"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"
The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archive index of this site
30 December, 2016
WMAL PULLS MICHAEL SAVAGE OFF AIR MID-SHOW
More progressive censorship on display. About mid-way through the
Michael Savage show on WMAL earlier today, it was suddenly yanked off
the air. A re-run of the Chris Plante was aired instead of the Michael
Savage show. Seems to me this country is getting more and more like
Europe. Freedom of speech is only free if leftists spew it.
Chris Plante is a good guy and all, but I’m not interested in listening
to some re-run. If i want to listen to re-runs I could always find it on
the Internet. So far, no reason has been given by WMAL why they
suddenly pulled the Michael Savage show. Don’t expect one either.
Muslim hate speech is OK
Google is refusing to stop its enhanced search function helping users to
access lectures by a Muslim cleric dubbed the pied piper of jihad,
despite acting against other offensive material.
When people search for the radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the site’s
autocomplete function — which uses algorithms based on what others have
searched for — suggests searches that add words including “quotes” and
“lectures” while they are still typing his name.
These enhanced searches lead to transcriptions and recordings of
hate-filled lectures that are known to have inspired the 7/7 bombers and
helped to radicalise other terrorists. In contrast, searches for
Awlaki’s name without Google’s suggested extra words lead to accounts of
his terrorist involvement.
29 December, 2016
Real men don't eat icecream?
THEY’VE done it again — only this time it’s Richard Hammond in the
firing line. The star of The Grand Tour has sparked a backlash after he
said he doesn’t eat ice-cream because he is “straight”.
The comments came during an episode of the reimagined version of Top
Gear which screens on Amazon Prime instead of the BBC after Jeremy
Clarkson’s “fracas” with a producer saw the trio opt to stay together.
In the clip being circulated from Happy Finnish Christmas, Hammond
explains he wouldn’t eat a Magnum in a Volvo because “I don’t eat
ice-cream. It’s something to do with being straight.”
After some quizzical looks from Clarkson, James May, laughter and
applause from the audience he is forced to explain. “Ice-cream is a
bit, you know ...” he said.
Clarkson clarifies: “So you’re saying all children are homosexual?”
“There’s nothing wrong with it, but a grown man eating an ice-cream, you
know it’s a bit ... it’s that way rather than that way,” Hammond said.
Clarkson responds: “Welcome to the inside of Richard Hammond’s head.”
Speech ferment in Oklahoma
Last November 14, a professor from the History of Science Department
found two racist posters in university buildings. The posters were
titled "Why White Women Shouldn't Date Black Men" and "Race and
Intelligence: the Facts." The professor photographed these flyers,
posted the images on Twitter, and then took them down. Ironically, by
publicly posting images of the posters the good professor succeeded in
publicizing their message. What might have been viewed by only a handful
of people was instead seen by thousands.
Removing the posters set a terrible example for students. The implied
lesson was that you don't have to defeat ideas you disagree with by
reasoned argument -- you are entitled to suppress them by force.
Subsequently the Faculty Senate declared that toleration of hate speech
was antithetical to "the pursuit of learning [and] the creation of art
and knowledge." Members of the OU community were advised to report
incidents of hate speech to the OU Police Department. Collectively, the
OU Faculty Senate has the intelligence of a flock of turkeys. But to
assert that intolerance is essential to teaching and research plumbs a
Attempts to suppress hate speech are extremely troublesome. For
starters, there is no objective or legal definition of hate speech. In
practice, hate speech can be anything people find offensive. On the OU
campus, if you say something as innocuous as 'I support Trump," a number
of people would consider this to be hate speech. Hate speech is also
protected by the First Amendment. People do not have a right to make
specific and credible threats or incite violence, but they do have a
right to express personal opinions that are both wrong and offensive.
Pity the poor police officer who receives a report of alleged hate
speech. How is he or she to respond? Not only is there no statute
outlawing hate speech, it's a crime to deprive individuals of their
First Amendment rights under color of authority.
Not only is the University of Oklahoma campus a hotbed of racial
hysteria, it's also home to the dreaded scourge of Islamophobia.
According to a report in the OU Daily, on November 15, an unidentified
person handed a Chick Tract titled "Camel's In the Tent" to a female
professor from Lebanon. A Chick Tract is a short evangelical Christian
pamphlet. Distributing Chick Tracts is a common form of Christian
proselytizing. Over the last fifty years, approximately 800 million
Chick Tracts have been printed and distributed. They are very common.
Evidently the professor who received a copy of "Camel's In the Tent" had
never seen a Chick Tract before. Because the content of the pamphlet
made her feel "uncomfortable," she reported the incident to the OU
Police. Irony coated the professor's account like two inches of freezing
rain in an Oklahoma winter storm. She professed that she "came to this
country because I believe in American values," and then preached "we
need to reach out [to people] and listen to their fears."
But she didn't reach out and listen to fears about Islam or Islamic
terrorism. She called the police! The professor also failed to grasp
that freedom of religion and speech are core American values. In the
United States of America we don't call the police on people who are
engaged in Christian proselytizing. That's what they do in Islamic
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
It gets worse. In October of 2015 a monument recognizing the Ten
Commandments was removed from the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol
because Section II-5 of the Oklahoma Constitution states that "no public
money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or
used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, church, denomination, or system of religion." But this has not
stopped the University of Oklahoma from setting aside a room in their
Bizzell Library dedicated to Muslim prayer. Although the room is
described as a "reflection room" open to everyone, it's sectarian nature
is indicated unambiguously by the fact that it's stocked with copies of
the Koran and pamphlets on Islam.
While conservatives view leftists as people with bad ideas, leftists
don't look upon conservatives as people who even have ideas -- they're
just bad people who must be rooted out, suppressed, and excluded. This
quest has now superseded any pretense to education. The OU Campus is in
the grip of a moral frenzy, the very definition of a witch hunt.
28 December, 2016
Comments made under a guarantee of privacy lead to punishment
Most blacks don't do much to endear themselves to whites so whites who dislike them have some grounds for that
Fathers of two Marist High School seniors filed a lawsuit Monday
claiming their daughters were “used as scapegoats” after a racist text
message thread between students went viral.
The two students were among a group of five either suspended or expelled
from the school at 4200 W. 115th St. in the wake of the text message
The text messages surfaced Nov. 6 after a protest following the fatal
police shooting of a 25-year-old black man the day before in Mount
Greenwood. Black activists said they encountered '60s-style racism as
they clashed with demonstrators supporting police.
Meanwhile on Twitter, someone shared a screen shot of a text message
reportedly from a Marist student, who said "I F------ HATE N-----S," to
which one of her friends replied, "same."
The plaintiffs were kicked out of school within days of the messages
going viral “without hearing their side of the story and without any
disciplinary process,” according to the suit.
The two white teenagers, who are also unnamed in the lawsuit, were among
32 girls included in the text message group. The group originally met
in September at a religious retreat, known as Kairos.
The retreat is designed for young women to meet and "freely express
themselves on all types of topics," according to the lawsuit. As part of
the retreat, the girls involved were promised that "any comments made
orally would be strictly confidential."
The lawsuit also points to a March 14, 2014 incident in which a black
student and Marist football player, according to the suit, tweeted a
comment "advocating the killing of white people." That student was
required to receive counseling following the comment, the suit argues.
"By comparison, the comments made by the minor plaintiffs were, at most, racially insensitive," the lawsuit says.
Must not disrespect Mrs Obama
The University of Colorado’s School of Medicine is cutting ties with a
faculty member who made a racist remark about first lady Michelle Obama
Dr. Michelle Herren, who works at Denver Health Medical Center, holds a
nonpaid faculty appointment at the CU School of Medicine and a
medical-staff appointment at Children’s Hospital, where Denver Health
physicians supervise residents and other medical practitioners in
training, the Denver Post reports.
As previously reported on The Root, Herren posted a photo of Michelle
Obama yelling on Facebook. Under the photo, Herren wrote: “Doesn’t seem
to be speaking too eloquently here, thank god we can’t hear her!
Harvard??? That’s a place for ‘entitled’ folks said all the liberals!”
Herren then added, “Monkey face and poor ebonic English!!! There! I feel
better and am still not racist!!! Just calling it like it is!”
But it's OK to call George Bush a monkey face!
27 December, 2016
TX: Must not get tired of black people
Even in a private message
The text read, "I'm so sick of playing black people."
A woman in the stands for a girl's basketball game between Kingwood High
and Nimitz High (Aldine ISD) sent the message to someone. A Nimitz
parent saw it and whipped out her phone to take a picture.
"I think that's not acceptable. Especially in this day and time," said Humble ISD parent Ed Dubois.
We've learned the woman who sent the text was a teacher at Greentree
Elementary School. The parent who took the picture of the text sent it
to Houston-area activist Gerry Monroe, who took his concerns to Humble
Here is Humble ISD's full statement:
"Humble ISD expects educators to show respect for all students and to
demonstrate good sportsmanship at student events. The text message does
not represent the values of the district. Upon being made aware of the
photo, the district took immediate action by investigating. That
investigation revealed that a person employed as an elementary school
teacher sent the text. She has resigned."
Depicting racism is racist?
This fall, Salem State University put out an open call for an exhibition
titled “State of the Union.” Artists were asked to submit work that
“addresses concerns and hopes for our future,” such as “environmental
issues, social inequities, income inequality and education.”
Garry Harley, an artist in nearby Lowell, Massachusetts, saw the notice
and knew immediately what to submit: two digital paintings, both
inspired by campaign rhetoric he found frightening. One was based on a
photo of Ku Klux Klan members in full, menacing regalia; the other,
Warsaw Jews being rounded up during World War II.
Both were accepted.
The exhibition opened the day after Election Day. And when it did,
Harley’s work — in particular the KKK picture — caused an uproar.
Students complained that the art was insensitive, racist, upsetting,
The school held a tense public forum. Harley, who says he wanted to
raise awareness but not offense, attended in the hopes of a “teaching
moment.” He arrived with handouts: copies of Francisco Goya’s “The Third
of May 1808” and Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica,” masterpieces that had
committed traumatic events to canvas and, by extension, to public
The next day, administrators sent an apology to the campus community and
announced they were temporarily shuttering the exhibit. Then last week,
after a second meeting, which Harley did not attend, the exhibit was
reopened — with some modifications.
Among them: The KKK painting, and only that work, was curtained off, peep-show-style
26 December, 2016
Leftist hate speech never stops
An unruly passenger had to be removed from a JetBlue flight leaving New
York on Thursday after he began loudly harassing Ivanka Trump and her
young children, according to TMZ and posts on social media.
Ivanka, the daughter of President-elect Donald Trump, was flying in
coach with her husband, Jared Kushner, her children and several cousins
when an unidentified man began yelling at her.
“Your father is ruining the country,” the man said, according to TMZ. “Why is she on our flight? She should be flying private.”
The man was reportedly holding a young child in his arms during the
tirade. Trump tried distracting her kids during the incident.
When JetBlue security escorted the man off the plane, he reportedly
complained they were “kicking me off for expressing my opinion.”
"The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly,"
JetBlue said in a statement. "If the crew determines that a customer is
causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane,
especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation
during flight. In this instance, our team worked to re-accommodate the
party on the next available flight."
Earlier, a man identified as Matthew Lasner tweeted that his husband was
“chasing” down Trump and Kushner “to harass them,” hashtagging his
But Lasner’s story changed quickly, as he then tweeted “My husband
expressed displeasure in a calm tone, JetBlue staff overheard, and they
kicked us off the plane.” He also tweeted a picture of Trump sitting on
Walmart pulls Black Lives Matter T-shirt
A pretty strange message, however you look at it
US RETAIL giant Walmart has pulled a controversial Black Lives Matter
T-shirt from its online offerings amid complaints by police.
Walmart told Fox News Insider that it will no longer sell the shirts
with the words “Bulletproof: Black Lives Matter” on its website.
The move came after the Fraternal Order of Police called the shirts offensive and asked the retailer to stop sales.
The police organisation’s president Chuck Canterbury said in a letter to
Walmart chief executive Douglas McMillon that the shirts could “damage
Walmart’s good name among the law enforcement community”.
“I urge you to prohibit the use of the Walmart name and website for the retail sale of these products,” Mr Canterbury wrote.
Walmart responded by providing a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press pledging to cease sales of the shirts.
The statement said the company has a marketplace with millions of items
offered by third parties, including Blue Lives Matter, Black Lives
Matter and All Lives Matter merchandise.
It said Walmart removed the Black Lives Matter shirt after hearing concerns from customers.
25 December, 2016
Fake hate speech (Again)
President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the media establishment
have made the so-called “fake news” one of the gravest threats to
However, they usually manage to forget this kind of “fake news” which
they were so eager to believe but once again turns out to be just
Police arrested Andrew McClinton on Wednesday in conjunction with the
arson of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church, which was burned and
vandalized on Nov. 1, a week before Donald Trump was elected president.
A bishop from Hopewell told the Associated Press that Mr. McClinton is a member of the predominantly black church.
The suspect is charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship.
The side of the 111-year-old church was scrawled with the words “Vote
Trump” in white spray-paint, prompting calls for Mr. Trump to denounce
the act purportedly perpetrated in his name.
Will there be a retraction from those involved in spreading the “fake news” meme? Don’t hold your breath:
Navy Scuttles Job Name Change Plans
Early this year, the Pentagon announced that it was going to “modernize”
job titles in the military because, Barack Obama’s guys argued, many of
those names were antiquated and confused civilians. Navy Secretary Ray
Mabus directed that all job titles be rendered gender-neutral in order
to please the PC Police, who worried that they may offend the
sensibilities of newly empowered women now freed to fight on the front
lines. The episode demonstrated once again the fact that Obama is more
interested in using the military as his social engineering guinea pig
than as an elite fighting force tasked with defending the nation and
defeating the enemy.
Well, sailors in the Navy were having none of it. After receiving
thousands of complaints protesting the decision, Chief of Naval
Operations Adm. John Richardson issued a memo on Wednesday stating, “We
have learned from you, and so effective immediately, all rating names
are restored.” Richardson continued, “Modernizing our industrial-age
personnel system in order to provide sailors choice and flexibility
still remains a priority for us. We will need to tackle the issue of
managing rating names.”
This is a win for practical reality over leftist ideology. But as with
any rotten idea the corrupting roots run deep, and it will take
vigilance on the part of conservative-minded leaders both in the
government and military to pull out all the weeds that Obama and his
23 December, 2016
France Considers Ways to Deal With Problematic Online Content, While Preserving Free Speech
Two French senators have introduced an initiative aimed at creating an
ombudsman to make rulings on whether online material is inappropriate
and should be removed, while at the same time aiming to preserve free
“There is a lot of content freely accessible,” Senator Nathalie Goulet
said during a meeting to discuss the plan, “Some is about radicalization
and other about pedophilia. Who decides when content is legal or not?”
Goulet and another senator, Olivier Cadic, are promoting legislation
which, if adopted by parliament after presidential elections next year,
aims to help internet service providers, web hosting and social media
companies to determine whether the content they publish is legal or not.
The proposal is for an ombudsman to be appointed for a six-year period
from among members of an independent administrative regulatory body that
is tasked with ensuring that data privacy law is applied to the
collection, storage, and use of personal data.
Internet companies will be encouraged to seek the ombudsman’s opinion when in doubt about material to be published.
A company that wants to consult the ombudsman will have to get in touch
by email or regular mail, asking about the content in question.
The ombudsman, who may work with a translator if the material is in
another language, will provide an opinion in a maximum of seven days.
The response will be based on the law but will be an opinion only, with
no obligation that it must be followed.
Audrey Herblin-Stoop, head of public policy at Twitter France,
acknowledged that “terrorist organizations use our platform to spread
terrorist messages” and attempt to brainwash people.
She told the meeting that Twitter has blocked 260,000 “terrorist accounts.”
Google France welcomed the ombudsman proposal.
“It is a hard work to find illicit content quickly and get rid of it,”
said Thibault Guiroy, the company’s public policy manager and head of
Intolerance in the name of tolerance
The modern day Left preach tolerance but are totally intolerant of anybody who disagrees with them
College classrooms ring with claims of hate speech for anything that isn’t in line with a particular way of thinking.
Ironically, those who scream intolerance are, themselves, being
intolerant. If it is noble to tolerate diversity, shouldn’t those who
laud such tolerance be at the forefront of defending those who disagree
It is possible to disagree with a religion, political perspective, or
public policy without being racist, sexist, or a hater. Disagreeing
isn’t inherently hateful. If that were so, then those who disagreed with
those accused of hate speech would by definition be committing the very
act of hate being denounced. Nobody could disagree with anything.
Regularly since President Obama’s election eight years ago nearly anyone
voicing an opinion different than that of the President, was labeled
racist. In the most recent election, those who opposed Hillary Clinton
were branded as sexist. Even career journalist Cokie Roberts claimed
that Hillary’s defeat was “reflective of a strong sentiment about not
having a woman president.” Are Clinton supporters “haters” because they
disagree with Trump? I would hope not.
Even counselors and psychologists who pride themselves on tolerance and
sensitivity are not immune to this goofy bandwagon effect. While
attending the American Counseling Association’s annual conference a few
years ago, I was in a workshop on diversity. The workshop was led by a
gay man who led the group of 75 or so participants in a 3-hour session
making fun of Christians. It wasn’t his intent, but that is what
While allegedly presenting on how faux “therapies” have been promoted by
people of faith, the group participants were openly laughing at and
making fun of people of faith. While I actually agreed with the facts
that were being presented, as a person of faith I have never felt more
uncomfortable in my life. These well-intentioned counselors, many of
whom were LGBT, were doing the very thing they were condemning.
Tolerance has been elevated to a religion and has come to mean that
anything goes – as long as it doesn’t violate some politically correct
perspective. In other words, tolerance means “think like me” – the very
thing it was a reaction against.
I suspect historians of the future will look back at this era and
chuckle at the obvious contradiction. Intentions were good, they will
note, but in the attempt to battle the clear intolerance of their past,
they created an environment where those with the power to require
tolerance didn’t practice it themselves.
22 December, 2016
Leftist intolerance again
They shut out anything that might threaten their beliefs
A survey shows a significant number of Democratic women are reacting to
Hillary Clinton’s unexpected election loss by blocking, “unfollowing”
and “unfriending” people on social media who express political opinions
they don’t like.
Thirty percent of Democratic women reported cutting off online
communication with someone for political reasons since the Nov. 8
election, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll
published Monday. They are more than twice as likely to blot out
dissenting points of view from their social media timelines as
Democratic men, who reported doing so at a 14 percent rate.
The survey found Republicans have been more tolerant of opposing points
of view since Donald Trump’s election victory. Just 10 percent of
Republican women and 8 percent of Republican men reported unfriending
people on social media for political reasons.
The PRRI poll is one of several indications that this year’s
presidential race had a particularly injurious effect on friendships and
even marriages between those who hold opposing political beliefs.
Mr. Mitchell said the ability to form relationships with political
adversaries is instrumental to a flourishing society and the mutual
pursuit of truth. He said friendship should be seen as a higher good
“If we can’t be friends across political differences, then our civil
fabric frays, and we become enemies who can’t communicate, and that is
sort of a scary trend,” he said.
Facebook’s confusing hate speech policy detailed in leaked documents
‘Migrants are dirt’ will get removed, but ‘migrants are dirty’ is fine
German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has obtained what it says are
internal documents used to guide content moderation on Facebook.
Excerpts from the documents, which the paper published on Friday, shed
light on how the world’s largest social network defines hate speech and
other offensive content — something that Facebook has long been
reluctant to disclose. A separate report from SZ, published on Thursday,
detailed operations at a Berlin office where more than 600 people work
to moderate content on Facebook, earning barely more than Germany’s
Lawmakers in Germany and other European countries have pressured
Facebook to more swiftly remove racist and xenophobic content, much of
which has been directed toward migrants. German authorities have argued
that Facebook must curb hateful content at a time of rising anti-migrant
sentiment; but critics of the crackdown have warned of “creeping
censorship,” raising concerns over how Facebook would define hate
The documents published by SZ provide some insight into the company’s
approach. According to the newspaper, Facebook strictly prohibits
content that targets a person based on characteristics such as race,
national origin, religion, or sexual orientation — factors that the
company defines as a “protected category.” The documents also outline
sub-categories that receive extra protection, such as youth and senior
citizens, and include hundreds of examples meant to cover a range of
permutations and contexts.
The documents allow for content that attacks a religion or a country,
though attacks on individuals based on religion or nationality are
removed. But the line is a bit blurrier for migrants, despite the fact
that many who have sought asylum in recent years are from
majority-Muslim countries like Syria. From the SZ report:
For instance, saying “fucking Muslims” is not allowed, as religious
affiliation is a protected category. However, the sentence “fucking
migrants” is allowed, as migrants are only a “quasi protected category” –
a special form that was introduced after complaints were made in
Germany. This rule states that promoting hate against migrants is
allowed under certain circumstances: statements such as “migrants are
dirty” are allowed, while “migrants are dirt” isn’t.
21 December, 2016
New York Assistant Principal Under Fire for Handing Out 'Transphobic' Cartoon
A Queens assistant principal shared a meme with teachers that suggested
violence against transgenders — and was secretly recorded brushing off
an educator’s complaint about it, The Post has learned.
Alex DiGregorio, AP of social studies and science at I.S. 10 middle
school in Astoria, allegedly handed out the graphic — printed from a DOE
email account — in June, according to a city Human Rights Commission
The meme depicted this message, paraphrased: if you belong in the men's
room, and you follow my wife or daughter into the woman's room, you're
going to need the handicap room.
Is that appropriate content for a public school official to disseminate
with district resources? Probably not. Should he face some form of
rebuke? Probably. But for those seeking to radically redefine
fundamental social concepts, his real sin goes beyond the inappropriate
use of school resources.
His real sin is the opinion itself, which they find grievous and unforgivable.
Let's take a closer look at the meme itself. Is it really suggesting
violence against transgender people? The meme imagines a scenario where a
man follows a woman into the woman's restroom, and that woman's male
family member reacts to protect her. That's called defense, and it's
French-Jewish scholar to appear in French court over 'hate speech'
He said the plain truth that Muslims are taught to hate Jews.
It's in the Koran. But some truths may not be spoken in France
One of the world’s leading historians on the Jewish communities in Arab
countries is being prosecuted in France for alleged hate speech against
The Morocco-born French-Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan, 64, is due to
appear next month before a Paris criminal court over a complaint filed
against him for incitement to racial hatred by the Collective Against
Islamophobia in France, the group recently announced on its website.
The complaint, which leading French scholars dismissed as an attempt at
“intimidation” in a statement Friday, was over remarks about
anti-Semitism by Muslims that Bensoussan, author of a definitive 2012
work entitled “Jews in Arab Lands,” made last year during an interview
aired by the France Culture radio station, the Collective said.
The Collective based its complaint on two remarks by Bensoussan.
“Today, we are witnessing a different people in the midst of the French
nation, who are effecting a return on a certain number of democratic
values to which we adhere,” read the first quote flagged.
The second quote cited read: “This visceral anti-Semitism proven by the
Fondapol survey by Dominique Reynié last year cannot remain under a
cover of silence.” Conducted in 2014 among 1,580 French respondents, of
whom one third were Muslim, the survey found that they were two times
and even three times more anti-Jewish than French people as a whole.
20 December, 2016
To "commit" suicide is a bad word in Britain
People should stop using the phrase 'commit suicide' because it is
unfair to people who kill themselves by making it sound as though
suicide is a crime, MPs said yesterday.
A report from the Commons Health committee also called for restrictions on websites that encourage suicide.
Ministers said that the term 'committing suicide' 'reinforces
stigmatising attitudes' and should no longer be broadcast or printed in
They also warned that there is frequent 'inappropriate reporting and portrayal of suicide' by the mainstream media.
They called for restrictions on social media to curb sites that
encourage suicide in a report which said ministers should launch a new
programme to try to reduce numbers of suicides. The MPs said it was
'clear that suicide is preventable and that much more can and should be
done to support vulnerable individuals.'
In defence of hate speech
Criminalising offensive language only empowers bigots
GEERT WILDERS, a Dutch politician, says some horrible, inflammatory
things. He has called Islam a “fascist ideology” and referred to
Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, as “a devil”. He is no friend of free speech,
either: he wants to ban not only the Koran but also preaching in any
language other than Dutch. The Economist deplores his views; but he
should be allowed to express them.
Prosecutors in the Netherlands have reached a different conclusion. On
December 9th a court found him guilty of insulting and inciting racial
discrimination against Dutch Moroccans. At issue was a nasty line from a
speech in 2014. “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” Mr Wilders asked
supporters of his anti-immigrant Party for Freedom (PVV). The crowd
replied: “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Mr Wilders smiled and said,
softly: “We’ll take care of that.” The audience chuckled.
The court decided not to impose a fine, arguing that the conviction
itself was punishment enough. Some punishment. Three months before an
election, Mr Wilders can pose as a victim of an illiberal law and a
politically correct elite who, he claims, are letting Islam undermine
Dutch civilisation. Mr Wilders’s image as a martyr is further enhanced
by the fact that Islamist radicals have threatened to kill him for his
All this makes him stronger. His party leads the polls, with the support
of a third of voters. The PVV will probably not win control of the
country—mainstream parties will club together to keep it out of office.
But using the law to attempt to silence Mr Wilders enhances his malign
influence over Dutch politics and makes it more likely that he will one
day wield real power.
19 December, 2016
Associated Press Will Partner with Facebook to Flag ‘Fake News’
That AP is an objective source is a laugh but it appears that nothing
will actually be deleted -- so as long as that is true, there should be
no great drama. Conservatives are used to being abused by the
Left. Having something condemned by the Leftist media might
actually recommend it
The Associated Press announced Thursday that it will join Facebook to
help “identify and debunk” news stories being shared online that are
According to the AP announcement, “when AP or another participating
fact-check organization flags a piece of content as fake, Facebook users
will see that it has been disputed and there will be a link to the
corresponding article explaining why. That flag will follow the content
if a Facebook user chooses to share it.”
“AP has long done some of the most thorough fact-checking in the news
business,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s incoming executive editor. “This
initiative is a natural extension of that tradition, and of the AP’s
long-standing role setting the standards for accuracy and ethics in
Facebook announced a partnership with Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News,
and Politifact as well on Thursday. These fact-checking partners will
have “access to a tool that will let them label stories in the News Feed
as fake,” a Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the move to flag “fake news”
stories on his page, explaining, “we're making it easier to report
hoaxes, and if many people report a story, then we'll send it to
third-party fact checking organizations. If the fact checkers agree a
story is a hoax, you'll see a flag on the story saying it has been
disputed, and that story may be less likely to show up in News Feed.”
“You'll still be able to read and share the story,” he added, “but
you'll now have more information about whether fact checkers believe
it's accurate. No one will be able to make a disputed story into an ad
or promote it on our platform.”
Man with "incorrect" opinions won election to the Kentucky House of Representatives
Abortionists do murder babies and if it's OK to call George Bush a chimp it is surely OK to call Obama an ape
Republican Dan Johnson posted messages on Facebook that displayed
prejudice toward black people, Muslims and others during his campaign
for a seat in the Kentucky House of Representatives. He talked of white
pride and Southern secession; he shared at least three pictures showing
President Obama as an ape. He also aired videos in which he accused his
opponent, Democratic Rep. Linda Belcher, of murdering 80,000 babies, and
he said she hired “Chicago thugs” to terrorize his family.
“The Islam-crat Barack Obama — Criminal Clinton, Criminal Hillary — and
Lyin’ Linda, and you know what? They have sent Chicago thugs after me.
Chicago thugs after me! They came to my house, they came to our church,”
Johnson said in a video posted Oct. 28. “Threatening my life,
threatening my grand-babies’ life. … That’s who Linda Belcher has put on
Embarrassed by Johnson’s behavior, on Oct. 1, the Republican Party of
Kentucky and House Minority Floor Leader Jeff Hoover called on him to
drop out of the race.
Instead, he won, narrowly defeating Belcher, a three-term incumbent, by a
vote of 9,342 to 9,186. Johnson will represent Bullitt County’s 49th
House District in the General Assembly for the next two years.
18 December, 2016
Fake hate speech again
Yasmin Seweid, 18, was charged with filing a false report after she told
police three men called her a terrorist and chanted "Donald
Trump". She addressed the alleged harassment in a Facebook post
and spoke with media outlets about the ordeal
The Baruch College Student also went missing after the alleged harassment, but was found over the weekend.
Now police sources have told NBC 4 New York that Seweid allegedly
admitted to them she had been out drinking with friends, and made up the
attack to distract her angry father.
She was arraigned at Manhattan Criminal Court and released Thursday morning.
The Baruch College student originally said she told police she was
approached by three men and told to "get out of this country," was
called a terrorist aboard the train and told to "get the f****** hijab
off your head!" She also alleged that one of the men grabbed her bag and
broke the strap.
She called the incident "traumatizing" and spoke with multiple news organizations about it.
Politico Fires Writer Over Disgusting Tweet About Trump And Ivanka
Free speech is no protection against defamation and libel
Watch what you tweet. That apparently was the warning sent to fellow
Politico staffers after firing contributing writer Julia Ioffe for a
rather salty tweet about President-elect Trump and his daughter, Ivanka.
Ioffe tweeted yesterday, “either Trump is fucking his daughter or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?”
Ioffe was already heading to The Atlantic next year; Politico decided to accelerate the termination of that contract
16 December, 2016
Must not echo Trump on a Leftist campus
The Left tend to believe their own propaganda: That Trump is
racist, sexist etc even when there is plenty of evidence that he is none
of those things. So they get a shock when asked to prove it
Parker Rand-Ricciardi and another Babson College classmate drove onto
the Wellesley College campus after the presidential election in a pickup
truck with a Donald Trump flag hanging out the back while shouting,
“Make America great again.”
Now he stands accused of “racist, misogynistic, and/or homophobic
conduct.” However, a Babson College investigation can’t document those
specific allegations, according to Jeffrey S. Robbins, a lawyer for
Rand-Ricciardi, who is threatening Babson with a defamation suit. His
client wants a public apology from Babson, along with the withdrawal of
charges of harassment and disorderly conduct. Citing federal privacy
laws, Babson won’t comment on specifics but said in a statement it’s
committed to “a just result.”
Lacking hard evidence of more offensive conduct, this looks like a knee
jerk reaction by college administrators quick to coddle
Trump-traumatized campus liberals. But the case is complicated by where
its students chose to do their gloating and by the very nature of
Trump’s campaign. Just running around with a Trump sign can be viewed as
racially offensive and demeaning to women — especially at Hillary
Clinton’s alma mater — given that Trump was accused of stoking those
biases. That makes it a teachable moment.
On Nov. 11, Babson College President Kerry Healey apologized to the
Wellesley College community for actions she described as “insensitive,
unacceptable, and contrary to our core values.” A Babson vice president
of student affairs sent out a letter saying that driving by Harambee
House was “perceived . . . as racially offensive and gender demeaning.”
The two Babson students were banned from campus. Then, on Dec. 11, both
students were notified the ban had been lifted. According to a letter
released by Robbins (and first reported by the Boston Herald), a
Wellesley College police report concluded, “No racial slurs, no
homophobic slurs nor any other offensive symbols or flags were reported
to anyone.” There’s also no evidence the two Babson students
purposefully drove past Harambee House.
It looks like Babson jumped the gun by imposing a penalty before the investigation was complete.
Meanwhile, the story went viral, and both Babson students said they were subjected to death threats.
Trump signs are dangerous
On Monday night a high school basketball game in the Kansas City area
featured Center High School, from a predominantly black area of Kansas
City, versus Warrensburg High School, a predominantly white high school
from a suburb of Kansas City.
The Warrensburg student section has a tradition during player
introductions which consists of the student body turning their backs on
the opposing team during their introductions. School faculty at
Warrensburg have frowned upon this tradition, saying it’s
unsportsmanlike. Though, despite their disapproval they’ve never told
the students not to do it.
So, Monday night when the Warrensburg students turned their backs on
Center they didn’t do so for racial reasons, they just did what they
always do. However, Monday night’s game featured a twist to the
tradition when a Warrensburg student brought a Trump-Pence campaign sign
and held it up during the introductions. This did not go well:
Trump signs do not signify universally-accepted symbols of racism.
Right? After reading what Warrensburg superintendent Scott Patrick, who
apologized for the sign, said to the Kansas City Star, I’m not so sure.
Patrick said, “I think in this case, (the Trump sign) was really the
difference in what took this from something that was unsportsmanlike to
something that was insensitive, not necessary and inappropriate.”
What? Everything was fine: not insensitive, not necessary, not
inappropriate, and certainly not racist until someone brought a Trump
sign to the game?
15 December, 2016
An Australian mayor criticized for rejecting race-consciousness
The Lord Mayor of Hobart has been slammed for 'disgusting ignorance'
after her comments regarding a proposed Aboriginal memorial in Tasmania.
Earlier this week Sue Hickey said that she objected to a proposal by
Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) to build an Aboriginal Memorial in the
city because it would create a 'guilt ridden' place and current
generations should not be blamed for past atrocities.
'I didn't kill the Aborigines, and nor would I; it was a different era,' she told ABC radio.
Former [black] Labor senator Nova Peris took to Twitter to pronounce her frustration with Ms Hickey's comments.
'Disgusting ignorance by Mayor of Hobart. No doubt (Sue Hickey) is front
n (sic) centre of every Anzac Day dawn service w/ a red poppy,' Ms
The memorial makes up part of the $2 billion concept plans drafted by
David Walsh's MONA for a cultural hub located on the Hobart waterfront
at Macquarie Point.
The proposed Truth and Reconciliation Art Park would serve to
acknowledge conflict between European settlers and Indigenous people
known as the frontier wars and the Indigenous Tasmanian groups that
subsequently died out.
Google Supreme Court case in Canada pits rule of law against free speech
Should technology companies be legally responsible for policing the global Internet to enforce the laws of any one country?
This thorny question is at the heart of a case now being heard by the
Supreme Court of Canada, as Google challenges a British Columbia court
order requiring it to block certain search results worldwide. If the
order is upheld, it could set a precedent with profound and far-reaching
implications, not only for Google and other tech firms with global
reach, but also for the future of free and open access to information on
The order against Google arose from a legal fight between a B.C.-based
manufacturer of complex industrial equipment, Equustek Solutions Inc.,
and its former distributors, which Equustek alleges stole its trade
secrets, eventually developing competing products and selling them on
Despite a 2012 order for contempt of court and an ensuing arrest
warrant, the former distributors have continued to flout multiple court
orders to stop advertising and selling the products online. Unable to
reach the defendants directly, Equustek set its sights on strangling
their Internet traffic.
Equustek asked the B.C. courts to require Google to remove hundreds of
websites that market the infringing products from Google search results
worldwide. The order was granted and now Google is asking the Supreme
Court to reverse it.
Among Google’s arguments is that the B.C. court has “deputized” it to
carry out the functions of Canadian law enforcement by forcing the
search giant into an endless and costly game of “whack-a-mole” with the
defendants’ websites. Google did nothing wrong, but is being forced to
bear the cost and responsibility to fix the problem.
14 December, 2016
Facebook is ordered by Austrian court to take down hateful posts written on a fake profile in landmark freedom of speech ruling
Facebook has been ordered by an Austrian court to take down hateful
posts written on a fake profile in a landmark freedom of speech ruling.
The Green Party in Austria launched court action against Facebook
Ireland Limited because of online comments made about MP Eva
Social media chiefs have been told they must delete the remarks as soon
as they can in a move that could create a precedent for other cases
around the world.
Facebook user 'Michaela Jaskova' - a fake profile - had described
Glawischnig in April this year as a 'rotten traitor' and a 'corrupt
The Greens said Facebook was responsible because the post was not deleted despite multiple requests.
Media lawyer Maria Windhager said the Greens had won the 'first round'
with Facebook by winning a preliminary injunction against the offensive
posting at the Commercial Court of Vienna.
She explained that the decision shows that Facebook, which normally
relies on its own automated community standards and terms and
conditions, cannot escape the Austrian legal jurisdiction.
The company normally quotes Californian law, where the head office is
based, which is not as stringent as Europe's defamation laws.
Must not praise meat in case it upsets Vegans
A lamb advertisement starring SBS newsreader Lee Lin Chin that was
accused of inciting violence against vegans was the most
complained-about advertisement of the year.
The advertising campaign for Meat and Livestock Australia, which was
also accused of being offensive to indigenous Australians, received a
combined 747 complaints across television and online - almost a fifth of
all the complaints received by the Advertising Standards Bureau in
2016. The complaints were dismissed.
13 December, 2016
The war on "fake news"
The biggest source of fake news in the mainstream media
The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First
Amendment is the war on “fake news.” Those leading the war are using a
few “viral” Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation –
and even outright censorship – of Internet news sites. Some popular
websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force
them to crack down on fake news.
Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor
easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a
government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous
phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the
political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake
news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped
lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing
of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.
The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label
news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of
Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist
foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US
government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police
militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.
Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special
committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign
interference in US elections. There have also been calls for
congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections.
Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those
who question the mainstream media’s pro-welfare/warfare state
The attempts to ban “fake news;” smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve,
and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent
organizations from discussing a politician’s record before an election
are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans,
no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these
efforts to limit free speech.
Restoring Free Speech: The Trump Effect
If you oppose the Left removing crosses from memorials, removing the Ten
Commandments from public buildings, banning Nativity scenes and banning
saying “Merry Christmas”, the Left claims you’re an extremist who hates
homosexuals, suppresses women and want to cram your religion down
everyone’s throat. Do you see how the Left’s extremism tactic works?
They are the aggressors, but call you an extremist when you simply say,
Clearly, the Left has launched a pedal-to-the-metal campaign to cram
their progressive agenda down our throats. For example: A Zales jewelry
TV commercial featured a lesbian wedding. Homosexuals are only 2% of the
population. So why is featuring a lesbian wedding necessary?
Fearful to admit it, most Americans still instinctively know marriage is
between one man and one woman. But if they dare say it out loud, the
Left will try to destroy them by branding their belief in tradition and
biblical teaching extreme; outrageously claiming they hate homosexuals
and want to see them tortured and murdered.
I believe Trump in the WH has already begun liberating Americans from
the Left’s tyranny of political correctness; muzzling free speech. I
realize the Left will distort my statement to mean Trump has opened the
flood gates to express hate. Nonsense.
The truth is Leftists are the ones who boldly and relentlessly spew hate
against Jesus, Christians, Republicans, Conservatives (black and
white), white people and police.
All I am saying is Trump has Americans timidly coming out from the
shadows; feeling a little less afraid of exercising their Constitutional
right to express their religious and political views.
And that brothers and sisters is good for all Americans.
12 December, 2016
The Future of Free Speech on Social Media Looks Grim
Social-media platforms have not so much "disrupted" the old media
gatekeepers as they have introduced a watered-down version of the same
Reddit has suffered a rocky year, having weathered months of censorship
concerns and subreddit shutdowns. Recent revelations that co-founder and
current CEO Steve Huffman was surreptitiously editing Reddit posts
critical of him have thrown the community into still more chaos. But
Reddit is far from the only social network struggling with the tension
between speech and sensitivity. Similar snafus at other services have
been dominating recent headlines: there's "fake news" on Facebook, "hate
speech" on Twitter, and the continued scourge of rude comment sections.
Social-media platforms are finding it harder to mouth free speech
platitudes (and enjoy the corresponding cultural benefits) while at the
same time actively curating a sanitized media feed. Yet to not curate or
censor is to be accused of aiding and abetting a parade of horribles
ranging from online jihadis to the "alt-right."
The so-called "Reddit Revolt" has pitted a coterie of left-leaning
"social justice warriors" against a ragtag, right-leaning, and
rambunctious crew who call themselves free-speech activists. Tensions
between Reddit administrators and certain subreddits—most notably, the
pro-Trump subreddit called r/The_Donald and a now-banned conspiracy
theory subreddit called r/pizzagate that believes high-level world
leaders operate and patronize international child-trafficking rings—have
been high over the past year, as these communities' impolitic and often
impolite content raised the hackles of the website's generally more
liberal operators. Where Huffman, or u/spez as he is known on Reddit,
really crossed a line with certain Redditors is when he admitted to
amending user comments that were critical of him to appear like they
were criticizing moderators of r/The_Donald instead. While some have
been able to forgive Huffman's faux pas as an immature but benign troll
against a community that constantly causes problems, others have decided
to leave the platform all together in search of more censorship-averse
Of course, internet companies like Reddit and Twitter are private
corporations that can run their businesses however they see fit. If that
includes censorship, so be it. Users are free to seek or build a better
alternative—as users of the still relatively-obscure Voat or Gab
platforms have—or just stop using the service altogether.
Yet a social network is only as valuable as, well, its network. If
everyone you know insists on using a certain service, you're probably
going to use that one, too. Even if you don't personally use a
particular network, if enough people in a country or planet do use it,
then its policies and priorities could have a major impact on your life
Free Speech on the Quad
It’s slow going, but the campaign to highlight censorship on campus may
be getting somewhere. That’s the message of a new report from the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Fire), which tracks the
speech bullies in academia.
Fire’s 10th annual report surveyed speech policies at 345 four-year
public colleges and 104 private schools. The good news is that the share
of colleges with “red-light” speech codes that substantially bar
constitutionally protected speech has declined to 39.6%, a nearly 10%
drop in the last year and the lowest share since 2008. Over the last
nine years the number of institutions that don’t seriously threaten
speech has tripled to 27. Several colleges including the University of
Wisconsin have adopted policies that affirm (at least in theory) their
commitment to free speech.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte deserves some credit for this
free-speech breakthrough. Last August he sent letters to the presidents
of public schools with red-light codes inquiring about their
unconstitutional policies. While public universities are bound by the
First Amendment, private colleges can legally restrict speech,
ironically thanks to their First Amendment right to freedom of
association. Nearly twice as many private universities (58.7%) maintain
restrictive speech codes as public colleges (33.9%).
As Fire notes, “although acceptance of federal funding does confer some
obligations upon private colleges (such as compliance with federal
anti-discrimination laws), compliance with the First Amendment is not
one of them.” Private schools can therefore discriminate against faculty
and students based on their political expression, but not gender or
The Obama Administration has used Title IX, which bans sexual
discrimination, to threaten schools over their handling of sexual
misconduct and assault claims. And its expansive definition of sexual
harassment, which encompasses all “unwelcome” conduct of a sexual
nature, infringes on speech. Colleges have adopted the Education
Department’s “guidance” in responding to sexual harassment claims to
avoid sanctions. In June 2015 a tenured Louisiana State University
professor was fired for alleged sexual harassment because she used
off-color humor. Fire is litigating the case.
Even as some colleges drop speech codes to avoid legal challenges, many
have established “bias” reporting systems that solicit complaints about
offensive speech. As Fire explains, these systems encourage “students to
report on one another—and on faculty members—whenever they subjectively
perceive that someone’s speech or expression is biased.”
About 40% of schools that Fire surveyed had a bias reporting team tasked
with investigating verbal slights. Students at Rutgers can be
investigated if they insult someone’s heredity or blood type (is an AB a
positive or negative trait?). At the University of Kentucky,
disparaging a smoker can trigger an investigation.
A “case manager” at the University of Oregon intervened this year after a
student complained that the student newspaper “gave less press coverage
to trans students and students of color.” Memo to Oregon’s
duck-and-cover administrators: The First Amendment includes freedom of
the press, which means not dictating coverage. These bias interventions
have a chilling effect on speech but are more difficult to challenge in
court than codified restrictions.
All colleges should follow the example of the University of Chicago,
which this year sent all freshmen a bracing warning that academic
freedom sometimes means hearing things they might not like or agree
with. The tender hearts seem to have survived. Thanks to Fire for
holding others to the same principle.
10 December, 2016
"Healthy eating" censorship
Like most government edicts, this one is a crock. Nobody in
fact knows what healthy eating is. Up until a couple of years ago
sugar was fine and fat was bad. Now that has gone into reverse.
It's all just poorly founded speculation, not knowledge. If much
the same evidence can lead to totally opposite conclusions, how can we
have any trust in the conclusions?
And this episode below is in
fact a function of the old advice to avoid fat. If they were up to
date with the current wisdom, they would have concluded that the food
concerned was GOOD for your health.
IT’S a seemingly innocent advert featuring two young kids and treasure
chest. The 15-second YouTube advert shows two children on a beach who
discover a treasure chest with the ice-cream inside.
But the Paddle Pop Twirly Pop advert has been banned by the Advertising
Standards Bureau after a complaint that it promotes unhealthy eating and
obesity in children.
The Obesity Policy Coalition (OPC) said the ad breached the Responsible
Children’s Marketing Initiative (RCMI). The initiative aims to reduce
advertising to youngsters for food and drinks that are not healthier
It not only applies to television but also to radio, print, cinema and internet sites as well.
In the OPC’s submission, reported by Fairfax, it stated: “In our
submission the advertisement breaches … the RCMI, because it is a
communication directed primarily to children, Paddle Pop Twirly Pops do
not represent a healthier dietary choice … and it does not promote
healthy dietary habits or physical activity.
“We do not think that the message is sufficient to promote good dietary
habits or physical activity. In our view, child viewers of the
advertisement are unlikely to pay significant attention to the message
and are likely to be focused on the visual and audio content.”
The ABS agreed that the ad was aimed at children under 12 and had
minimal nutritional benefits and upheld the November complaint.
In its initial response to the complaint, ice-cream manufacturer
Unilever said the ad carried a message “True heroes balance energy
intake and activity; enjoy Paddle Pop as a treat within a balanced diet”
for eight seconds of the video.
A spokeswoman for Unilever told news.com.au that it was committed to
responsible marketing and advertising. “As part of our ongoing
commitment to the RCMI and the review process under the ASB we accept
the decision of the independent arbiter and will ensure that appropriate
steps are taken to comply with the decision,” she said.
“The TVC will not be rebroadcast and we are in the process of removing it from YouTube.”
YouTube is yet again restricting educational videos from a well-known conservative advocacy organization, PragerU
The latest video under restriction, “Born to Hate Jews,” was removed
from YouTube Monday night but then later restored and placed under
YouTube’s “restricted mode” after PragerU filed an official complaint.
“YouTube has entirely removed PragerU’s new video with Kasim Hafeez, a
British Muslim who is a pro-Israel activist,” PragerU announced Monday
on its website.
The restricting of PragerU videos is no new development from YouTube, however.
In October, YouTube restricted 21 of PragerU’s educational videos. Some
of the videos under restriction in October included “Are The Police
Racist?,” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?,” “Why Did
America Fight the Korean War?,” “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or
America?,” and “What ISIS Wants.”
According to PragerU’s website, YouTube is now restricting 18 of its
videos, which amounts to over 10 percent of its content. But the
pro-Israel video was entirely removed.
In “Born to Hate Jews,” Hafeez discusses how he was indoctrinated with anti-Semitic views and raised to hate the Jewish people.
“Within hours of the video’s release Monday morning, YouTube flagged it
for ‘hate speech’ and took it down. PragerU is disputing YouTube’s
removal of the video,” said an announcement on PragerU’s website.
PragerU then filed a “formal complaint” to YouTube and Google.
YouTube has since removed the “hate speech” flag and now lists the video
under YouTube’s “restricted mode,” according to PragerU’s website.
Videos that fall under the “restricted” category, according to YouTube,
contain vulgar language, violence and disturbing imagery, nudity and
sexually suggestive content, and portrayal of harmful or dangerous
These age-restricted videos “are not visible to users who are logged
out, are under 18 years of age, or have restricted mode enabled,”
according to YouTube.
PragerU is asking viewers to sign a petition so that YouTube will
restore access privileges to viewers as it says its content is neither
inappropriate or offensive to minors or children.
9 December, 2016
Leftist hate speech again
One Alabama man has lost his job after gloating over the “deplorables”
who lost everything in the Gatlinburg wildfires. Hundreds of structures
were burned, tens of thousands of people were evacuated and 14 people
His social media post: “Funny story. I was recently in Gatlinburg. Had a
terrible time. I felt the place was a cesspool of consumerism and a
bastion of the worst aspect of southern culture. Turns out a wildfire
just burned most of the town to the ground. Good riddance, Gatlinburg.
And good luck you mouth-breathing, toothless, diabetic, cousin-humpin,‘
mountain-dew chugging, moon-pie-munchin,’ pall-mall smoking,‘,
Trump-suckin’ pond scum. (Chuckles and smiles like the smarmy liberal
elitist I am.”
Express Oil Change and Tire Engineers, his now-former employer, said in a
statement, “We are absolutely disgusted at what was posted, and want to
emphasize that a person of this character does not represent who we are
as a company. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been
affected by the fires throughout the East Tennessee region, along with
communities that were affected throughout the Southeast due to the
recent drought. We want to offer our sincerest apologies that remarks
like this were made.”
Censorship from the SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a disgusting cesspool of an
organization, and their latest actions prove that fact tenfold. The New
York Post is reporting that the SPLC self-censored survey results to
hide the fact that at least 2,000 educators across the country reported
racial slurs and other derogatory comments directed at white students in
the first days after Donald Trump’s election:
The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the
2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40
percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey
“have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims,
immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.” ....
But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based
nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators —
whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have
heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”
Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a
hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC
spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent
answered affirmatively to that question.”
As Hans Bader, former Education Department civil rights attorney,
correctly concludes, “[The SPLC] left that result out because it would
not fit their ideological narrative. It was deemed an inconvenient
This is far from the first time the SPLC has doctored the truth to fit
their agenda. A separate report released Nov. 29 claims there were
nearly 900 reports of Trump-related “harassment and intimidation”
incidents across the country in the ten days following the election.
However, the SPLC can’t confirm that any of the reported incidents
actually took place.
Even crazier: simply mentioning “build the wall” accounted for 467 incidents of hate.
If a white person coughs in the direction of a person of color, the MSM
cries hate. If a white person is beaten in broad daylight because he
presumably voted for Trump, the MSM doesn’t say a thing.
8 December, 2016
Amazon removes 'offensive' Allah 'doormats and dog mats' that feature
the word 'God' written in Arabic after complaint from British Muslim
politician sparks Twitter fury
Amazon has removed a third-party line of 'door and dog mats' featuring
the Arabic word for God - Allah - after a complaint from Muslim users,
including a British politician.
The mats - sold through Amazon by a number of independent users
including 'Dargon One', 'Trendy Mats' and 'Gear One' - had been
garnering complaints from Muslims since June, according to RT.
But it was only when Mariam Khan - a Councillor in the English city of
Birmingham - complained on Twitter Monday that the site took the items
off the market.
'These mats are extremely offensive to Muslims & out of order,' Khan
wrote. '@amazon @AmazonHelp please remove these from your site
She called the company to complain, earning an apology and promise to
remove the items, but she said that the company would take them down
faster if her followers complained - which they duly did.
Anam Hoque said the items were 'disgusting', 'irresponsible' and
promoted 'hatred' and 'islamophobia'. Moeed Sheikh, meanwhile, called
the items 'Disgraceful & Diabolical', adding: 'shame on @amazon
& @AmazonHelp for selling these door mats'.
But others mocked the eventual removal.
Conservative talk show host Phil Valentine tweeted: 'Amazon caves to
pressure to remove allah doormats. What happened to "if you're offended
don't buy it"?'
Amazon's terms and conditions prohibit the selling of items 'that
promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious
intolerance or promote organizations with such views'.
It reserves the right to remove those items that do not comply.
That a British politician brought the controversy to the public eye will be especially embarrassing for Amazon.
This Christmas it released a much-trumpeted UK TV advert promoting
'inter-faith selfnessness' in which a Christian vicar and Muslim cleric
buy each other knee-pads so that they can both pray more comfortably.
Dormats with Christian themes were not removed
Facebook's Transformation to 'Fakebook'
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hammered by leftists
over the past several weeks for not doing a more thorough job of
censoring “fake news” that supposedly helped propel Donald Trump to
victory over Hillary Clinton. In other words, Leftmedia news outlets
deem any news — especially conservative news — that is outside of the
leftwing, socialist umbrella as unworthy to read.
But as National Review’s Jim Geraghty quips, “[I]t’s a little rich to
hear the sudden media-wide panic over "fake news.” Just ask Dan Rather
about those memos. Or ask Brian Williams about his war stories. Or ask
Rolling Stone about those ritualistic gang rapes on the University of
Virginia’s campus.“ And the list goes on.
What to do to counter this pressure? Facebook is now gearing up to
change how it pushes news to users. The company that was built by
millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide is looking to use
a tool that allows it to push curated articles from "valid sources” to
the news feed of its users. The aim of this new tool is to cut back on
the “fake news” in order to provide its users with “reliable and
Zuckerberg, who days after the election commented that he didn’t think
“fake news” contributed to Trump’s success, has since changed his tune.
He announced that there will be new policies coming forth to “help
identify and crack down on the spread of fake news, including writing
algorithms that can automatically detect false content, placing warning
labels on news that may be fake, and allowing users to flag content they
find suspicious on their own.”
Facebook’s new feature is called “Collections” and it will function
similar to Snapchat’s Discover section, which “showcases” news stories,
videos and other content by handpicked media outlets.
These handpicked outlets are of course full of leftist drivel, and they
hope to use Facebook as a means of pushing their content and their
content only. Advertising on users' news feeds will no doubt increase as
well, which will in turn bring revenues to both Facebook and the major
So instead of making any attempt to implement objective journalism that
reports the facts, major media will be pimping social media to help spew
propoganda. As discouraging as this may be to many readers who enjoy
using Facebook and other social media, the reality is that the leftist
propaganda machines are simply taking things to the next level.
Meanwhile, we in our humble shop and those who fight on our side will
continue to relentlessly counter this horrible ideology with the message
7 December, 2016
If you have found that Indians or Asians make better cleaners, you must not mention that
A cinema has been slammed on social media after a job ad said an Indian or Asian was preferred for a contract cleaner position.
The Gumtree advertisement was posted on Sunday for the job of cleaning 12 Event cinemas on Queensland's Sunshine Coast.
A subcontractor was sacked for posting the racist ad asking for someone
to work at Maroochydore, the Sunshine Coast Daily reports.
'This is cleaning of cinemas in Maroochydore Event Cinemas - 12 cinemas,
seven days a week is $900 a week. Prefer Indian or Asian, no experience
needed,' it said.
Australian Regional Media said the ad was taken down on the same day it
was posted after critical comments were posted on Birch, Carroll and
Coyle Maroochydore's Facebook page.
A man, who only wished to be known as Ken, said he sacked the
subcontractor for placing the ad, only three months after hiring him.
Another golliwog fuss
TOOWOOMBA has been dubbed the “most racist city in Australia” after a
display of nine golliwog dolls appeared at a Terry Whites Chemist store
in Clifford Gardens.
The dolls were placed underneath a sign inviting shoppers to “Experience
a white Christmas”, in a move that’s been slammed by Indigenous
Author and activist Stephen Hagan, who famously campaigned against the
“N*gger Brown Stand” in 1999, said the display was offensive.
“Toowoomba is the most racist city in Australia,” he told the Sunshine
Coast Daily. “Words can’t describe this behaviour in the 21st century. I
can understand it in the 1960s but to do it today is inexcusable.”
The store’s Managing Partner Alwyn Baumann offered an “unreserved
apology” in a statement, saying the store had made a “regrettable error”
with the display dolls, which they will “not stock in future”.
A spokesman for the store clarified the connection between the dolls and the sign was completely unintentional.
Golliwogs are considered offensive due to their history as a blackface
motif, in which people of colour are depicted as comically idiotic and
as plantation slaves.
The accusation that the city is the “most racist city in Australia” is
just an off the cuff comment by a known whiner. It has no
statistical basis. Golliwog controversies keep cropping up
thoughout the English speaking world as a result of attempts by Leftists
to make something offensive out of a children's popular soft toy. I had
a golliwog myself as a kid over 60 years ago
6 December, 2016
Must not mock Hillary
An 81-year-old Rhode Island store owner has come under fire on social
media for dangling a 'lyin' Hillary Clinton doll from what customers
described as a 'noose'.
Customers have slammed Tony Polseno Jr, the owner of Pleasant View
Orchards store in Smithfield, for the controversial display of the
pant-suited plush toy near a Donald Trump election campaign sign.
He said a customer purchased the doll online and gave it to him, so he decided to hang it from his wall.
The doll makes statements that include, 'Not a single one of my emails was classified,' when it's squeezed.
It also says 'I don't believe I ever lied — to the public' and 'When I
got off the plane in Bosnia I had to dodge sniper fire,' the Providence
Yelp and Facebook commenters are offended by the doll's placement.
Polseno's wife, Camella, told the Journal the couple have received at least one harassing message.
The 'Lyin' Hillary Doll' sold out the day after the election, the Journal reported.
Trump Suggests Revocation of Citizenship, Jail Time for Flag Burners
Calling flag burning "speech" is ridiculous. It's just another
Leftist distortion of the plain meaning of words. With Trump's new
appointments to SCOTUS some sanity may return
Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN this morning that flag-burning is
not constitutionally protected speech. "Flag burning should be illegal,"
Miller said. "The president-elect is a very strong supporter of the
First Amendment, but there's a big difference between that and burning
the American flag."
The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v.
Eichman (1990) that flag-burning was free speech protected by the First
Amendment. The latter case ruled that a congressional bill to ban
torching the Stars and Stripes was unconstitutional.
Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who referred to himself as an
"originalist," defended the right to burn the American flag.
"If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the
American flag -- however, we have a First Amendment which says that the
right of free speech shall not be abridged -- and it is addressed in
particular to speech critical of the government," Scalia told CNN in
"I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to
suppress," he added. "Burning the flag is a form of expression -- speech
doesn't just mean written words or oral words -- burning a flag is a
symbol that expresses an idea. 'I hate the government, the government is
unjust,' or whatever."
5 December, 2016
Must not belong to a church that is critical of homosexuality
The latest intolerant lynching comes from the Internet’s leading
“lolcat” gif distributor, BuzzFeed, which occasionally takes a stab at
journalism. The site unearthed a “shocking” possibility about two HGTV
superstars with the headline, “Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly
Against Same-Sex Marriage.”
What’s so shocking about Christians holding the orthodox view that
homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are sinful? Nothing, but from
the Rainbow Mafia’s perspective, this “intolerant” belief must not be
tolerated or allowed to go unpunished.
But what’s the story here? A lovable Christian couple with a hugely
popular fixer-upper show may believe something — that has never been
mentioned on the show — that the Left deems offensive. Clearly, this hit
piece was designed not to report a story, but to threaten a popular
couple should they not disavow beliefs the Left finds reprehensible.
Buzzfeed is merely acting as the thought police.
The template for this is simple. Back in 2014, the Benham Brothers, who
own a successful real estate company in North Carolina and happened to
be conservative Christians, were fired from HGTV after the Rainbow Mafia
bullied the network. BuzzFeed knows they can foment a major “issue”
because HGTV is so otherwise flamboyantly “gay.”
Must not mention to a black that he is black
Harry Potter actress Miriam Margolyes has sparked outrage after
'humiliating a black fan at an autograph signing, telling him: 'Jews and
blacks, they get a discount'.
The Bafta-winning star made the comments while signing photographs for £5 at the London Film Convention.
The 75-year-old, who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter series
of films, was filmed saying to one man: 'I'm giving you a discount
because you're black'.
The acting veteran, who herself is Jewish, has earlier joked 'can't you afford five quid?' as he took a photograph of her.
The woman who filmed the exchange, told The Sun: 'There were lots of us
stood around taking photos but he was the only man who was black.
'She singled him out absolutely. Then she made that quip about Jews and
blacks and everyone was just staring at the ground and looking
'I recognised the man she targeted from other events and he looked humiliated.'
4 December, 2016
France Debates Bill to Criminalize Online Pro-Life Advocacy
French lawmakers on Thursday will debate and vote on a Socialist
government-backed draft law that could criminalize online pro-life
advocacy. The legislation would extend the ambit of already-illegal
“interference” in abortion to cover digital media.
Any website carrying material that is deemed to be “deliberately
misleading, intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral
pressure” aimed at persuading a mother not to abort her child could face
criminal charges, with punishments of two years in prison and a fine of
30,000 euros ($31,800).
A Catholic archbishop has called the move “a very serious attack on the principles of democracy.”
Supporters, including Families Minister Laurence Rossignol, say the goal
is to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or biased information,
but critics view the wording as vague and dangerous.
“One could hardly be vaguer in the description,” argues Gregor Puppinck,
director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – an
international affiliate of the Virginia Beach-based American Center for
Law and Justice (ACLJ) – which opposes the initiative.
“It is difficult to understand how the mere consulting of a website
information page could obstruct the practice of an abortion or the
information about it,” he said in an article Wednesday. “This vague
crime is opened to the most extensive interpretations.”
Puppinck says that that clearly violates a French Constitutional Council
ruling that legislation must define crimes “in terms precise and clear
enough to exclude arbitrary decisions.”
France legalized abortion on demand until the end of the 12th week of
pregnancy – or what is known officially as “voluntary interruption of
pregnancy” (L’interruption volontaire de grossesse or IVG) – in 1975.
In 1993 another law was passed, creating the offense of hindering or
interfering in an abortion – aimed at preventing pro-life activists from
physically blocking access to, or occupying or otherwise targeting
The law was later broadened to cover “moral and psychological pressure”
aimed at dissuading abortion, and the legislation now under
consideration seeks to widen that further into the digital realm.
In the new law’s crosshairs are websites like IVG.net, which offers
counselling, practical support, and resources that include information
about medical and psychological risks entailed in having an abortion.
The French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s official abortion website warns women about sites of that nature.
“Some websites that you find via search engines will tell you that they
offer neutral and medical information but are actually edited by
anti-abortion activists,” it says.
“They are sometimes hard to recognize but beware systematically sites
and hotlines devoting a large part of their content to motherhood and
supposed complications and injuries from abortion.”
The government site instead recommends a handful of – hardly neutral –
websites, including that of the International Planned Parenthood
Federation’s French affiliate, Planning Familial, one run by a national
association of abortion clinics, and a feminist blog that includes a
searchable database of abortion clinics across France.
A posting published on the IVG.net website rejected the notion that it would deliberately mislead by offering disinformation.
“Our information and prevention efforts for women cannot be disparaged
so rudely,” it said, protesting against what it called a “scandalous
attempt to muzzle us and stigmatize us by undermining our moral
Going further, IVG.net identified what it called “eight lies” on the
government website, such as the assertion that there are no
post-abortion psychological consequences.
(Update: The French National Assembly on Thursday adopted the
controversial bill, with the support of leftists and a majority of
centrists, while right wing lawmakers opposed it. The measure now goes
to the Senate. Family Minister Laurence Rossignol argued during the
debate that “freedom of expression should not be confused with
Australia: Freedom fighters stop free speech. Surprised?
The Fascism of the modern Left again
Melbourne-based group Jews against fascism claims to be standing up for
freedom. But stamping out free speech and intimidating fellow
Australians are tactics direct from the fascist playbook.
Conservative Jewish gym owner Avi Yemini had every right to invite One
Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts to speak at a meeting
And no surprises for guessing the topics that were likely to be
discussed: Islamic immigration, repeal of s18C, Halal certification, and
the rest. All fairly mainline topics in conversations around the
You are perfectly free to make up your own mind on any of these issues.
Surely the best way of doing so is to listen to opposing points of view
and weigh the arguments.
But Yemini’s plans have collapsed into a catfight complete with flying
fur, hissing and teeth. Glen Eira — where 4 out of 9 councillors are
Jewish — revoked permission for the event.
That, in turn, provoked Roberts to accuse the councillors of
anti-Semitism; and then peak Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation
Commission, weighed in on the side of the council. It’s a mess.
Victorian Police say they “respect the right of the community to express
their views peacefully and lawfully.” But now they’ve pulled the plug
saying they can’t guarantee the safety of attendees.
On Facebook, Jews against fascism brag — without irony — that
they’ve won a great victory for freedom. “We organised against fascism
and we won.” Pardon?
In their totalitarian contempt for free speech and for democracy, and in
their demagogic drive to stamp out any dissenting views, it is Jews
against fascism who are behaving like true fascists.
Whatever you think of Avi Yemini, the man was doing nothing illegal. And
One Nation polled nearly 600,000 votes at the federal election. Hanson
and Roberts are legally entitled to their Senate seats.
But fascists are quick to identify those they brand the enemy. In
Hitler’s Germany it was the Jews who were the enemy, and the engine of
the Nazi state was soon turned against them.
When fascists catch the enemy’s scent, they won’t allow the rule of law
to obstruct their hunt. They are contemptuous of democracy and insist on
total obedience to their own cause.
Violence, intimidation, threats to personal safety, and vilification are
all tactics regularly used by fascists to get their own way and to
grind down the resistance of their opponents.
And that is precisely how Jews against fascism have won their great
‘victory’ for ‘freedom.’ Even the police gave up on enforcing the law to
defend the right of ordinary citizens to meet publicly.
Intolerance is on the march — but it is wearing the disguise of
‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, professing to be concerned only with
securing justice and peace.
It’s a lie, of course. The Left is doubling down for a long fight to
defeat what it claims to be the capitalist tyranny of hatred and
oppression — a fight it is determined to win.
Once victory is secured, it will build a new tyranny of its own. Who will fight against that?
2 December, 2016
Web Hosting Company Shuts Down Conservative Site Boycotting Target Stores
The conservative group 2ndVote has called for a boycott on Christmas
shopping at the retail giant Target over its bathroom policies. But on
Nov. 23, Leadpages, the company hosting the #AnywhereButTARGET boycott
campaign’s website, sent 2ndVote an email requesting the page be taken
In his email to 2ndVote, Leadpages’ director of operations, Doug
Storbeck, stated that the campaign website violated the company’s terms
of service, specifically, the portion prohibiting any content that is
“hateful or discriminatory based on race, color, sex, religion,
nationality, ethnic or national origin, marital status, disability,
sexual orientation or age or is otherwise objectionable.”
In his email to 2ndVote, Storbeck also wrote:
At Leadpages, we strive to create an inclusive workplace that upholds
the dignity of all people. We value, respect, and celebrate everyone’s
individualities and honor their unique strengths from all different
walks of life.
“Leadpages must have sensed our campaign was gaining momentum so they
resorted to the typical liberal bully tactics of shutting down and
censoring ideas they don’t agree with and calling them ‘hateful’ or
‘discriminatory,’” Robert Kuykendall, 2ndVote’s director of
communications, said in a statement. “Apparently, Leadpages wanted
to use the cover of Thanksgiving Day thinking they could quietly make
“Liberals who constantly tout tolerance and inclusion go out of their
way to shut down ideas they disagree with” Lance Wray, executive
director at 2ndVote, said in a statement. “To say our campaign is
about inequality, intolerance, hate, discrimination, or devaluing anyone
is flat wrong, it’s about common sense and safety. But, some of the
truest hate and intolerance we’ve seen has come from the liberal
responses to our campaign.”
Twitter 'verifies' Muslim Brotherhood while expelling conservatives
Social media users have long considered Twitter's coveted blue check mark an online status symbol.
While formally used as a way to visually display that Twitter has
confirmed a given user's identity, marketing specialists say that the
little blue check mark is immense advantage to promoting one's brand and
Twitter says verified accounts are those viewed as being in the
"public interest," and emphasizes "users in music, acting, fashion,
government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and
other key interest areas."
It's no wonder then, that social media erupted when it was discovered
that the Twitter decided to verify @Ikhwanweb, the official twitter
handle of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Critics have rightly pointed out that @Ikhwanweb has been used by the
Muslim Brotherhood to promote violence, including publishing a 2015 call
for violent jihad and "martyrdom," and spreads anti-Israel,
anti-Jewish, and anti-Western hatred online.
Yet while Twitter has failed against Islamic extremists, it's proven
remarkably effective at purging right-wing voices with which it
As an example, Twitter notably yanked the same blue checkmark from
Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos in January of this year before
finally permanently banning the online provocateur.
Twitter argues that verification does not represent an endorsement but
their use of revoking verification as a form of punishment against those
with whom it disagrees belies the fact.
Twitter has also successfully purged controversial "alt-right" twitter
accounts from its platform, leading Hollywood actor James Woods, a noted
conservative with an active twitter following, to announce he would
quit the social media platform over what he regarded as censorship.
1 December, 2016
Must not refer to normal family division of labor
Culture Secretary Karen Bradley slapped down a Tory MP today after he
told MPs that men in his constituency coach football teams while women
wash the kits.
Kettering MP Philip Hollobone raised eyebrows when he made the comments
during an urgent question in the Commons on the sex abuse scandal
He said: 'In a place like Kettering, football is 95 per cent of voluntary activity - the players, the coaches.
'And it's basically the dads who are the coaches and the mums who wash the team kit.'
His comments sparked outraged gasps among some MPs
Ms Bradley joked: 'I'm also aware of many husbands who are very good at
washing the dishes and making sure that they make the food, I'm sure my
husband, if watching this, will be concerned if I didn't put that on the
Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and
even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that
The New York Times published a front-page article on the subject
headlined, “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving,
The article begins with three stories:
“Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled
Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker
in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and
brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move
her wedding so that her fiance’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump
supporters from Florida, could not attend.”
The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying,
“Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to
sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald
A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that
their daughters had informed them that they would no longer allow their
parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an email
reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer
had a son.”
All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of
cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t
we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported
Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered
Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that
another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama
promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president —
“fundamentally (transform) the United States of America.”
In other words, conservatives were not one whit less fearful of Clinton
and the Democrats than Democrats were of Trump and Republicans.
Yet virtually no conservatives cut off contact with friends, let alone parents, who supported Clinton.
This is Tongue-Tied 3
"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"
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Alternative (monthly) archives for this blog are here
The war on "cultural appropriation" is straightforward racism
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general
rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at
2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or
nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea
offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The
First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and
religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that
speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change
is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is
directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying
that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian
says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many
Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically
repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters
that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to
talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis
once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces
stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety
lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's
thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said
himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree
with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will
break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today
are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and
"homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally
ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse
masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is
engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless
they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda
aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about
race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The
most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement
is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race.
Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl
that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of
them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by
itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less
intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he
could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left
define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor
wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply
mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise
from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that
mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are
racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We
have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any
other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but
this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think
your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while
ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If
this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be
separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as
racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as
the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies
there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save
it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to
Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them
is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher
Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that
foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment
that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your
own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not
to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so
necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error
to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less
danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all
manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet
John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you
said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize
something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such
thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles
that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing
the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal
Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not
find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have
been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in
life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding
oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have
enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish
organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians.
Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry --
which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish
cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately,
Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish
dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Email me here (Hotmail address).
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium
Australian Police News
My alternative Wikipedia
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia
MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM
CONSERVATISM AS HERESY
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism
Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)
Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the
article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename
OR: (After 2015)