Andrew Klavan nails it.

"Try to act like Americans. Keep your damned hands to yourself."...

...also save the "re-education camps" for the Commies.


//On a recent episode of Headline News’s Dr. Drew on Call,  transexual Inside Edition reporter Zoey Tur put his hand on commentator Ben Shapiro’s neck and threatened to send Ben home in an ambulance. This was in response to the fact that Ben called Tur “sir,” and thus refused to accept him as a woman. Rather than make his case in response, Tur bought into the logic of fascism. After that, as far as I’m concerned, his opinion doesn’t matter. His gender doesn’t matter. His feelings don’t matter. When you go to violence in response to words, by my lights, you become a fascist; you become a thug. Your moral legitimacy is gone, baby, gone.

What Tur did bothers me and I think he should be charged with assault and battery (the touch makes it both). It hardly needs saying that if the positions had been reversed, Ben would have been arrested. The media would have demanded it, and they’d have been right. But what bothers me much more than Tur are the apparently sane and civilized people who swallowed the fascist pill right with him. Dr. Drew Pinsky, who did nothing to stop the incident and hasn’t condemned it. Panelist Segun Oduolowu who, speaking like a true fascist, said, “What [Shapiro] did was deliberately disrespectful. You call a transgender woman sir on national television you know what you are doing.” Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times, who mischaracterized the incident in an article and then called Ben the bully. Scott Eric Kaufman, who tried to make Tur’s violence seem heroic at Salon. Because, you know, words are like violence so…

Congratulations, gang. You bought in. Whether your political positions are right or wrong, you’re now fully in the wrong. Come up on stage and pick up your swastika.

And to all those on Twitter and the like who call Ben “whiny” or a coward because he openly protests against being manhandled and threatened, let me explain something to you just so you know: You’re moral idiots. When, like Ben, you’ve looked a thug in the face and held to your position despite his threats, then come to me and explain what courage is. Because then maybe you’ll know.

For crying out loud, has the left really forgotten this? This is so basic. Yell at each other. Call each other names. Say whatever you want. But try to act like grown men and women — like free men and women. Try to act like Americans. Keep your damned hands to yourself.//

Remember when dissent was the highest American value?

Of course, that only applies when there is a Republican president.

//You may recall Brendan Eich. The cofounder and CEO of Mozilla was dismissed from his company in 2014 when it was discovered that, six years earlier, he had donated $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. That ballot initiative, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, passed with a larger percentage of the vote in California than Barack Obama received nationally in 2012. No one who knew Eich accused him of treating his gay coworkers badly—by all accounts he was kind and generous to his colleagues. Nonetheless, having provided modest financial support to a lawful ballot initiative that passed with a majority vote was deemed horrible enough to deprive Eich of his livelihood. Which is one thing.

What is quite another is the manner in which Eich has been treated since. A year after Eich’s firing, for instance, Hampton Catlin, a Silicon Valley programmer who was one of the first to demand Eich’s resignation, took to Twitter to bait Eich:

Hampton ‏@hcatlin Apr 2

It had been a couple weeks since I’d gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan?

BrendanEich ‏@BrendanEich

@hcatlin You demanded I be “completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla” & got your wish. I’m still unemployed. How’re you?

Hampton ‏@hcatlin Apr 2

@BrendanEich married and able to live in the USA! .  .  . and working together on open source stuff! In like, a loving, happy gay married way!//

It looks like the Gay Brownshirts want to make Ender's Game a "Chik-fil-A" success.

Gays trying to organize boycott of Ender's Game.

The Ender's Game author and anti-gay activist Orson Scott Card responded to boycotts threats against the upcoming film adaptation starring Harrison Ford. The queer geek group Geeks OUT is organizing boycotts and "Skip Ender's Game" events in several U.S. cities because of Card's views on homosexuality. He wrote in 2008 that "marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down." Card responded to the backlash in a statement to Entertainment Weekly: "With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. ... Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

Something tells me that nothing will put butts in the seats like a gay-boycott.

If you think they hate you...

...they do.

Gay activists attack bishop.

For most of the attack, which lasted a number of minutes before the women could be forced off stage, Archbishop Leonard sat drenched with water with eyes closed in prayer.  After the ordeal, the archbishop kissed the image of the Virgin Mary on one of the water bottles that was used in the attack. Le Soir reports that one of the interveners said of the archbishop: “He was very calm and maintained a position of prayer. I have to believe he was praying for us.”  

According to FEMEN, Tuesday’s attack was spurred by an interview three weeks ago where Archbishop Leonard said that when speaking to Christians who are inclined to homosexuality he suggests celibacy, as is required for all single persons.  

Already in 2007, as Bishop of Namur, Archbishop Leonard was accused of an offence against the Belgian anti-racism act for calling homosexual acts “abnormal”.  In 2008 he was cleared of homophobia charges after appearing in court.  

In 2010, as the new archbishop of Brussels, the archbishop was targeted by homosexualist groups, and condemned by the country’s prime minister, after he said that AIDS is a consequence of risky sexual behavior, including homosexual sexual activity.  

Also in 2010 he was attacked at his Cathedral by a man who shoved a cherry pie in the archbishop’s face. Again in 2011, homosexual activists at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve near Brussels threw a custard pie in the archbishop’s face. 

Look at the things that Bishop Leonard has had to go through, including clearing himself of "anti-racism" charge.

Look at the hatred on the faces of those women.

Hate Crime/Bullying Alert.


Guilty: Homosexual activist admits sending death threats to pro-life, pro-marriage leader:

A Connecticut homosexual pled guilty on Tuesday to sending 300 threatening messages, including death threats, to the leader of a state pro-life, pro-marriage organization.

53-year-old Daniel Sarno of Enfield, Connecticut, admitted intimidating Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, over a six-month period from last November until May.

One message read: “No mercy for homophobes. I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon, Mr. Wolfgang.”

Another said, “I sure hope somebody blows you away. Yer dead.”

Sarno once asked, “Are ‘family values’ worth dying for, Mr. Wolfgang?”

Wolfgang said Sarno identified himself as a homosexual in the letters, which came addressed “Attention: Peter Wolfgang.”

“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident,” Wolfgang said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “In fact it is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among some proponents of same-sex ‘marriage.’ It is clear that their pretense of ‘tolerance’ is over.”

Via Wintery Knight.

Gay Activists continue to work at setting their movement back 50 years.

Legal Insurrection provides this scene of gay activists spreading the message of tolerance by forming a mob and mocking an elderly African-American street preacher:

I attended Friday night’s “Kiss-in” protest outside the only Chick-fil-A location in Chicago. The small group of between twenty to thirty protesters gathered outside the restaurant around 7pm. A few same-sex couples took the opportunity to kiss in public, as the protest organizers encouraged attendees to do on their facebook page.

I asked many of the protesters whether they agreed with Alderman Moreno’s actions; the reactions were mixed. Some agreed — one woman told me she took a “European view” of our Constitutional Rights — while others felt he was in the wrong despite agreeing with him in a general sense.

While there, a group formed around an elderly African-American homeless man, who was reading his bible while seated along a fence rail off to the side of the protest. Some in the group confronted the man, who was reading the bible aloud, and engaged him in theological debates. A few others took the opportunity to mock the man, which I captured on video...

Nearing the end of the protest, someone from the group wrote on the sidewalk in front of the homeless man, “He’s Really Gay Deep Down,” with an arrow pointed to where he was seated.

Gay Chick-Fill-A Demonstration sets mainstream acceptance of Gays back by 50 years.

It's beyond parody.

I mean that literally. A few years ago, the Onion published "Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years":

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

The Onion's parody became reality in the Chick-Fill-A counter demonstration as shown in these pictures:

Because nothing says "tolerance" like open-hatred for other people's most cherished beliefs.

Because nothing says we are serious and deserve respect like a hairy man wearing a leopard print dress.

Source: Ringo's Pictures.

Because nothing says "tolerance" like vandalism.

Liberal Hypocrisy - if the Christian founder of Chick-Fil-A says he supports traditional marriage, and that means he's against gays...

...does that mean that gays who support same-sex marriage are against traditional marriage?

Get Religion points out that the Dan Cathy - CEO of Chick-Fil-A - never mentioned homosexuality or homosexual marriage in his interview. That was just inferred by the media without ever talking to him:

Now, one would assume — after reading a reference to the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage” — that this interview from the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina (which was circulated by Baptist Press) actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.

In this case, one cannot assume that.

While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasn’t asked about those issues in the interview.

This raises an interesting journalistic question: Is a defense of one doctrine automatically the same thing as an on-the-record attack on the opposite doctrine? In this case, is it accurate for CNN (and others) to say that Cathy made comments about gay marriage when, in fact, he did not speak words addressing that issue?

But wait, readers might say, everyone KNOWS what he was talking about! And, once his actual comments were quoted, kind of, in the mainstream press, it was then possible to quote many people who offered their angry reactions to his actual words because of their interpretation of them.

This is certainly true. It would have been easy to have quoted several of the tsunami of tweets, blog comments and other commentaries blasting Cathy for his defense of basic Christian doctrines. You know, those quotes that sound like this, drawing from the actual interview:

“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”

“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”

“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”

And the marriage thing?

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

So there is the context. It certainly would be easy for journalists to talk to the company’s critics and, thus, to establish a gay-rights context for this discussion, if that is the goal. But that isn’t my point, of course. That isn’t what CNN, and others, did in their reports. They reported that Cathy made comments, that he spoke words directly addressing gay-rights issues, that he delivered a series of negative, anti-gay remarks. In effect, Cathy is being quoted saying words that he said, as well as words that he did not say.

You can cut the bigotry with a soft, blunt butter knife.

Backstory.

Here is an article on the background of Kenneth Howell, the University of Illinois professor fired - or put on leave - for daring to teach Natural Law to an offended student.

Interesting biography.  The callow student could learn a lot from this man.

Bad Voters! You are all "Grounded."

Jennifer Roback Morse on the Prop 8 federal trial:

In her syndicated column, my friend and colleague Maggie Gallagher makes these points about the upcoming Prop 8 trial. 1. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 should be a matter of law, not a matter of facts. But Judge Walker has ruled that they will have a trial about the facts. Ordinarily, findings of fact by a lower court, cannot be overturned by a higher court. So the more of his opinions he can stuff into the box labelled “fact,” the harder it will be to overturn. 2. The court has ruled that the private correspondence of the campaign, revealing the “motives” of the campaign are a fair subject for the trial. This is an outrage: the motives of the campaign or the voters should not be on trial. 3. The judge has ordered that the trial be televised, in defiance of federal rules.


Bottom line: the voters of CA are on trial for having the temerity to vote against same sex marriage.

Judge refuses to protect Prop 8 donor names; voter intimidation campaign spreads

Check out this story.

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage in the state in November, say they expect discrimination, harassment and intimidation to continue after a federal judge denied a request to keep private the names of donors to the initiative.

Douglas McDermott, president of McDermott Financial and Insurance in Sacramento, donated $15,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign in September. While his business hasn't been targeted, McDermott said some angry callers have left threatening messages.

"You get telephone calls, you get threats," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "Ask anyone — If you've donated, your name is published everywhere, all over California. That's what's happening."

"They come all day and night," he said.

Another donor, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, said employees at his California real estate development and investment company received an anonymous e-mail in October outing him as someone who gave $30,000 to support Prop 8.

"Did you know you work for a judgmental bigot? I know I could not work for someone who encourages bigotry and hate," the e-mail read.

"Something like that isn't the nicest thing to get when you come into the office on a Monday," the executive told FOXNews.com. "Another fellow left a message on my voicemail saying, 'What goes around comes around, and now you're going to experience the comes around part. Have fun.'"

Both men said they're worried that the harassment will continue in the wake of Thursday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Morrison England. Attorneys for the Prop 8 campaign have indicated they plan to appeal. An official for the Yes on 8 campaign has said another 1,600 donors will be put at risk with the release of the reports on Monday.

"You don't know in today's world where threats will lead," the real estate executive told FOXNews.com. "There's a delicate balance between the rights of an individual and disclosure."

The judge's ruling upheld California's campaign finance law, which specifies that information on political campaign donations be made public. Nationwide, such laws aim for transparency in the political process by shining a light on where the money is coming from and where it's going.

I've always been in favor of disclosure laws, but this kind of thing makes me wonder how such laws would have fared in the 1960s when supporters of Civil Rights laws could get targeted by racists. In that kind of case, I think that disclosure laws wouldn't have lasted five seconds.

The people subject to this kind of fascist tactics should network and start hitting their tormenters with some Unruh Act lawsuits.

[Via Mark Shea.]

Liberal Fascism

Rod Dreher has a post on a map someone ran up that "mashes" the Prop 8 donor list with Google. I've spent a few minutes seeing who in Fresno donated to protect marriage in Fresno, and I spotted a basketball coach and the HR manager of the local Whole Foods.

I'd be worried if I was either of those two guys, but, pretty clearly, the Whole Foods HR guy has the courage of his convictions.

Dreher writes:

Here is a Google map that allows you to find your way to the homes of people who donated money to Prop 8 in California. It's damn creepy, is what it is. What could possibly be the use of this kind of information, presented in this way? It's intended to intimidate people into not participating in politics by donating money. Do that, and you'll end up on some activist group's map, with hotheads being able to find your street address on their iPhones.

If I were any of these people, I'd be scared right now -- especially if I lived in San Francisco. And given the attacks made on Prop 8 supporters, I doubt very much I would ever give another dime to any campaign that would get me on some gay activist hate map.

The thing is, I don't believe that donors to political campaigns should be anonymous. It's just never occurred to me that people would take that information and use it in such a way as to pose a public threat to private people.

Ditto, particularly that last point.

It was not all that long ago that the Ninth Circuit upheld a RICO damage award against the "Nuremberg File", which used to list abortion providers as "wanted" posters, and cross out the names of any who had been killed or died. The Court upheld the award on the basis that the format constituted a "true threat" - the website actually threatened the abortion providers - although the site actually contained no explicit threat.

How is that different from this?

Apart from the politics, that is.

The power to tax is the power to destroy

A few months after Prop 8 passes, San Francisco invokes a novel theory to tax Catholic property.

Good Advice

Dr. Helen quotes Ted Nugent:

You don't need tough love in America, you need tougher love. Around the water cooler, at the church, at school. At the work place, at the picnic, and the bowling alley. You should be pounding the desk with your fist, raising hell, and take this beautiful state back from the pimps, and the whores, and the welfare brats, and the gang-bangers who seems to have all the rights in the world while the good people, the productive, law abiding people don't have jack squat -- and I think I am going to throw up.

And adds:

Please remember that most people are cowards, if you speak up, they will often back down or stammer. Too many times, we let liberals get away with making fun of Republicans and those of us who do not agree with them politically. This needs to stop and the only way to do it is to speak up in the classrooms, public and at work. Remember that we are 56 million strong--those of us who did not vote for Obama. We are hardly alone.

An Aristotelian would recognize both the "Formal Cause" and the "Final Cause in the gay mob intimidation of society that has been occuring in California since the election.

The Formal Cause is that intimidation works and the gay left is intolernat of diverse thinking and wants to bring all thinking into accord with its views.

The Final Cause is that intimidation works and with enough intimidation, society will be brought into accord with its views.

The way to oppose this agenda is to oppose this agenda on the retail level as well as the wholesale level. Individuals need to speak the truth of their beliefs to other individuals, which has not been occuring out of fear of being labeled a "bigot." As I've said, the worst thing about political correctness is that it forces people to lie to themselves. Hence, we see the gay left assault their opponents and we are told that people on "both sides confront each other." Well, as they say, who are you going to believe: the media or your lying eyes? If people don't individually say that they actually are seeing what they are actually seeing, then we will end up in a world where we can no longer tell truth from fiction.