They told me that if Trump were nominated, the internet would be turned into a heavily censored medium of propaganda...

...and they were right!

Gay conservative banned from Twitter.

Apparently, threatening a student with violence in the name of the Movement is no big deal.

This is a puke-worthy article that tries to present the human side of a narrow-minded, ideological zealot who in another time would be trying out for the SS.

//Last fall, as Melissa Click yelled and pointed her way into infamy, she quickly became a caricature of a radical faculty member who represented everything conservative lawmakers and pundits hate about academe, right down to her research on Twilight.

But while the video of her screaming at a student went viral, turning her into the Melissa Click, the confrontation on a quad during a protest here last year really wasn’t that remarkable, in her mind. The assistant professor of communication at the University of Missouri was just doing what other professors and administrators were doing there, too, she says. So why did she lose her job?

She has one idea. Under pressure from state legislators, she says, Missouri’s Board of Curators fired her to send a message that the university and the state wouldn’t tolerate black people standing up to white people. "This is all about racial politics," she says. "I’m a white lady. I’m an easy target."//

If other faculty were trying to get the SA to "muscle" a student journalist, they should have been fired.

Not surprising....

...your social superiors hate you, despise you, are close minded against you, want to see you die horribly...

...if you are one of them Christians.

//Yancey and Williamson asked these anti-Christian progressives (who I remind you these scholars document are only a minority of progressives) what laws they would support to “deal with” conservative Christians. The majority of liberals acquitted themselves well in rejecting legal restraints, citing the First Amendment and core liberal values. But a substantial minority (37 percent) could think of many laws they wished to pass, from stripping churches of tax exemptions, to banning homeschooling.

Astonishingly, many well-educated progressives in this sample supported laws stripping conservative Christians of basic human rights:

“Restrict their ability to become judges, senators, representatives, member of Cabinet, military chief of staff and other powerful members of government,” said a man over 75 with a bachelor’s degree. “Should not be able to make decisions regarding the law, they should somehow have to be supervised if they are working with other people (drastic, I know),” said a woman under 45 with a master’s degree. “We should put in place mandatory extreme prison sentences for anyone or any group that attempts to take away civil liberties guaranteed by our constitution,” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. “Churches should not be allowed to provide orphanages and adoption programs,” said one elderly man with a doctorate. “I think we should restrict the indoctrination of children in religious dogma and ritual” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. Conservative Christians should “not be allowed to hold political office, be police etc., serve in the armed forces,” said another middle aged man with a doctorate.

“No academic inquiry has investigated how individuals from a highly educated and politically powerful subculture may express attitudes that dehumanize out-groups,” reports Yancey and Williamson. Until now.

So I am concerned when Hollywood begins to gratify the kind of hatred on display by the minority of progressives, and for the same reasons Yancey and Williamson are concerned about the minority of socially empowered progressives who express open hatred, dehumanization, and even murderous fantasies about Christians. The fact that such views are openly expressed by even a minority of educated elites likely means that they are acceptable expressions in powerful subcultures.

But I wish I were only concerned about a movie. The truth this research reveals is that a subset of socially powerful progressives really viscerally enjoy the idea of using the law to put conservative Christians in their place. This week a judge in Washington State threw the book at a Christian grandmother who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage. World Net Daily described it aptly, “Judge Authorizes Personal Ruin for Florist.”

If you favor gay marriage, especially, go look at this video of Baronnelle Stutzman and consider whether this is the kind of person you want to ruin for what she did. Not only her business but her home, her savings, and the pension of this grandmother could be used to pay the lawyers and to reimburse the couple for what this judge surely feels is not just a violation of law, but a horrible moral crime that must be punished. Animus is the word for that kind of overkill, and the thing is, it is not being demonstrated by rednecks or the uneducated, but by judges.

What kind of person sees justice in or enjoys the idea of depriving someone of her home, her pension, and her savings for asking a gay couple to find another florist?//

What is happening to...

..the political culture of this country?


//If you want to really appreciate what Democrats with guns and badges at their disposal will do in furthering their political interests, you will not find a more terrifying story than David French’s recent account of the Gestapo tactics used by Democratic prosecutors in Wisconsin against Scott Walker and conservative activists. It is nearly impossible to believe that this sort of thing is going on in the United States of America in 2015, but it is. We aren’t talking about petty politics here—we’re talking about using battering rams to knock down people’s doors and sticking guns in their faces because they supported a ballot initiative displeasing to Democratic authorities.

Harry Reid—and every Democrat in the Senate—voted to repeal the First Amendment to render the Supreme Court powerless to protect Americans from this sort of abuse. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to put Americans in prison for disagreeing with him about global warming—and many so-called progressives agree with him. Under the Obama administration, we have seen a weaponized IRS targeting conservative groups for persecution and a weaponized FBI leaning on conservative activists, followed up by a weaponized ATF.

And Democrats, individually and collectively, have supported and enabled every one of these gross abuses of power.

When a governor can be indicted for vetoing a bill, when a university regent can be threatened with criminal prosecution for exposing corruption, and when you have armed men kicking down your door because you signed the wrong petition, you don’t live in a free society—you live in a police state. And that is what Democrats are building, from Austin to Milwaukee to Washington.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417245/democrats-defend-political-persecutions-texas-kevin-d-williamson

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Of course, the whole point of Hate Speech laws and political correctness is to intimidate and chill anyone who dissents.

//Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas.//

Someone ought to file a Section 1983 claim against this woman and drag her through the glass.

Remember when the liberal slogan was "keep the government out of the bedroom"?

Good times, good times...

Liberals storm California bedrooms with new "consent law."

I have a slightly different take on California’s recent decision to regulate college sex. Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s beyond idiotic, unworkable, even borderline Orwellian. We’ll get to all that.

But I also think it’s incredibly useful. You see, for years I’ve been railing and ranting about the ridiculous myth that liberalism is socially libertarian; that liberals are “live and let live” types simply defending themselves against judgmental conservatives, the real aggressors in the culture war. 

That thinking runs counter to most everything liberals justifiably take pride in as liberals. You can’t be “agents for change,” “forces for progress,” or whatever the current phrase is, and simultaneously deny that you’re the aggressors in the culture war. For instance, just in the last decade, liberals have redefined a millennia-old understanding of marriage while talking as if it were conservatives who wanted to “impose” their values on the nation.

Most libertarians are surely against racial discrimination, sexism, poor eating habits, homophobia, and so on. But their proposed remedies don’t look anything like a liberal’s. Libertarians, for the most part, do not favor racial or gender quotas. They’re against banning big sodas, campus speech codes, or forcing elderly nuns to pay for birth-control coverage, among other things.

Liberals, meanwhile, are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. The difference is that when conservatives try to do it, liberals are quick to charge “theocracy!” and decry the Orwellian horror.

Enter California governor Jerry Brown, whose answer to the alleged “rape epidemic” on campuses was to sign the new “affirmative consent” law. It will require a verbal “yes” at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.

Modern Liberalism looks a lot like Fascism.

George Will disinvited as college speaker.

Remember when Liberals cared about "free speech," like burning the flag and protesting against stuff?...

....That was so "we're in power now."

51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech.

The Theocracy of the Ayatollahs of the Progressive Dinner Party.

Atheists often post about the specter of Christian repression, while ignoring where the real intolerance is coming from in modern society.

Indeed, the most troubling issue in this case is not Schneider’s views on vaccinations; it is the response from his opponents. Rather than argue against his position, this vocal minority has called for Schneider to be cast out for his heretical views. As with many other recent cases where a celebrity figure breaks from the ‘progressive dinner-party position’ (think of former Mozilla boss Brendan Eich’s opposition to gay marriage), this intolerant reaction is far more concerning than the supposedly abhorrent views being attacked.

Rather than face the anti-vaccination brigade head-on, with vigorous arguments making a reasoned case for vaccinations, this loud and intolerant mob have demanded Schneider’s image be removed from our TV screens for fear that even a glimpse of him may convince the masses that the US government is trying to poison us all with autism-laced flu jabs. It is this infantilising and patronising outlook that is creating a situation in which debate is painted as something to be feared, and scientifically determined ‘truth’ cannot be questioned.

Now more than ever, as more and more ideas are marked as ‘off the table’ and dissident ideas are casually silenced, we need to reinvigorate public debate. This will, of course, mean that quackery and nonsensical ideas will get an airing, but this will also provide a platform in which these ideas can be challenged and confronted. The last thing we need today is to inoculate ourselves from the free exchange of ideas.//

Salon tells women...

...get back on the plantation.

War on Religious Belief.

Strong Belief is permitted, so long as it is a strong belief in liberal pieties.

When did liberals become so fascist?

That's a trick question - They've always been Stalinists at heart.

//The 1993 RFRA passed the Democratic House unanimously and the Democratic Senate with only three dissenting votes. The American Civil Liberties Union endorsed. New York Democrat Chuck Schumer sponsored. President Bill Clinton signed. Two decades later, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who has gone out on a limb for “bigoted” immigration laws, vetoed the bill to protect the religious liberty of business owners. 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney spoke against the protection of individuals whose faith guides more than their political donations. Libertarian pundits the world over said that one type of liberty trumped another. When the Supreme Court granted religious business owners conscience protections in the Hobby Lobby case, Senate Democrats in the midst of tough election year saw no risk in fighting to do away with pluralism.//

Civilization 3.0 = Dark Ages 2.0

There's a lot to like here, except Powers' befuddlement about the "confusion" about who gets censored is obviously feigned.

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.

How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.

Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can't have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the "right" things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I.

This week, a trail-blazing woman was felled in the new tradition of commencement shaming. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from delivering the commencement speech at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

Don't bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as "a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully" and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a "psychotic mass murderer" and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.

Fighting Fascism - Sauce for the Gander Method

How to block Firefox Users and send them to a site that reads:

Firefox users...

Mozilla recently forced its CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign over his personal support for traditional marriage. The firing followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid, in which OKCupid blocked Mozilla users from visiting their website.
We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access our site, given Mozilla’s crackdown on political and religious positions held by millions of Americans.

We're sorry for the inconvenience, but we feel that fighting discrimination and intolerance of this kind is worth some inconvenience today to avoid massive loss of freedom in the future.

Meanwhile, here are a few alternatives:
Google Chrome | Safari | Opera | Internet Explorer//

Making Democracy Safe for those in Power.

IRS plan undermines democracy.

The IRS last week fulfilled its pledge to clarify federal rules on nonprofit political activity, a much-needed follow-up in the wake of news that unfolded this spring when the agency revealed it had inappropriately denied tax-exempt status to groups on both the right and the left of the political spectrum.

But the proposal itself is flawed in so many ways that it will undermine one of the key ways through which nonprofits do their work: helping Americans understand major issues in elections and encouraging them to register to vote and cast ballots.

By making participation harder for the important nonpartisan voices of groups that represent the public interest, our nation would be left weaker.

Liberals Embracing Their Inner Fascist.

Obama, and his supporters, quite clearly take joy in coercing those seen as enemies to do things they find objectionable. It is indicative of a deep psychological disorder.  - Glen Reynolds

Megan McCardle observes:

I gather that both supporters and opponents of the mandate think the Supreme Court will probably rule that corporations (at least closely held ones such as these two) are going to be granted an exemption from the mandate if they have clear religious objections.

Social media was on fire over this when it happened, and I confess that I am struggling to see why. There was a lot of outraged talk about how corporations aren’t people, of course, but a lot more about employers trying to control their employees’ sex lives, treating women as second-class citizens and so forth. To judge from these reactions, you would think that birth-control pills were a scarce resource that could only legally be obtained through employers. In fact, generic birth-control pills are available for $25 a month through a Costco pharmacy, $50 if you want a brand name.

“But that’s expensive for a young woman on a budget!” you are about to cry. And I am about to answer that it doesn’t get less expensive because an insurer buys it. Regular, predictable expenses such as birth-control pills cannot be defrayed by insurance; they can only be prepaid, with a markup for the insurer’s administrative costs. The extra cost is passed on by the insurers to your employer, and from your employer to you and your fellow workers, either by raising your contribution or lowering the wage they are willing to offer. There’s obviously some cross-subsidy from your fellow employees who don’t use birth control, but overall, there’s no particular reason to force insurers to cover a minor and predictable expense.

The administration didn’t force employers with a religious objection to offer contraception because it made financial or medical sense; they did it because it had great symbolic value to Barack Obama’s political base. And much of that symbolic value seems to actually come from the willingness to coerce people who object to buy the stuff.//

Well, that's another re-assuring parallel.

Obama draws on his totalitarian socialist roots to politicize the holidays.

During a recent stay in Berlin, I visited the old headquarters of the East German Ministry of State Security, better known as the Stasi. The building, in a suitably bleak part of what used to be East Berlin, is now a museum devoted to the communist surveillance state. The upper floors display some of the tools of that surveillance -- miniature cameras, listening devices, files on everything -- that the German Democratic Republic used to control every aspect of its citizens' lives.

But the first floor of the Stasi Museum is not about spying. Instead, it is devoted to the propaganda that East German bureaucrats used to foster socialist consciousness in an unwilling public. One display explains the GDR's efforts in the 1950s to politicize what in the past had been family and religious occasions. The state sought to transform weddings, confirmations, and other personal events into "socialist celebrations," to be "committed collectively and aimed at a confession to socialism," according to the awkward English translation of the exhibit.

The exhibition informs visitors that the project "did not gain popular acceptance." Amazingly enough, people didn't want to turn their family holidays into socialist celebrations.

Here at home, this Thanksgiving brings an effort by the Obama administration to turn a day of giving thanks into a day of discussion about the virtues of national health care. On Wednesday afternoon, just hours before Thanksgiving, President Obama's Twitter account -- which has more than 40 million followers -- sent out this message: "Make sure everyone who sits down with you for #Thanksgivukkah dinner is covered." ("Thanksgivukkah" refers to this year's rare overlap of Thanksgiving and Hanukkah.)

The president's tweet linked to a photo of a young man sitting at a table with a turkey and a menorah. The accompanying text: "Celebrating Thanksgiving. Lighting the Hanukkah candles. Talking about health insurance. Gotta love dinners like these."//

Democrat Statist in favor of licensing journalists.

James Taranto writes:

Uh-oh, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, best known for likening American servicemen to Nazis, is looking to limit your First Amendment rights, if not ours. "Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech," he writes. So far so good. "But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive."

Hmmm....if Sen. Durbin knew anything about history, he would have known that licensing journalist was done by the Nazis....for pretty much the same reason that Durbin wants to license journalists, i.e., to keep an eye on them and make sure that if they offend the State, they won't be journalists anymore.

Of course, Durbin's has a greater reason - he wants to deny First Amendment free press rights to anyone who isn't an officially licensed "journalist."

When did liberals become so afraid of free speech?

Seems like it was around late January of 2009.

The Revolution eats its elders.

Leftist Science Fiction writers are being pilloried for daring - daring! - to call female science fiction writers "ladies":

The virtually thoughtless piling on is perhaps the most appalling. So many of the criticizers whose comments I have come across admit they haven’t even read the columns in question. Once the ball of shunning and shaming got rolling, hundreds of onlookers, alerted by social media, jumped on the bandwagon, attracted by the enticing glow of participating in shared moral outrage. Moral preening is on overload; industry professionals and would-be professionals frantically signal to each other that they are right-thinkers. According to the mau-mauers, Mike and Barry did not merely misspeak (miswrite?); they did not have decent-enough intentions which were ruined by Paleolithic habits and blinkered upbringings; they are morally suspect, malign and vicious and evil. It’s burn the witch! all over again, but this time on a pyre of blog posts and Tweets.

I mentioned before that I completely understand the vehemence of Barry’s reaction to all this. One sadly ironic aspect of this brouhaha is that Barry is a lifelong man of the Left. He was staunchly antiwar during the Vietnam era (see early stories such as “Final War”), and his dream president was (and remains) Eugene McCarthy. I fully believe, based on his writings about Alice Sheldon and Judith Merril, that Barry considers himself a feminist, and an avid one. Condemnation from one’s “own side” always burns hotter in one’s craw than condemnation from “the other guys,” which can be easily rationalized away; just as criticism (especially when viewed as unfair) from one’s own family hurts much worse than criticism from relative strangers. Forty years ago (and in all the years since), Barry was a fierce advocate of the New Wave in science fiction, whose practitioners (with the sole exception of R. A. Lafferty) were all politically aligned with the Left, as opposed to old-timers such as John W. Campbell and Robert Heinlein. Now Barry must feel as though the children of the Revolution are eating their elders (as so frequently happens, it seems).

Q: Where do professional, speech-suppressing, liberal fascists come from?

A: College.

DePaul Punishes Student for Exposing Vandals of Pro-Life Display