (when you assert real tolerance and diversity that isn’t on The Agenda). Also your “mansplaining.” But seriously, stop worrying, most of your speech is safe. And nobody wants to take your guns.

Much…. 🙂

The truth is a lot of today’s SJW minions don’t realize they’ve been manipulated by politically correct, social engineering.

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

They’re blissfully unaware of the systematic cultural censorship taking place. Most of them believe they’re simply doing the right thing. I mean, why would you even want to engage in hate-speech anyway?

Such is the insidious, Orwellian nature of it all.

Thoughtcrime:  attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party. “Crimestop” is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

Language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people.

I’ll tell you why. Because the goalposts on what constitutes “hate speech” are constantly moving. Sometimes today’s hate-speech is merely yesterday’s “damn funny joke.” Even worse than the #SJW’s who push for the cultural Marxism, are the silly pretenders who feign offense in an attempt to appease the leftist lynch mob. You know the type. The kind of people who act like an off-color joke is equivalent to a mortal wounding, the people who act like they would never even think of laughing at a risqué joke because it’s at someone else’s expense. The kind of people who act like they don’t still laugh at Blazing Saddles behind closed doors. The kind of people who now release an audible tisk tisk when Some Like it Hot comes on for fear of being labeled “transphobic.”

For the love of all that’s holy, stop. Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourselves. It doesn’t matter how “progressive” or “down” you try to present yourself. Appeasing the leftist lynch mob is futile. They’ll eventually turn on you. They always do.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That’s the Progressive Left. They are coming for all of us.

See Matt Damon, Amy Schumer, Chris Rock and Raven Symone. All once darlings of the left, have all recently felt their wrath simply for holding the wrong opinion on one issue. You may get away with it for a while, but eventually, the SJW lynch mob comes for you. So don’t start skipping down that yellow-brick-crap-road in the first place.

2015’s list of bannable speech items is longer than ever and what do we have to show for it? Do we really feel more united than ever? Do we feel more enlightened than we did twenty years ago? Can we pat ourselves on the back yet?

But it makes the Leftists feel better about themselves. 🙂

In trying to create a tolerant, leftist utopia, we’ve fractured America more than ever before. I don’t know about you, but I’m through caring. Yep, there’s some comedy out there that could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or Islamaphobic – those last two don’t even show up as words in my auto-correct – and yes, I still laugh at it. Sometimes I don’t. But taking offense doesn’t even enter into my thought process. The only difference between you and me is that I freely admit it publicly.

Want to join me, or shall we keep this silly charade alive a little while longer?

Live Free or Die!

29c34-11george-orwell-9 Agree with me or else!

Censor Thyself

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”― George Orwell

Stossel: Support for the idea that it’s good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against “hate speech.”

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
― Oscar Wilde

Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of “tolerance.”

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
― George Washington

Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of his), writer Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic tweeted that Taylor “ruined” the comet landing. The public outcry against him was so great that he cried at an apologetic press conference.

 Silicon Valley entrepreneur Brendan Eich created JavaScript and helped start Mozilla Firefox. But when activists discovered that he’d once donated $1,000 to support California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, they attacked him as “a hater.” A year and a half later, Eich still can’t find a job.

When Eich donated the money, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so “unacceptable” that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry.

As long as the leftist mobs don’t use law or violence, they’re still engaged in free speech. Private employers can impose most any speech rule they choose. The First Amendment applies only to government. But now some government officials are as eager to censor as the leftist mobs.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”– Harry S Truman

After the owners of Chick-fil-A said they oppose gay marriage, the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston said Chick-fil-A is “not welcome” in their cities. San Francisco’s mayor said, “The closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer.”

Since mayors may influence permits and zoning, their threats aren’t idle. And no new Chick-fil-A outlets have opened in those cities. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, although the politicians seem oblivious to that.

Of course, much worse than today’s left are those who censor through violence. Al Qaeda’s magazine names people who should be killed, chirping, “A bullet a day keeps the infidel away.”

Writers and artists heed the threats. CNN, NBC and the New York Times will no longer show Mohammed cartoons.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison

“Because if you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you’ve already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman

I was surprised that liberal commentators were so eager to cave in to the terrorists’ threats. Chris Matthews said, “Wanting to pick a fight with Islam is insane.”

Such cowardice just invites more censorship.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
― Benjamin Franklin

When the TV series “South Park” was censored by its own network for depicting Mohammed, a fan of the show, liberal cartoonist Molly Norris, showed her support by drawing her own cartoons of Mohammed. For doing so, she received death threats. Fearing for her safety, she went into hiding.

Columnist Mark Steyn was appalled that “Her liberal newspaper — the way they put it in announcing that she’d gone, ceased to exist , was: ‘There is no more Molly.'” She hasn’t been heard from in five years.

“The only way we’re going to move to a real sense of freedom is if every time somebody puts a bullet in a cartoonist for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed,” says Steyn, “every newspaper … displays that picture.”

Steyn argues that societies that censor create more violence by driving hate speech underground.

“You can have a society with free speech where I call you names, and you do rude drawings of me, and I say you’re a hater, and we hatey-hatey-hate each other,” said Steyn on my TV special, “Censorship in America,” but “the alternative is the Muslim world where there’s no open debate, and so there’s nothing left to do but kill and bomb and shoot.”

Free speech matters. If we give in to those who would shut us up, the censors will push and push until we have no freedom left. If we’re going to sort out which ideas are good and which are bad, everyone must be allowed to speak.

 “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Hypocrites get offended by the truth.”
― Jess C. Scott

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Moonbeam To The Rescue

The Progressive Liberal 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us, has exercised “White Privilege”, and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D.-Calif.) signed a law on Friday mandating that all licensed pregnancy centers in the state “disseminate to clients” a message promoting public programs with “free or low-cost access” to abortion and contraceptive services.

The new law makes no exception for pro-life and faith-based crisis pregnancy centers.

YOU WILL FOLLOW THE AGENDA OR ELSE!

Critics of the law say that it violates the right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Like Progressives care…The AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!

AB 775, known in the state legislature as The Reproductive FACT Act, requires all pregnancy centers that are licensed as clinics to post the following notice: 

Love the Orwellian Name. Very catchy…

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

Planned Parenthood will be glad to sell the unused parts for a profit. 🙂

According to the legislation, pregnancy centers that fail to disseminate this message “are liable for a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) for a first offense and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent offense.” 

But if they show Pro-Life or the Baby Parts Videos….Well, they just hate women and are evil. 🙂

Assembly member David Chiu (D-San Francisco), the bill’s primary author, argued in the legislature that “a growing and alarming movement is working to mislead women in order to achieve their political ideology.

THAT WOULD BE YOU DICKHEAD! 🙂

We have a responsibility as lawmakers to make sure that the information given to women who are making their own healthcare decisions is accurate and timely.”

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue celebrated the bill’s passage in a statement on Friday.

“Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers are ground-zero in the fight for reproductive freedom,” she said,

Yeah, the choice to decide who lives and who dies by government fiat is such a need.

I thought this was about full disclosure of information (like the Planned Parenthood videos or sonograms)…no wait…it was only about mandating full Progressive information because that’s the THE AGENDA.

“and Gov. Brown and the California legislature can be proud of leading the first successful statewide effort to ensure that no woman is tricked into walking through doors of a CPC [crisis pregnancy center] to be manipulated and shamed again.”

Yeah, she can be tricked, shamed, and goated into having an abortion and the body parts sold for a profit instead!! Yeah Team!

However, the legislation was dubbed “the bully bill” by its pro-life opponents who argued that the bill forces pro-life pregnancy centers to violate their conscience rights by participating in an abortion referral.

Yeah, but Progressives are bullies. Bully for THE AGENDA. After all, their agenda is the sole thing on earth that matters. They are so vastly superior to your morons that you can’t see that…

“Does the government have a right to tell a newspaper what to write, a preacher what to preach, a private school what to teach? Of course not,” said Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) in a statement following the bill’s passage in the State Assembly.

But a Progressive Liberal feels the responsibility to tell you what to think so you won’t have those primitive, savage, inferior thoughts of rebellion against them.

“So why is it okay for the government to force pro-life pregnancy centers against their will to advertise and promote government abortion services?” she asked.

According to the Sanctimonious Agenda it is.

“Democrat legislators claimed this is necessary because the information provided by prolife pregnancy care centers is not, ‘fully-informed,’” said Grove. “So, according to this logic, if the government finds that your message isn’t ‘fully-informed,’ it now has a right to compel you to do and say things you do not believe in. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.” 

So that means the “pro-choice” centers will do mandatory sonograms and inform potential clients that the fetal material may be harvested and sold for profit?

OF COURSE NOT!

You don’t need to know that so that doesn’t count. 🙂

 “We should trust women to make their own choices, and this bill prevents that,” Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto) also said in opposition to the bill. “Women choose to seek assistance from these pregnancy centers. Nobody forces them to go, nobody forces them to stay. They choose to go and they have the option to leave at any time.”

“AB 775 sets a bad precedent by allowing the state — a government entity — to dictate what information a non-profit organization — a non-profit that receives not a dime of state or government funding — has to provide to their clients,” she concluded.

ALL HAIL THE AGENDA!

All HAIL PRINCE MOONBEAM AND KING OBAMA!

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The No Weenie Congress

Hey GOP establishment, how about, for once, you cause your opponents pain instead your allies? You’ve managed to win back both houses of Congress – by which I mean we conservatives won them back for you – and since then you’ve accomplished exactly nothing. President Fail is handing the mullahs the Bomb, Obamacare remains a thing, and Planned Parenthood is still dismembering babies on our dime. The president has a bully pulpit and you’re satisfied with the legislative branch being a weenie pulpit.

Or being the nerd who gets the wedgie on the playground and then says, “Thank you, Mr President, may I have another!”

But the creaky Boehner and McConnell machine can choose to succeed at something other than failure. It can use the Congress to deal some pain to the left. Sure, that will require guts and a commitment to the conservative cause, but maybe the rise of Donald Trump has scared these squishes enough to fake having them.

Naw, I think they are too committed to be Squishy RINOs afraid of their own political shadows. They talk tough, sometimes, but no action.

Here is some potential legislation that might do some good if enacted, but more importantly, will put the Democrats in both houses in unpleasant, painful positions going into an election year. Yeah, I know, the filibuster…blah blah blah. How about we opt to nuke it before The Lightbringer’s new buddies in Tehran decide to nuke Tel Aviv – and before the grassroots of your party decides to nuke you a year from November?

Amen!

Here’s some Climate Change for ya! Courtesy of our Obama Allies.

1. The Second Amendment Protection Act. For years, Democrats in state and local governments have infringed upon the civil rights of Americans by unjustly preventing them from exercising their right to keep and bear arms throughout our great nation as God intended. Anti-gun laws in cryptofascist states and localities have unfairly victimized far too many decent Americans.

liberal logic

You don’t stop being an American protected by the Bill of Rights simply because you set foot into the State of New York. That’s why we need a law that will allow all American citizens the right to exercise their Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms, concealed or openly as each citizen chooses, free of the constraints imposed by gunophobic state and local governments. Yeah, there will be some whining about federalism from the Republican bow tie n’ perpetual virginity crowd, but who cares?

11949444_1199612576732062_2830812775091856937_n

2. The National Voter ID and Election Integrity Act. Why can’t the federal government generate a national voting ID card and distribute it free to Americans who can’t manage to find their local DMV? The law, of course, will also require a photo ID for any federal election voter. A huge majority of Americans recognize that asking for ID is no infringement except upon those who want to commit fraud, or who are frankly too damn stupid to be voting anyway.

Ge ready for the all-out nuclear tactic of “racism” though. You have to have ID to do the most mundane things in life, but if you ask an illegal for an ID or any Liberal to vote, it’s “racism!”.

Get over it.

3. The Liberal Donor Class Windfall Profits Tax. It’s time that Democrats’ favored interest groups paid their fair share! After all, those tech guys in Silicon Valley didn’t build that. They got the benefit of California’s fine infrastructure, outstanding schools, and superb business environment [*Struggles to not giggle hysterically*]. How about a 50% tax on their earnings?

Or maybe we could take Hollywood Liberal Actors, especially the one who make millions per picture. Now there’s a healthy tax. 🙂

The same with Hollywood – it’s time for the people who support Obama with lavish fundraisers to raise some funds for working American families! Spielberg, Streisand, all you Kardashians – 50% of your earnings is a small price to pay for social justice!

I agree. 🙂 Put YOUR money where your Liberal mouth is!

Oh, and any income from lobbying after serving in any governmental position? Yep, taxed 50%. Or may 90%. For America.

How about we just ban them all together. Call the Inside The Beltway Inside Trader Ban Act.

Go work at McDonalds for $15/hr like you advocate.

4. The Use the Taxes on Drivers for Drivers Act. You know that gas tax you pay every time you fill up the tank? Much of it is passed out to leftist constituencies to pay for buses, subways and bike lanes.  (or in Phoenix- Light rail boondoggles) How about a law that forces gas taxes to be used solely for improving roads? No more subsidies to underwrite Democrat inner city bus systems and light rail boondoggles. 🙂 No more pleasing rich liberals in dorky cycling shorts by forcing us normal people to pay for their stupid bike lanes.

We promise if you tax yourself into the poor house we may just built that city park for the children…

5. The College Student Civil Rights Act. Let’s make it easy to sue your university. Academia is a festering pustule on our society, and it’s time to lance the boil and drain the progressivism!

That’s one BIG swampy Tar Pit of Liberalism that is so overgrown is there anything else left that it hasn’t sucked down it maw?

We’ve all seen how young men are victimized by froth-mouthed feminists eager to convict them of the crime of existing while male.

Down with heteropatriarchy! White Privilege BS!

We’ve also seen how goose-stepping administrators and commie professors seek to control the free-speech of these young Americans.

You too can have an American Flag on campus!

It’s time to protect our studentsrights by applying expanded federal civil rights protections to the students of any university that takes even a penny of government funds. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to due process – now, who could ever be against those [*snickers deviously*]? And if the student wins, he gets his attorneys fees!

🙂

There are many possible new laws that would be both great public policy and annoy our opponents. GOP congresslosers just need to locate the fortitude to pass them. Sure, Obama will veto them, but it’ll force his few remaining minions on Capitol Hill to take stands their constituents will hate.

But it requires The RINOs to grow a pair, of horns to blow and to stick to the Left. Be prepared to be called “extremists” by the extremists, “racists” by the liberal race-baiting squads, and “homophobic bigots” but the liberal “tolerance” and “diversity” Ministry of Truth.

They are going to do it anyhow, so you might as well do something with it that is more than “Thank you, Mr. President. Can I have another!”

The GOP establishment hacks will resist because they think they’ve gone to D.C. to govern. Well, we don’t want or need governing. We want and need the destruction of the liberal edifice Barack Obama and his cronies have built.

Govern later. Right now, we need to sack the Liberal Rome. Visigoths Unite!

We need to use every bit of power at our disposal against our opponents. No, it’s not as much fun as guzzling free Dewar’s on the tab of some K Street lobbyist, but too bad. GOP establishment, get off your sorry rears and get something done for a change. (Kurt Schlichter)

AMEN!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

The Mindless

I commented on this before, but it seems the mindless nincompoop who started it is still just a mindless  nincompoop.

In an interview posted on FoxNews.com, political satirist Ami Horowitz interviewed UC Irvine student Matthew Guevara. Guevara explained his resolution, which banned the American flag in some spaces on campus and declared it to represent “hate speech.”

“[The American flag] made people feel very uncomfortable and unsafe in that room,” Guevara said.

Guevara’s resolution passed by a 6-to-4 vote back in March. In the interview, he explained what prompted him to promote such a resolution.

“It was creating a very hostile environment just because of this flag being in the room,” he continued. “It doesn’t make people feel welcome at all to where people wouldn’t go in the space anymore because it was on the wall.”

The two students who wrote the resolution, Matthew Guevara and Khaalidah Sidney, used stilted, easy-to-mock academic jargon to explain why flags don’t belong in the cozy space.

Flags, they wrote, “construct paradigms of conformity.” The Stars and Stripes “has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism.” The lounge is supposed to be “culturally inclusive” and while hanging the flag might be seen as free speech, “freedom of speech in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.”

Horowitz proposed to Guevara that there was a “legitimate view” that the flag represents hate speech.

“Yeah, exactly,” Guevara replied. “It’s a tool to silence people.”

He went on to say he would have been as equally uncomfortable with the Nazi or ISIS flag hanging in the room as he was the American flag, adding that the United States is the most evil in the world.

Guevara went on to offer his thoughts on other issues, including racism in the United States and said blacks were still enslaved in this country.

On March 7, the student government’s Executive Cabinet vetoed the resolution. rejected this nonsense. I guess they were a bunch of oppressive hate-filled racists. 🙂

After all, the LA Times concluded, If you lived through the McCarthy era, or the Vietnam era, you know perfectly well that the flag can be used as a cudgel by the forces of right-wing political correctness. “America,” went the flag-festooned bumper sticker, “Love it or leave it.”

So this was just another vast Right-Wing Conspiracy exposed and then the Leftist is put down for mentioning it.  They are, as always, the victim.

That left a group of flag-waving protesters — most in tea party T-shirts —

Damn Racists!

What’s a Tea Party T-Shirt? Oh, right…

The very idea of “right wing” political correctness” is hilarious on its face coming from the forces behind political correctness in the first place.

I guess they just see themselves reflected but are too mindless to understand it because they are falling all over itself to be inclusive and identify micro-aggressions and explore diversity and study the racial make-up and cultural sensitivity and blah blah blah blah…

Where on earth could these “misguided” students have gotten such an “outrageous” idea? Where are they getting their guidance from? Could it be from the administration constantly suffocating the student body with statements about how we need to enhance our “diversity” and “inclusivity?” Could it be their

complete failure to identify and champion American values in any meaningful way? —Nick Gallo, PhD student at UCI (and obviously a white privilege racist!)

BINGO.

But I will leave the final comment to a comment left in response to the article on ChicksonTheRight from the PhD student:

But I think what you “Chicks on the Right” are trying to “PREACH” is that diversity should only be celebrated when white America is kept unquestioned. I think what you are trying to say is that a flag that represents a tribute to Veterans, who are not always innocent, ought to be held with high esteem and never thought to have bad connotation..

See, here my problem with “Chicks” or actually anyone on the right. You need to stop with this “America is the best” crap. Our nation was build on the oppression of so many people, and it continues to function on the system of capitalism, racism, heteropatriarchy, etc. I can’t question the morals behind a piece of fabric? Is my freedom of speech limited to allow anything I want to say UNTIL you on the right become offended?

I don’t know. But of course, I’m just another “liberal on the left” who missed the memo that diversity was bad and questioning authority [which again, is what America is based on (see Revolutionary War)] is even worse.

Utterly Mindless, brainless spew. That’s “education” for you…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Have their Cake and eat YOU too..

The verdict is in: Sweet Cakes by Melissa, owned by Aaron and Melissa Klein of Gresham, Oregon, has been ordered to pay $135,000 to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, a lesbian couple who were denied a cake by the bakery due to their sexual orientation.

This wraps up the controversial case, which first began in 2013 and reached critical mass earlier this year when supporters of both sides took to social media.

Under the Oregon anti-discrimination laws the bakery will have to pay for emotional damages caused to Cryer and Bowman.

According to the Huffington Post, The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr explained that although Oregon law allows exceptions for religious institutions, the law “does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion.”

Bakeries have become a battleground for religious and LGBT rights recently, with incidents happening in places like Denver and Indiana causing national outcry.

The bureau’s ruling upheld an earlier decision this year that Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the two women on the basis of their sexual orientation. (IJR)

Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Oregon bakery that refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, was ordered by the commissioner of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the lesbian couple it “mentally raped” by refusing to serve them.

Unbelievable, right? Even more hard to comprehend was the order that the husband and wife owners cease-and-desist discussing the beliefs that led to their fine.

A ‘Gag Order’.

In other words: The Kleins are, yes, “gagged” legally from saying much more, if anything, about their case. Because what they said about their case before—even though they didn’t talk about future decisions about gay couples and wedding cakes—apparently counts as “a clear intent to discriminate in the future.”

The thought Police don’t want you talking about your thoughtcrime, Citizen. You might engender rebellion and They can’t have that!

Leftists (the new Civil Right Movement- seriously that’s the name of the website) : “The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.”

Looks to me like the next time they want a cake baked charge the $135,000 dollars!

Gay Rights 1995: We Want Tolerance 2005: We Want Equality 2015: Bake the Fucking Cake, Bigot!

bake

OR ELSE!

Now that’s “tolerance” and “diversity” and “freedom” from Leftists. Enjoy.

A Fool and his Freedom are soon Parted

Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”

Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

2. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.

And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

3. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.

Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

5. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

7. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?

The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

9. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

10. It Sets a Collision Course for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

11. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.

So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?

Coalition of The Unwilling

The semantically unsound rubbish concept of “Islamophobia” disorients well-meaning people and incites them to spout illogicalities with a preacher’s righteousness.

“Islamophobia” contributes to the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it.

It shouldn’t but it does.

204 authors to sign a letter dissociating themselves from PEN’s granting the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the brave, talented surviving artists of Charlie Hebdo.

The authors objecting did so out of concern, according to their statement, for “the section of the French population” – its Muslims – “that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises.”  A “large percentage” of these Muslims are “devout,” contend the writers, and should thus be spared the “humiliation and suffering” Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons allegedly caused them.

Bill Maher (who’s politics couldn’t be farther from mine) called Pamela Geller a “loon” but said, “This is America, do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?”

Maher brought up Charlie Hebdo and said he’s a little disturbed by the whole “soft bigotry of low expectations” when it comes to that magazine’s critics assuming that “Muslims aren’t able to control themselves.”

So since they got off on any provocation THEY perceive  we must their walk on micro eggshells and temper everything we do and say about them like they are a volatile  chemical ready to exploded at any second?

That’s crazy talk!

Islamic radicals kill people and it’s the people’s fault for victimizing their sensibilities!!!

The Nazis kill Jews and Homosexuals in the millions in WWI and it’s the  dead victims of the gas chambers and mass murders fault!!!

That’s how messed up the Left and The Leftist media’s brains are now.

So, why is there such a difference between the coverage of Christianity and Islam bashing? Why so much criticism against Geller for merely hosting this event? One shouldn’t have to question their right to speak, assemble, or carry a firearm. I don’t find questioning the why someone chooses to exercise laws codified in our Bill of Rights to be a discussion. In some cases, it’s a progressive exercise to put the Constitution of a graduated scale to put some amendments, likes the Second one, in the crosshairs for marginalization and elimination. These are rights that should be maximized in civil society. So, why do some members of the media have this appalling attitude? Maybe it’s because they know Islam has a problem, and it’s one that’s been present for a very, very long time (via NRO):

…The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS.…

That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladly burn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy.

Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations. The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture

Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria.

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

Now, what happened in Garland shouldn’t drive us all to participate in a national campaign of “do your part, offend a Muslim, but some in the media–and in politics–need to quit with the political correctness sound bites and parsing of the First Amendment. There is no such thing as responsibility with free speech; that’s liberal code for don’t say things we don’t like. Exercise your speech with pride–and if it offends someone; politely remind him or her they have every right to voice why they think you’re wrong.  They can also express their views in a cartoon-format. (Matt Vespa and others) 🙂

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Geller Apocolypse

Everything you need to know about the leftist bias in the media:

Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths” (AP)

It was HER fault that two jihadists were killed by police after they drove a 1000 miles to kill her and anyone in her general vicinity.

The Fatwa was HER Fault.

The dead jihadists are the victims!!

OMG! How F*cked up is that!

So let’s trash her!

A master of rhetoric and clearly comfortable in the spotlight, the 56-year-old former media executive shifts easily from charming to combative. Her critics have called the cartoon contest needlessly provocative, practically an invitation for violence. But Geller argued that any blame should be focused on extremists who can’t be criticized or lampooned without resorting to violence.

“Cartoons are political critique. It’s a cartoon,” she said. “Is that what we want to outlaw? We want to outlaw humor? We want to outlaw comedy? If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize.”

Her activities have prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to add her to its extremist files, calling her “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

In an editorial Thursday, The New York Times said Geller “has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims” and called the Garland event “an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom. … To pretend it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Wow, no bias there!!

As head of an organization called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, she took in $960,000 in donations in 2013, paying herself a salary of $192,500, according to tax filings.

Donations pour in from the PayPal button on her website, Geller said, adding that she has “no idea” how much money she has raised.

Oh, and her main donor is a <<<evil music sting>> A CONSERVATIVE Foundation! OMG! THE Apocolypse is upon us all. She’s another Anti-Christ!

Yet, no one at the Liberal Media is even remotely worried about The Clinton Foundation and all that money. $500,000 per speech for Bill “gotta pay the bills”. Ha! Ha! That’s funny Bill.

Pam Geller makes money, that’s suspicious and evil.

The Clinton Foundation rakes in Millions to Billions, no one on the Left cares. They think it’s a good thing!

Hillary takes in money from dubious sources. No one cares. They let Bill have the pithy comebacks like “I just work here” and they laugh it off and  go on there merry way.

But Freedom Speech, naw, who gives a crap about that.

Hillary wants to buy the election with $2 BILLION  (3 times what Obama raised) and that’s a good thing.

The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family’s charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.

“The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” Rathke told reporters. (Reuters)

Muslim jihadist try to kill Americans on American soil, not only is it her fault but SHE’s THE BAD GUY for ‘upsetting’ them.

America, What a Country!

The daily threat is the Sharia-flavored assault on our liberties, the kind of pressure exerted by reasonable-sounding Islamists in communities across America, under the guise of fighting “Islamophobia.”

It was just such an event that attracted attention in January in the same convention center attacked by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi on May 3. Dubbed “Stand With the Prophet,” it featured elements of earnest concern about Islam’s image in America. But it also featured moments of scurrilous slander against anyone who would speak boldly against the terrorist wing of the Islamic faith.

Employing the first rule of political correctness, the “Stand With the Prophet” event brimmed with the fascist sentiment that assertive words against radical Islam must be branded as hate speech.

Sadly, this is the same noxious logic the Southern Poverty Law Center uses in its reckless designation of Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative as an anti-Muslim hate group.

It is neither a hate group nor anti-Muslim. It is anti-free speech repression. Muslims willing to tolerate America’s heritage of free expression will taste no quarrel with Geller’s AFDI.

Her group mounted the cartoon contest not from a general distaste for Muslims, but as a ballsy response to Jihadist habits of suppressing expression that rattles their fragile sensibilities. The most extreme example of this thin skin is the recent tendency of some hard-liners to take up arms against those who have drawn images of the prophet Muhammad. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in January and the widespread riots protesting Danish cartoons a decade ago reveal a facet of Islam’s advance that poses a dire threat to all societies cherishing freedom of expression.

So, seeking to put a stick in the eye of such an affront, the Geller event sought to make a point that we will not be told what we can and cannot draw— or say, or write, for that matter.

By the time the day was over, another lesson had been delivered. Unlike the sitting ducks in the Paris office, in Texas, we shoot back. One hopes the growing ISIS fan base will be somewhat dampened each time its adherents are killed before they take out one infidel.

 

That lesson has been so popular that it has drawn many to approve of the whole cartoon-contest idea, fancying it as a method to smoke out the next wave of twisted souls seeking to spread the caliphate by challenging Americans engaged in free speech.

But here is where a line is drawn, between standing up for groups like AFDI as they hold such events, and actually advocating them.

That line is beyond the grasp of many. Soon after the January event in Garland had attempted to bully and berate anti-jihad speech, I heard of the plan for the Muhammad cartoon contest. I may have audibly groaned.

I am as ready as anyone to take the battle to the terrorists, whether by bombing them into oblivion in the Middle East, or defending America against violence or ancient repressions here in America.

But the cartoon contest was problematic at several levels. It was clumsily broad and needlessly hurtful to countless people who are guilty of nothing.

Remember, the cartoon-fest was not just a show of defiance to the rioters and murderers who react violently to Muhammad on paper; it was a massive back of the hand to the entire Muslim world and its article of faith that says not to draw its prophet.

Some folks cared not one bit about collateral offense. “These people killed our countrymen on 9/11,” one radio caller told me. “I can’t get real worked up about getting them steamed about a stupid cartoon.”

Not an unprincipled view. But as we hopefully move toward a new era of rejoining the war our enemy has never stopped fighting, it is time to note the need to fight hard, but fight smart.

Our war effort should do two things: obliterate the enemy militarily, and make clear that we have no dispute with Muslims willing to peacefully coexist in free societies.

The Islamic rules against depicting Muhammad are no skin off anyone’s nose, and that belief deserved better than to be savaged by some righteously offended Americans looking to score points against radical views recommending violence to prevent such depictions.

Let us focus our energies not on flipping giant birds in the general direction of all Muslims, but rather a concerted effort to vanquish the portion of Islamic culture that gave birth to murderous overreactions to art.

There have been multiple lessons in recent days, groupable in a folder one might call Free Speech 101 in the Age of Islamic Repression. Its highlights:

— Strict Quranic interpretations are incompatible with American law in many ways. Few examples are more valuable than Sharia’s call to shut down offending speech by the sword.

— In America, some folks believe that free speech is supported only if the words are embraced and praised. I cannot be more clear: Ms. Geller has the right to hold a daily Muhammad cartoon contest if she wishes. But if that tactic is not my cup of tea, no one should suggest that my defense of her rights is somehow timid.

— Vast cross- sections of America need a refresher course on free expression. The First Amendment exists to protect precisely those types of speech that rankle some sensibilities. Safe, sanguine speech requires no protection. There are exceptions for fighting words and incitements to violence, but the Garland event exemplified neither. It was a private event that forced no unwitting souls to gaze upon the Prophet. As for incitements, they are actual invitations to do specific harm. The mere crafting of words or images that are infuriating to some are the problem of the offended party, not the artist.

Those knocked off-kilter by the free expression of others have the responsibility to learn a skill set: First, let it go like big boys and girls, realizing that freedom means occasionally running across things that can anger, provoke, even infuriate; Or second, engage in more free speech in return. Explain why you are offended, call for self-restraint in the creation of incendiary images, and then just walk away. Such entreaties may prevail, they may not. Such is life in a free society.

Every Muslim in America should know that a free society is what they have chosen to enter. Our incredibly tolerant and resilient nation mounted no national wave of retribution even after Islamic terrorists ripped our hearts out on 9/11.

But clear-eyed assessments of our war against radicals are not hate speech. And the occasional edgy stunt designed to highlight the jihadists’ hostility to American law and culture does not warrant an armed attack.

In today’s America, we cannot even know the name of a heroic police officer who mowed down the two Garland terrorists before they could kill a single Texan. The reason: too many concerns about his safety.

We will know we have rejoined the battle when ISIS is more worried about its safety than the brave Americans who occasionally mow down an ISIS operative.

Meanwhile, let us marshal any passion for more cartoon contests and channel it toward something genuinely constructive: the election of a President who is serious at all levels about fighting radical Islam, fending off both its terror tactics and repressive instincts. (Mark Davis)

The Commisars

Well, we won’t have the actual Ministry of Truth in full view just yet. But the fact that they were bold enough to even propose it and many “journalists” and other government and Congressional figures had no problem with it should a shiver down your spine.

The Federal Communications Commission will amend a proposed study of newsrooms in South Carolina after outcry over what some called “invasive questions,” the commission’s chairman said Friday.

The survey was meant to study how and if the media is meeting the public’s “critical information needs” on subjects like public health, politics, transportation and the environment. Now, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said questions about news philosophy and editorial judgment will be removed from the survey and media owners and reporters will no longer be questioned.

“Any suggestion the Commission intends to regulate the speech of news media is false,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Friday in a statement, adding that a revised study will be released within the next few weeks.

FOR NOW. We just have to work out a better way to approach it. The frog was thrown in the boiling water and he jumped out so we need a different approach to insure he won’t jump out before he’s boiled to death.

The Justice Department announced Friday it is revising its rules for obtaining records from the news media in leak investigations, promising that in most instances the government will notify news organizations beforehand of its intention to do so.

Because we’ve gotten so much for spying on the and persecuting them. We need a less invasive and less public way of spying on them and then persecuting the offenders.

And the fact that this was all started by “journalism” schools who were not happy with opposition news reporting should terrify you.

Journalism as it was practiced for 200+ years is dead. Now it’s just propaganda.

And, especially on the Left, the Freedom of Speech only extends to their Speech, not yours.

The move to police the newsrooms is an effort to bring back the now-defunct “Fairness Doctrine,” which forces station managers to air unpopular views outside the wishes of both owners and viewers.

Aka, get the opposition off the air. After all, would the FCC demand that MSNBC give equal treatment to conservatives? or would it just demand that FOX give equal time to The Far Left Administration cronies??

D’Oh!

Under the banner of minority representation (OF COURSE!), FCC’s plan to police America’s newsrooms was to dispatch politically connected contractors from a company called Social Solutions International to conduct a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.”

They would interrogate America’s editors and reporters in TV, radio and even newspapers about how they decide which stories to report, all to find bias in need of a government remedy.

After all, you’re all racists & sexists anyhow.

The FCC insists the study is just a quest for information to be given on a “voluntary” basis, but with its power to issue licenses swaying over the heads of editors and reporters, it’s anything but voluntary.

I will voluntarily hold a loaded gun to your head. Now you can say what you want or you can say what I want you to say, your choice. 🙂

The plan was so bad the FCC was forced to issue a statement Friday backtracking on the idea, claiming in its press release that it was “Setting the Record Straight On The Draft Study” (as if the problem was bad reporting rather than an atrocious idea).

It’s not out fault you got mad at us or misunderstood what we were trying to do. Oh, sorry, I’ll put that gun down for now…Until I come up with a better way to extort you, Like I did with ObamaCare.

“My staff has engaged in a careful and thorough review of the Research Design with the contractor to ensure that the inquiries closely hew to the mandate of Section 257. While the Research Design is a tool intended to help the Commission consider effective, pro-competitive policies that would encourage new entrants, its direction need not go beyond our responsibilities. We continue to work with the contractor to adapt the study in response to these concerns and expect to complete this work in the next few weeks.”

Well, that was a lot of smoke and mirrors BS that sounds a lot like the excuses for the ObamaCare Website failure, especially since this study first came to light over 6 months ago and no one on this “research design” team had no issues with the “design” until the opposition media firestormed them!

We didn’t know, we’re sorry. We’ll try again later.

We need to change our methodology and get better optics to successfully pitch the idea that New Rooms, and bloggers need to be monitored for their content.

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid.

Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”

ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN??? 🙂

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

Not the liberal Left’s version:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion (and will mock the free exercise thereof); or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, any assembly in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” or “racism” and must be considered sedition, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against Corporations and to seek “social justice” at all costs. 🙂

So be careful of pots of waters that may boil, The FCC is in the Kitchen with a recipe for Frog stew.

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Championing The Wrong

But give him four more year and he’ll get it right… 🙂

President Obama made much of his duty to protect at Wednesday’s debate. But his record shows little heed for that, not just in Benghazi, but also inside America, which may be Mexico’s new cartel battlefield.

According to a CBS News report, three of Mexico’s cartels are fighting pitched battles in Chicago, and it’s their turf wars that are driving its murder rate skyward in violence that shockingly resembles that of Juarez, Mexico.

Chicago recorded 391 murders this year, a sharp 40% rise for the year, signaling even to laymen that there’s a new thug on the block adapting easily to Chicago’s hub geography, local gangs and entrenched culture of political corruption.

“We know that the majority of the drugs here in Chicago, cartels are responsible for,” DEA Special Agent in Charge Jack Riley told CBS. “We know the majority of murders are gang related. So it’s very clear the connection and role.”

But though this would be recognized as spillover from a foreign war in any other country, there’s no such recognition from the Obama White House on what in fact is a threat from abroad to the U.S. homeland.

In fact, the White House has gone out of his way to deny a problem, and in fact to exacerbate the problem — refusing to enforce immigration laws for one, and refusing to cooperate in a major investigation from Congress on why U.S. lawmen were letting 2,000 guns flow to Mexico’s cartels without Mexico’s knowledge in a failed effort to “trace” them, known as Operation Fast and Furious.

Drug cartels now seem to be sufficiently emboldened by Washington’s climate of drift to begin to make good on their threat to target U.S. lawmen, which is more evidence of spillover.

U.S. Border Patrol agent Nicholas Ivie was shot and and killed Tuesday in what may have been an ambush trap laid by drug lords in retaliation for the Border Patrol apprehending 10 drug mules in the badlands of Arizona between Naco and Bisbee.

The attack area was significant — the Brian Terry station, named after the U.S. Border Patrol agent killed by Mexican cartels with “Fast and Furious” weapons.

Were the cartels sending a message?

Perhaps, because in another little noted story, they already targeted Central Intelligence Agency employees inside Mexico, shooting two last month in what was originally reported as a case of mistaken identities, but later found to have been an organized attack, confounding Washington as to what they were capable of.

 

Yet neither the political establishment, nor the mainstream media seem to view this evidence of the war in Mexico spreading to the U.S. as anything more than a simple law enforcement problem.

It’s been found in Congress this week that the Obama administration failed to protect the U.S. ambassador in Libya by denying him the security he needed.

That’s because to have done so might have meant admitting that America has enemies.

Now we are seeing the same Benghazi logic out of the White House as U.S. cities slowly get taken over by cartel turf wars, U.S. lawmen get targeted, and Obama’s Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, declares “our border never has been safer.”

For President Obama, the war Mexico is fighting is separate from the human smuggling and drug rackets at the root of the cartel activity in the U.S. Gun flows and illegal immigration are actually encouraged.

Obama told debate moderator Jim Lehrer that his top duty as chief executive is to protect the country. The reality is that his actions have consistently come second to protecting his political fortunes.

Ever wonder how Mexico got to its weakened condition on fighting gangs? Look no farther than how the Obama administration is meeting this challenge. (IBD)

Jose Antonio Vargas, the writer and activist who went public last year with his status as an undocumented immigrant, was arrested for a driving infraction in Minnesota on Friday, but federal immigration authorities did not detain him or take any other action, officials said Saturday.

Vargas, a former Washington Post reporter who revealed his status in The New York Times Magazine and touched off a debate in the journalistic community, was initially pulled over by a state trooper for driving while wearing head phones.

When the trooper ran the license, it showed the status [of the license] was canceled. It also indicated there may have been fraudulent activity associated with the license. That’s why [it might have been] canceled. That triggered the trooper to look into that further and contact ICE

An ICE official with knowledge of the situation wrote in an email that “Mr. Vargas was not arrested by ICE and no detainer was issued.”

Vargas was arrested by the state patrol and put in jail for not having a valid driver’s license, Roeske said. He was released several hours later and is slated to appear in district court on Oct. 18. (KFYI)

Driving with out valid license (doubt he has insurance) and illegal and Obama official just don’t care.

Victor David Hansen:

The American Left used to champion free expression. We were lectured — correctly — that the price of being repulsed by occasional crude talk and art was worth paying.

Only that way could Americans ensure our daily right to criticize those with greater power and influence whom we found wrong and objectionable.

When 1950s comedian Lenny Bruce titillated his audiences with the F-word and crude sex talk, liberals came to his defense. They reminded us that vulgar speech is not a crime: The First Amendment was not just designed to protect uplifting expression, but also rarer blasphemous and indecent speech.

For liberals, the burning of a flag on campus and the full frontal nudity of Penthouse magazine were also First Amendment issues.

When artist Andres Serrano photographed a crucifix in a jar with his own urine (“Piss Christ”), the avant-garde Left not only protected Serrano’s constitutional right to offend millions, but also saw no problem in the U.S. government subsidizing the talentless Serrano’s sophomoric obnoxiousness.

But the worldview of the Left is self-contradictory. One of its pet doctrines is multiculturalism — or the idea that non-Western cultures cannot be judged critically by our own inherently biased Western standards.

Female circumcision or honor killings in the Muslim world don’t merit the same attention that a woman’s right to free abortion pills from her Catholic employer does in the West.

When it comes to the Middle East, we neither criticize strongly enough the region’s sexism, homophobia or racism, nor do we defend without qualification our own notions of free expression as inherently superior to the habitual censorship abroad.

Fear plays a role, too. Championing the right of Andres Serrano to show his degrading pictures of Christ wins liberal laurels. Protecting novelist Salman Rushdie’s caricatures of Islam might earn death.

The Obama administration went to great lengths to blast — and even arrest — an Egyptian-American Coptic Christian for posting on the Internet a juvenile movie trailer ridiculing Islam and offending Muslims.

After riots across the Middle East and the murder of the U.S. ambassador in Libya, American officials did not wish to concede that radical Islam hates the United States — even when Barack Obama is president.

And they did not want to admit their own lax security standards, not a film trailer, led to the horrific murders in Libya, or that in an election year their Mideast reset policy is in shambles.

No obnoxious American in the last half-century — not Larry Flynt, Daniel Ellsberg, or even Julian Assange — has warranted so much condemnation for his antics from the president of the U.S., the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as have one crackpot preacher in Florida and an inept Coptic film producer.

Outraged Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., demonstrated in favor of anti-blasphemy laws last week. They demanded an end to any expression that they find religiously offensive — and thereby prove to be embarrassingly clueless as to why many in their communities left their own homelands to come to America in the first place.

The new Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, recently lectured the U.S. on its decadence and wants a global ban on the caricaturing of Islam. He, too, forgot why he once fled to the United States to be educated, employed and to freely say things that would have gotten him killed in his native Egypt.

Another Egyptian immigrant, frequent CNN and MSNBC guest pundit Mona Eltahawy, recently spray-painted over a public anti-jihadist poster that she disliked.

In her world, defacing public property is OK if by her own standards she judges it offensive. Eltahawy, like the Dearborn protestors, is oblivious to the fact that her self-appointed censorship would soon turn her adopted country into just the sort of intolerant society from which she, too, fled.

It is past time for U.S. officials to insist that our traditions and laws apply equally across the board, regardless of where we come from, or what we look like, or the anger and danger we incur from abroad.

Schools could do better by cutting back on their multicultural classes and reintroducing study of the U.S. Constitution. All immigrants need to pass a basic test on the Bill of Rights as part of winning citizenship.

“Speaking truth to power” is not Sandra Fluke grandstanding to ovations at the Democratic convention on behalf of government-supplied free contraception.

It is instead our elected officials reminding rampaging Middle Eastern terrorists and bigots they will not alter our Constitution — and better not try. (IBD)

Big Brother is watching you you racist, bigot, and domestic terrorist!  🙂

The Book of Revelations Chapter III

A group of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, rallied Friday to demand the passage of blasphemy laws to criminalize speech that hurts “the religious feelings of Muslims” because it incites hatred and violence. Apparently, if you criticize any other religion and get a violent reaction, it’s the fault of the people who reacted violently; but if you criticize Islam and someone reacts violently, they think we should arrest the critic. If you think that doesn’t sound like America, you’re right. But it does sound like the New York Transit Authority. They just voted unanimously to ban subway ads that might incite anger after a Muslim commentator from MSNBC vandalized a pro-Israel poster. Obviously, her violent reaction was the sign’s fault. (Huckabee)

They kill our Ambassador it’s obviously our fault. 🙂

COVER-UP OR JUST DISHONEST?

(Reuters) – Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.

“What we’re seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it wasn’t a problem with the intelligence that was given, it’s what they did with the intelligence that they were given,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Yet on September 15 (4 Days later), administration officials, relying upon what they said was other information from intelligence agencies, circulated to members of Congress a set of talking points prepared by the CIA that purported to summarize what U.S. intelligence knew.

The talking points said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.”

So the Talking Points from The Obama/Liberal Democrat hack, Leon Panetta is what they went with because it didn’t make them look bad.

So once again, this administration uses and abuses politics over the actual truth because they saw more benefit in dishonesty. And besides, it would be embarrassing  for the “I killed Bin Laden” Bad Ass foreign policy to look like the   idiot he is. So let’s have a hyper-partisan political response!

So Panetta and friends fall on their swords to save the President the embarrassment. Much Like Holder and Fast & Furious.

Fascinating.

So now that its out that it was a terrorist attack, what will the Obama Administration due about the killing of Americans?

Oh, sorry, he’s too busy campaigning…. 🙂

Blaming the president for not having instantaneous and perfect information is a ridiculous political stunt. But it has consequences beyond partisan gamesmanship. —Leftist Aki Pertz

I got three words for you bub: Yellow Cake. Niger. 🙂

The Democrat fed off that less than accurate “intelligence report” for nearly 2 years!!!  Valerie Plaime & Joe Wilson anyone??

Oh, sorry, that’s right, that was the Left doing it. That makes it all better! 🙂

On the Debate: Perhaps Obama’s only good moment of the night was when he “zinged” Romney for his supposedly “secret” plans . . . and that’s pretty ironic, given that (1) we had to pass ObamaCare to find out what was in it; and (2) he didn’t even know what would be in the stimulus, since he outsourced it to Nancy Pelosi.

Transparency and Peevish about “outsourcing” anyone? 🙂

It was a bad day (and a bad few weeks) for Trickle Up Government.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel