Free Speech: I find your lack of faith disturbing, America.

May 24, 2015
x

Do we need a refresher?

Via Tom Nichols, here’s Charles Cooke on the results of a survey showing a majority of Democrats and a significant minority of Republicans effectively favor repealing the 1st Amendment:

Depressing news from YouGov:

“YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups. Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.”

What’s disturbing is that the speech in question doesn’t directly incite violence. It doesn’t urge people to go right now and burn the shops of those unliked people “over there.”

Rather, the “hate speech” referred to is a vague term (1) meaning “hurtful things you said that I don’t like.” To give a personal example, I’m very clear regarding my dislike for Islam: I think it an antisemitic, misogynistic, and bigoted faith with aggressive imperatives that lead it to demand supremacy over other faiths and to make war on their adherents until they submit. I have serious questions about whether it is or can be compatible with liberal, post-Enlightenment societies, at least with regard to Muslims who choose to live it as Muhammad intended.

For some, that would qualify as “hate speech”under the standards of that survey, because I would be “stirring up hatred” against Islam, though I would never advocate violence against Muslims, no matter how strong my criticisms of their faith. As Cooke explains, that standard is nevertheless exactly what would get me in trouble in the UK, where free speech protections are dying on the vine under the assault of laws such as the Public Order Act.

That a majority of the self-identified adherents of one of our two major parties would favor laws to criminalize the expression of thought — and that a large portion of the supposedly conservative party would agree with them! — is profoundly disturbing. I hope, indeed, I pray, that this is simply because people agreed with something they thought “sounded reasonable” and didn’t think through the implications thereof, rather than indicating a fundamental change to something that has made us, as a nation, truly exceptional.

Otherwise, we’re in deep trouble.

RELATED: While a number of Republicans have lost their way when it comes to free speech, let’s not forget that it was the Democrats who actually proposed an amendment effectively gutting the 1st Amendment.

Footnote:
(1) This is a great analysis of the increasing calls in the MSM for censoring free speech. Well-worth reading. (h/t Charles Cooke)


(Video) Is the radical Left trying to take over the Democratic Party?

May 18, 2015

Could have fooled me: I thought they had been doing that since the 60s “New Left” decided to take over the party from within after 1968. Then again, maybe this is a generational shift — the new progressive Left pushing out the graying generation of the New Left, the way the New Left swept aside the old New Deal liberals.

Regardless, here’s an interesting discussion of New York City’s “Sandinista Mayor” DeBlasio possibly mounting a challenge to Hillary, courtesy of PJTV:

Of all the possible challengers to Hillary, it’s either Senator Warren or Mayor DeBlasio who pose the strongest threat. And if either one of them wins, I suspect the Democrats will be facing a electoral wipeout to rival 1984.


“Clinton Cash” has the Clintons terrified

May 5, 2015
Above the rules.

No proof

We’re barely into the formal campaign season, and Lady Macbeth has only just launched her coronation march election campaign. And yet the revelations coming from Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” —which hasn’t even been published yet— are doing such damage to Hillary Clinton’s campaign that they’ve put out a video attacking the author and arguing “nothing’s been proved.”

Yeah, they’re wetting themselves:

In the 2.5-minute introductory YouTube video, Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon says the book is “full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence.” Fallon goes through all the biggest allegations from the book, cutting to footage from various TV networks, all of which point out the lack of direct evidence or a “smoking gun.” (The new Clinton website also lists “10 Things You Should Know” about the book, linking to media coverage of various sections of it.)

“The bottom line is this: as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made decisions based on her commitment to protecting America’s national security and standing up for freedom and dignity around the world, not the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation,” Fallon says.

For those who haven’t been following the multi-episodic saga of Clinton corruption, the short version is this: Peter Schweizer is a conservative investigative journalist and historian who has written generally well-regarded books on cronyism and corruption on both sides of the aisle. “Clinton Cash” is his latest. It goes into (at least in part) the “amazing coincidences” surrounding big-money foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, big payments to Bill Clinton for speeches, and favorable State Department decisions (1) for those same donors and speech-purchasers. It’s apparently credible enough that those noted right-wing conspiracy rags, the New York Times and the Washington Post, have taken allegations made in advance copies of Clinton Cash, investigated, and amplified on them. Add to this the battering taken over Benghazi and her email server scandal, and it’s no wonder that Hillary’s trustworthiness rating has gone into a death spiral. Like I said, Clinton, Inc., is panicking, and this video is just one sign.

And yet, as Noah Rothman points out, the whole Clinton defense amounts to personal attacks on critics and cries of “You got nuttin’ on us!”

Heck of an argument for being made president, that.

PS: You know what the fun part is? I mean, aside from watching Lady Macbeth see Birnham Wood come slowly closer to Chappaqua Dunsinane. It’s the realization that, beyond Hillary, the Democrats have no one. Nobody. Not a soul who is a credible candidate. Martin O’Malley? Please, his chances went up with Baltimore. Senator Warren? I doubt her act will play well outside of Massachusetts and Berkeley. Governor Cuomo? He’ll be too busy organizing his defense in criminal court. Nah, the Democrats have tied their fortunes to Hillary, for better or worse.

And “worse” is still to come.

Footnote:
(1) Such as letting a Russian company that surely does Vladimir Putin’s bidding gain control of  20% of the US’ uranium supply. I wonder if the donation came in 30 pieces of silver.

UPDATE: Jay Cost disagrees with me about Senator Warren. And, on reflection, I think he’s right.


That’s gotta hurt: Clinton Foundation put on charity “watch list”

April 27, 2015
Above the rules.

Watched.

And in the same category as Al Sharpton’s “charity.” OUCH!

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month, the New York Post reports. Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” Instead, it placed the Foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

The Clinton Foundation joins Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network on Charity Navigator’s list. It seems appropriate that two great con artists, Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, should be thus be joined.

I wonder if this will affect donations to the Clinton Foundation? Nah. That would assume the donors were giving for charitable reasons, and not out of other… expectations.

I can almost hear the shrieks of offended self-entitlement coming from Chappaqua. They sound sweet. smiley thumbs up


I like a lot of what Carly Fiorina has to say, but…

April 16, 2015
"On the attack"

“On the attack”

I like the relentlessness of her attacks on Hillary Clinton, hitting Lady Macbeth again and again on her record and her hypocrisy. The former Hewlett-Packard executive is the only (almost-) candidate in the race (so far) who can do that without exposing herself to the “sexism card.” That’s takes away one of Hillary’s main ways to dodge any difficult question. Here she is, for example, on the Left’s (and Hillary’s) “selective outrage” over corporate CEO salaries:

She also rapped the Democrat’s recent attack on CEO pay. “I find the selective outrage of the left kind of interesting. They don’t seem to be outraged by the salaries that movie stars make. They don’t seem to be outraged by the salaries that sports stars make. They don’t seem to be outraged by a lot of salaries except for CEOs,” she said.

True enough: they’re happy to fly to California or New York and schmooze the wealthy glitterati (including sports owners). Their salaries are apparently pure as the driven snow. But the head of an investment bank or industrial firm? EVIL!!

Funny, though, how she’s willing to take their money. Perhap’s she has the “Royal Touch” that heals cash payola of its evil the moment she lays hands on it.

Anyway, back to Carly Fiorina and my hesitation. I’d be more comfortable with her as a potential POTUS if she had first won a lesser race, including the Senate race she lost against the eminently beatable Barbara Boxer. If the “feisty Fiorina” I’m seeing now had shown up then, I think she might have taken it. Clinton is likewise eminently beatable, but if Fiorina were nominated and her 2010 version showed up…

That said, and while I don’t doubt the sincerity of what she’s saying, I think Carly Fiorina is running more for vice-president than president.

Still, for however long she’s in the race, it will be fun to see her kick Her Majesty in the shins again and again.

smiley popcorn


Report: The Clintons Referred To Secret Service Agents As “Pigs”

April 8, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

The Reagans and the Bushes were known for their kind treatment of their Secret Service details. The Clintons, apparently (and I’ve heard other stories), not so much. Nice way to teach their daughter about the men required to take a bullet to protect her. Points out who the real “pigs” are.

Originally posted on Nice Deb:

Excerpts from a new book about the White House paint a not altogether complimentary picture of the Clintons’ tumultuous time there. Although some staffers remember the Clintons fondly, others remember screaming fights complete with foul language and flying lamps, as well as their secretive, suspicious and vindictive ways. Most shockingly, the florist remembers overhearing a telephone conversation where Chelsea Clinton referred to a Secret Service member as a “pig” because that’s what her parents call them.

In her article at the Politico, Kate Andersen Brower, who spent four years covering the Obama White House for Bloomberg News, provided these juicy tidbits from The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House.

White House Florist Ronn Payne remembers one day in 1998, after President Clinton had publicly admitted to his affair with a former White House intern, when he was coming up the service elevator with a cart to…

View original 358 more words


Hillary has nothing to hide, and she wiped the email server to prove it

March 27, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton conducted all her State Department official correspondence on this private server. Her top, close aides at State all had accounts on this server. It is inconceivable that sensitive United States Government information  –information foreign intel services would love to have– was not stored on it. The server was astoundingly insecure; in fact, we know it was hacked.

Ergo, it is in the interests of the United State and its people to find out in a verifiable manner –not just taking Hillary’s word for it– what was on that server and if the official records of her work have all been turned over to State, as commanded by law. Also, a forensic analysis of the server is imperative to determine if anyone else had hacked it: who, when, what did they get? Beyond questions of Benghazi or the questionable dealings of the Clinton foundation, we need to know how much damage may have been done to the national security and foreign relations of our country. The potential security breach could make Edward Snowden look like an amateur.

Which is why she wiped the server:

The head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation’s top diplomat.

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.

He said while it’s “not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”

Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton’s attorney asking that the email server be turned over to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.

Gowdy said “it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails.”

Emphasis added. This wasn’t just a wipe to reinstall Window Server or whatever outdated software she was using. When she received word that State wanted those emails, she ran downstairs to hit the SCRAM button. It’s no longer a question of “if,” but “what.” What was on that server she was so desperate to hide? Whatever it was, she arrogated to herself the right to decide what was and wasn’t relevant. In spite of the law. And now we’ll likely never know.

This is like an embezzler burning down a building to hide his crime.

The high-handed corruption of the Clintons never fails to astound.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,260 other followers