Advertisers desert Beck in boycott over racism remark

We read:

"Advertisers have been caught in the crossfire over Barack Obama’s healthcare plan after Glenn Beck, a television presenter and radio host, accused the president on Fox News of being ‘a racist'. At least 10 advertisers, including Geico, the Berkshire Hathaway insurance company, and Procter & Gamble, the household products group, pulled advertising from Mr Beck’s show after a July 28 broadcast in which he described the president as having ‘a deep-seated hatred for white people.’

The advertisers’ exodus was prompted by liberal activist groups such as ColorOfChange.org , which highlighted their financial support for the programme and called on supporters to boycott their products.”

Source

I gather that most of the advertisers concerned were Left-leaning to start with. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway has been prominent in his support for Obama, for instance.

It might be rather fun if conservatives boycotted the same advertisers until they renewed their support for Beck. Whether you agree with the speech or not, there is a public interest in political speech not being restricted.

Man pleads guilty to racial threat using fake Facebook account

Just another example in a long tradition of Leftist fakery. There have been quite a few prior examples noted on this blog. See here, for instance. Real hate speech is so rare among white conservatives that blacks and Leftists have to make it up from time to time. It seems to give them an erection.

"An African-American man has pleaded guilty after being accused of impersonating a white supremacist in a fictitious Facebook account to make death threats against an African-American university student.

Dyron L. Hart, 20, of Poplarville, Mississippi, pleaded guilty Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt to one count of communicating threats in interstate commerce, according to a Department of Justice statement. Hart admitted creating the fictitious account in November, pretending to be a white supremacist outraged by the election of Barack Obama as the nation's first African-American president, the statement said.

He then transmitted a death threat via Facebook to an African-American student at Nicholls State University in Louisiana, saying he wanted to kill African-Americans because of Obama's election, according to the statement....

"This is an extremely odd case, a very unusual case," said U.S. Attorney Jim Letten of the Eastern District of Louisiana. "The contents of the messages were extremely troubling and provocative and very threatening."

Hart will face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine when sentenced November 18, the statement said.

Source

Australia: Plan to change Punjab Place to Oak Tree Place attacked as racist

I don't suppose we are allowed to mention that some streets in Bombay which had had English names for centuries were given Hindi names instead a few decades back? OK to change English names to Indian ones but not OK to change Indian names to English ones?? OK for Indians to prefer Indian names but not OK for English-speaking people to prefer English names?

"A race row is brewing in the quiet cul-de-sac of Punjab Place at Logan in Queensland as 32 residents petition to change the street's Indian name. The retirement village at the centre of the stoush, south of Brisbane, is now considering a withdrawal of its application to the council, The Courier-Mail reports.

But yesterday residents said they still wanted the street renamed Oak Tree Place, after the Oak Tree Lifestyle Village that dominates a quarter of the streetscape. A 32-signature petition was submitted by village manager Dawn Ludlow to Cr Lynne Clarke, stating Oak Tree Place was a more suitable name for the street than Punjab - a northwest Indian state.

Residents outside the Boronia Heights village yesterday said they signed the petition because they felt Oak Tree was "prettier". "This isn't racist," resident Ron Edmonds said. "Oak Tree is just a nicer name." Further up the cul-de-sac, resident Annie Liu said Punjab was an "Indian name". "It is not against Indians but this is a beautiful street and Oak Tree is a beautiful name," she said. "Punjab isn't as much."

But Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin president Umesh Chandra said the request to rename the street was devastating. Given the controversy over attacks on Indian students in Australia, plans to remove an Indian street name would make relations worse...

SOURCE

Disgrace: Yale removes Mohammed cartoons from book about … Mohammed cartoons

We read:

"I’m tempted to call this unbelievable but that simply wouldn’t be true. In fact, the very first words of the Times’s piece are “It’s not all that surprising.” Not only do research universities purportedly devoted to free inquiry now censor primary sources in the interest of “safety,” but I’ve experienced it myself: Imagine, if you will, the absurdity of a panel discussion about images which the audience isn’t allowed to view. It’s come to that. This is the scholarship equivalent of Yale donning a burqa to suppress the temptations its immodesty might otherwise inspire in Muslim men. Good work, academia.

Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí…

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

Not only were the “expert” recommendations that Yale should suppress the images unanimous, but not a single person quoted in the story offers a full-throated defense of a university’s obligation not to sacrifice knowledge on the altar of totalitarianism.

Source

Free speech blocked in Tennessee school

We read:

"A federal judge ruled a Tennessee school’s ban on Confederate clothing was a reasonable attempt to prevent disruptions because of previous racial threats.

U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan threw out a former student’s free-speech lawsuit against the dress code at Anderson County High School and Anderson County Career Technical Center in a ruling Tuesday.

Tommy Defoe sued after he was sent home and then suspended for insubordination in 2006 for wearing a T-shirt and a belt buckle to school bearing the image of the Confederate battle flag. He said he wanted to display his pride in his Southern heritage. Others view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and intolerance.

Varlan said Tommy Defoe’s free-speech rights to display the Confederate battle flag in 2006 were properly limited by school officials who “reasonably forecasted a material and substantial disruption to the school environment” if the clothing was permitted.

Source

So free speech was blocked because of something that MIGHT happen. By that standard all sorts of things could be blocked. When I get into my car I MIGHT hit someone with it so should I be banned from driving?

Bush=Hitler fine; Obama=Hitler an outrage



The double standard never stops. As it happens, conservatives have better reality contact than Democrats so the above poster was NOT the work of conservatives. It was the work of the eccentric LaRouche organization. And it was paraded about by DEMOCRATS! See here and here. The lapdog media, of course, attribute the poster to conservatives. Taranto has a riff on the matter.

Don’t Employers Deserve Free Speech?

We read:

"The debate over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is being reframed now that the notorious “card check” provision—which would have taken away the right to secret ballots on union representation—will be pulled from the bill. Business groups and members of Congress on the fence will now come under tremendous pressure to support the act, although equally objectionable provisions, such as mandatory arbitration, remain.

Yet there has been virtually no debate over the bill’s onerous and unprecedented penalties against employers who may fall afoul of vague National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules as workers try to unionize. These penalties will stifle employer free speech. Would an employer be willing to inform employees about the potential downsides of unionization in the face of fines, treble damages, injunctions and costly litigation levied by EFCA?

Today, according to the National Labor Relations Act—as amended in 1947—employers are permitted to express themselves to their employees with “views, argument, or opinion . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Of course, this leaves unclear just what constitutes lawful opinion versus unlawful threats or promises. And over the years, the shifting composition of the NLRB—and of the courts—has caused disagreements over what permissible free speech is.

Under EFCA, employers would risk federal injunction litigation even before the labor board has considered whether there was a threat or promise. Based on union-filed unfair labor practice charges, if the board’s general counsel—one person—determines that there is “reasonable cause” to believe an employer threat or promise may have been made, EFCA requires the general counsel to seek an immediate federal court injunction.

Only much later, perhaps years later, after a costly trial, briefing and appeals will the NLRB and courts decide whether the statements were lawful and whether fines are to be imposed....

Faced with these draconian penalties, employers—particularly smaller employers—will be forced to remain silent. EFCA’s penalty provisions deserve careful scrutiny in light of statutory and constitutional free speech protections. Their net effect will be to deny free speech to employers and to deprive employees of the advantages of meaningful debate before they make important choices affecting their livelihood.

Source

German football song irks Muslims



We read:

"An anthem sung by fans of the German football club FC Schalke 04 has drawn protests from Muslims because of its reference to the Prophet Muhammad.

The Gelsenkirchen club, which plays in Germany's top league, the Bundesliga, has asked an Islam expert to consider whether the song might be insulting.

The third verse contains the words: "Muhammad was a prophet who understood nothing about football". "But of all the lovely colours he chose [Schalke's] blue and white," it goes.

The club has received hundreds of e-mails from angry Muslims recently, since Turkish media carried reports about the song.

Police in Gelsenkirchen, in the industrial Ruhr region of western Germany, say they are taking the Muslim complaints very seriously.

Source

"In God We Trust" incorrect?

We read:

"Officials in Kissimmee, Fla., blocked an effort to add "In God We Trust" to the city logo, saying the campaign brought too much negative attention -- but a city commissioner vows to fight it.

Commissioner Art Otero proposed the idea because he believes the country is becoming too liberal on issues including homosexuality, abortion and marijuana. Otero says he has plenty of support, and some residents may start a petition for a voter referendum.

The City Commission withdrew the possible change last week. Mayor Jim Swan said Otero's campaign brought "ridicule" on Kissimmee, and officials have received threats of boycotting local businesses and "future businesses looking elsewhere." Swan also said public employees have been deluged with distracting calls and comment on the issue.

Source

CNN refuses ad critical of health insurer

Very fishy. A corporate tie-up somewhere?

"At least they don’t call themselves “Fair and Balanced.” Days off refusing to run an ad spot criticizing its evening host Lou Dobbs, the cable network has now refused to run an ad criticizing a top health insurance executive who recently retired with a package worth some $70 million and was paid $12.2 million in total compensation last year. Why?

The ad “unnecessarily” “singles” out an individual company and person by name.

According to Washington Post Company blogger Greg Sargent, CNN wrote the labor-backed group Americans United for Change that, “This ad does not comply with our clearance guidelines because it unnecessarily singles out an individual company and person.”

The ad claims that, on average, Cigna CEO H. Edward Hanway makes $5,883 an hour. MSNBC, meanwhile, has said they’ll run the ad.

Source

I thought ALL ads "singled out" somebody or something! But aint competition wonderful? It's money in the pocket of MSNBC.

"Wicked Thoughts" has moved house

From the Wicked Thoughts mirror site:

OK. I have had enough of Google/blogspot. They have had my blogspot blog blocked for a week now and still have not told me why. So I am transferring operations to Wordpress. Whether they will be any better remains to be seen of course but this is the new site: Wicked Thoughts. Be sure to keep a bookmark to this mirror site, however, in case Wordpress go strange on me too.

One annoyance is that all my archives (past posts) are blocked at the moment too. I have therefore posted the July archive on this site. See below. All of my posts for this month are up on the new site so go there now and have a look.

The postings for July are here. I keep copies of everything I post so I may post archives for previous months in due course too.

Must not mention that many kitchenhands are illegals

We read:

"Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, is a funny guy. Or so he thinks. His jokes, though, are not making many people laugh. Take for example the one he told at a roast at Captain Bill's Restaurant in Bay Shore, L.I., last week.

Newsday reports that Levy asked someone in the audience, who happened to be a Canadian native, if he was a U.S. citizen. The man answered that he was, to which Levy is reported to have said that was good, because if he wasn't "I'd have to deport you, like the guys back there in the kitchen."

Isn't that funny? The "guys back there in the kitchen" must have been rolling with laughter. Especially because the jokester was the same person who in 2007 had asked county cops and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to raid homes where illegal immigrants were believed to be living.

Source

The attack on humor

We read:

"Recently, Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli canceled the web-series “Mouthpiece Theater” after its hosts made a joke about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Bowing to pressure from an obscure organization called Action in the Media, the Washington Post reinforced the notion that any potentially offensive humor must result in a swift apology, perhaps even in resignation or firing. But since when is it criminal behavior to tell a joke, let alone offend someone? In a country that cherishes freedom of speech, when did it become a requirement to prescreen jokes to meet the approval of every available demographic?

The notion that the only appropriate jokes are those pre-approved by special interest groups would be laughable if it wasn’t taken so seriously. In this most recent case, Dana Milbank, a columnist, and Chris Cillizza, a White House correspondent and blogger, lost their show after a woman’s group, Action and the Media, complained that one of their jokes was “sexist” and “tasteless.” What did Action and the Media think was so terribly offensive? On the latest webisode of “Mouthpiece Theater,” Milbank and Cillizza visually implied that President Obama would serve “Mad Bitch Beer” to Hillary Clinton during a discussion about Obama’s recent “beer summit.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the purpose of the joke was to be offensive. Most viewers probably groaned—chuckled—and then moved on. Not the ladies at Action and the Media. They took action immediately, making sure that Milbank and Cillizza would be properly punished for daring to associate the secretary of state with a vulgar term for female dogs. They are perfectly within their rights to be as outraged as they want to be, of course, but the Washington Post commentators did nothing to warrant the cancellation of their show and the removal of the particular webisode in question. They should not have apologized.

By apologizing, as so many others have done in similar situations, Milbank and Cillizza strengthened the armies of the humorless and marched us one step into the icy grasp of the thought police.

Source

Obama: Critics must be silent

We read:

"Yesterday, at a rally for R. Creigh Deeds in Virginia, President Obama said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

For Barack Obama, democracy appears to be a distraction. He really does seem to view himself as a Caesar.

Shortly after taking office, Obama held a meeting with governors. At the time, one person in the room relayed Obama's request that critics and skeptics of the stimulus plan keep their concerns to themselves. Just let me do it, was his attitude. He got pushback and he wasn't happy. He wanted democratically elected state governors to shut up so he could do as he pleased. He knows better and we should respect that, seems to be the attitude.

Source

Dangerous to call Obama a "Nagger"

We read:

"A racially charged sign that takes aim at President Barack Obama is raising eyebrows in northern Kentucky. The sign is located along Main Street in Glencoe at the Eagle Hill Armoury gun store.

The sign reads, "Obama complains Americans are fat, police act stupid, U.S.A. is a bully, the president is a nagger." However, at some point over the weekend, the last word was changed to be a racial slur. The store owner said that he changed the sign immediately after being told about the slur and that he reported the issue to police.

The man who owns the sign, Bryan Roach, said that vandals changed the sign.... Many people in Glencoe said that they believe local children were to blame.

Source

It's conservatives who do hate speech and hate-crimes, right?

No Obama supporter would call a black man, a n*gger, would he? Not unless the black man was a conservative, of course.

"Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the brutal beating of activist Kenneth Gladney in South St. Louis County, MO, at a town hall event sponsored by Congressman Russ Caranhan (D-MO) by SEIU members who Wilson said "appears to have been sent out purposely to intimidate the crowd and instigate violence."

According to Kenneth Gladney's attorney, David B. Brown, "Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out 'Don't Tread on Me' flags to other conservatives."

The statement continued, "The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman."

According to the statement, "The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo."

More HERE. Another account of the matter here

Violence against a black man on account of his political speech? Well, the Ku Klux Klan WERE Democrats, so I guess not much has changed. But I wonder why this has not hit the headlines of the New York Times? It's mentioned on one of their blogs but not elsewhere. Now if a REPUBLICAN had attacked the guy .....

US Marine Corps afraid of social networking sites

Surely only Milquetoast warriors would think Facebook or Twitter is a "high risk" threat. What is it when someone points a gun at you? The top brass are shaming their men with this nonsense.

"Citing security concerns, the United States Marine Corps has issued an order banning access to social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter on its network for the next year. The Pentagon is now reviewing its social networking policy for the entire Department of Defense, which should be completed by the end of September, according to a report from CNN.

The policy for the entire military is somewhat fragmented, as the Army ordered military bases to allow access to social media sites in May, according to Wired. … The Marine Corps order noted that social networking sites ‘in general are a proven haven for malicious actors and content and are particularly high risk due to information exposure, user generated content and targeting by adversaries.’”

Source

U.S. no longer at war with 'terrorism'

We read:

"It's official. The United States is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" nor locked in a "global war." President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official on Thursday declared as unacceptable the terms crafted by the George W. Bush administration.

It is now solely a "war with al Qaeda" and its violent extremist allies, said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank....

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama used the term "war on terror" Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but he has not used it since.

Source

So all Islamic extremists are affiliated with al Qaeda? Some of them might be surprised to hear that. There are a lot of divisions in the Muslim world. For a start, al Qaeda are Sunni. So there are no Shiite terrorists?? Where does that leave the Shiite Iranians and their allies in Lebanon?

Still, "war on terror" was a pretty silly phrase too. The accurate thing to say would be "war on Muslim terrorists" but we MUST not mention that word "Muslim", of course.

Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism, right?

Only when you are dissenting from GOP policies, apparently.

"Remember what people on the left used to say about questioning the policies of the occupant of the White House? Going back several years and ending only a few months ago, I seem to remember a lot of people talking about how “dissent is patriotic.” After all, wasn’t it lefty saint Howard Zinn himself who went so far as to declare that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”? Even politicians like the current U.S. Secretary of State, sick and tired though she was at the time, got into the act:

Yet now, like in the fickle world of fashion, dissent is strictly outré - an unsavory pastime for angry redneck losers with a birth certificate fetish. These days all the chic politicos are doing what’s best for the country and getting on board the Healthcare Express, full speed ahead. And much like another infamous vehicle from the recent past, the cabal that’s doing the driving is terrified that if they slow down, the entire effort will blow up in their faces. Hence the need to intimidate anyone raising uncomfortable questions.

Source

I somehow missed Obama telling his healthcare critics what great patriots they are. We hear that they are a "mob" instead! The usual disposable principles of the Left.

No free speech for judges in Britain

We read:

"A senior judge who described Britain’s immigration system as “completely lax” is to face an investigation. Judge Ian Trigger said last week that “hundreds and hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has asked the Office for Judicial Complaints to rule on whether the comments were too political. The decision will be made jointly by Lord Judge and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw.

Source

If he'd said what a great system Britain had, there'd be no problem, of course.

Some political statements should be reported to the White House??

The following appears on the White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

The Left are always claiming that certain things will have a "chilling" effect on free speech but this strikes me as a real-life example of it. If you email criticisms of Obamacare, you go on an official list of some kind. Lists vary, of course, but anybody who has lived under the former socialist governments of Eastern Europe will tell you that being on a socialist government's list can be very bad news.

Taranto covers the matter at some length and I like the following comment from him:

At the very least, it is obnoxious to imply that all opposition to ObamaCare is based on “disinformation.” This show of contempt for opposing views ought to make skeptics even more skeptical. And it is creepy for an agent of the government to ask citizens to inform on their neighbors.

There certainly is a whiff of old Eastern Europe about it all.

There are several quite sane, sober and factual articles about the "end of life" provisions of the draft health bill on SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. There is certainly much more than a "rumor" to it.

See here for the bromide that the White House has issued as a response to criticisms such as the above.

A "racist" poster?



We read:

"For reasons that baffle me, a big deal is being made over someone photoshopping the president’s face into a representation of The Joker from the The Dark Knight. The LA Weekly, eager to play the racism card says “the only thing missing is the noose.” Whaaa?

Now, I can see if someone had taken a picture of President Obama and photoshopped whiteface for spite and without context, (or, for that matter, blackface as done here to Michael Steele) then one might have a credible case for crying “racism.”

But this is making a clear reference to a known fictional character called The Joker, and there is clearly the word “Socialism” beneath the portrait. This is political commentary; whoever came up with it is using a familiar visual image, and giving us an actual word which delivers a two-point message: he or she thinks the president is a joke, and a socialist.

This -until very recently- used to be called “free speech.” It is protected in this country, and thought very highly of. And protest or dissent, we have been told, is the very highest form of patriotism.....

We just went through 8 years of President Bush being called Hitler and photoshopped as Hitler, as Mussolini, as Saturn Devouring One of His Own Children.

Obama’s predecessor endured 8 Years of Assassination Fascination. Actually, the “Assassinate Bush Chic” began even before the 2000 election, when Craig Kilborn flashed “snipers wanted” under a picture of Bush. So-called “newsmen” like Keith Olbermann repeatedly called the president “a fascist” and “a terrorist.” And Obama supporters can’t handle The Joker and the word “Socialism”?

Source

Jeremy Clarkson mentions the war



Popularity protects him. He is a breath of fresh air amid Britain's stifling political correctness.

"Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and Germans go together in much the same way that petrol and naked flames don’t. So when the controversial host announced he had prepared his own spoof ad for the launch of the new Volkswagon Scirocco, the BBC prepared for the worst. And the worst it got - scores of complaints from outraged viewers after Clarkson lauded the VW’s ability to go from “Berlin to Warsaw in one tank”.

More than 6.7 million viewers watched Clarkson’s “ad”, in which panicked Warsaw citizens fled the city, rushing to board buses and trains as sirens warned of the approaching Germans.

The reference to Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland that triggered World War II has sparked a storm of debate in the UK and Europe, with onlookers struggling to decide whether Clarkson’s ad was tasteless or just a bit of fun.

Clarkson has made a name for himself as a spokesman of Britain’s un-PC brigade, and it isn’t the first time he’s had fun at the expense of Germany’s wartime atrocities. In 2005, he said a German-made Mini’s indicators should go up and down while mimicking a Nazi salute and that the car should have a GPS system “that only goes to Poland”.

A spokeswoman for the show told Britain’s Daily Mail it had only received a handful of complaints but national broadcast watchdog Ofcom figures are understood to be higher when they are released tomorrow.

The Volkswagon Scirocco episode was the last in the current series. The BBC has confirmed the hugely popular show will return.

Source

"Don't mention the war" is politically correct in Britain but the saying actually comes from an hilarious episode of the famous BBC comedy "Fawlty Towers", featuring the inimitable John Cleese.

Google censorship again

This time they have blocked the popular humor blog Wicked Thoughts. All is not lost, however, as the Mirror site is still updating regularly. I have no idea what the blocking is all about or if it will be permanent so do publicize the link to the mirror site.

This is a confused one

A Muslim school says it was defamed when the ACLU said it was a Muslim school. I kid you not.

"An Inver Grove Heights charter school accused of crossing the line between religion and public education is fighting back against the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.

Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) says the ACLU, which sued the academy in January, defamed the school and hurt its ability to hire qualified teachers, according to counterclaims filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.

In its suit, the ACLU alleged that the public school promotes the Muslim religion, violating the Constitution's First Amendment.

The K-8 school has denied the allegations and said in court documents that Charles Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota ACLU, injured the school's reputation by saying publicly that TiZA is "a theocratic school ... as plain as the substantial nose on my face."

The ACLU's lawsuit and statements led to threats against the school's staff, and the lawsuit and resulting negative attention hurt the school's learning environment and caused several students to withdraw from the school, TiZA said in a statement Tuesday. At least 10 prospective TiZA teachers withdrew their applications in the middle of the hiring process, leaving the school with several open positions, the statement said.

Source

Truth hurts, I guess.

Good news for free speech -- so the Left hate it

I can do no better than to quote Taranto on this:

"Next month before the usual October start to its term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold an unusual rehearing of a case it declined to decide in the 2008-09 term, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case involves the regulation of campaign speech, and the court is expected to consider whether to overturn a pair of precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which held that a ban on corporate funding of campaigns does not violate the First Amendment, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), which upheld a ban on corporate-funded speech that so much as mentions the name of a political candidate.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post is alarmed at the prospect:

Overruling Austin would be a disaster, and curtailing McCain-Feingold [the statute upheld in McConnell] only slightly less so. The floodgates would be opened for corporations, and labor unions, to run ads supporting or attacking candidates--not only in federal campaigns, but in the 22 states that now prohibit such spending. The only restriction would be that they couldn’t give to candidates directly.

Imagine the 2010 election in a post-Austin world, with drug companies going after members of Congress who vote against their interests, or banks targeting lawmakers who backed tighter regulation. It’s not as if these industries lack political power now, but consider what kind of legislation would result if lawmakers had to fear that an industry they defied could spend an unlimited amount to defeat them at the next election.

It would be a disaster! The floodgates would be open! But to what exactly? It’s important to note that when Marcus refers to “attacking candidates,” she does not mean it literally. No one asserts that the First Amendment protects murder and mayhem. No, what we’re about here is criticizing candidates--also known as free speech. And this is political speech, traditionally understood to be at the very core of First Amendment protection.

Source

Disowning Fidel Castro?

A Leftist letter-writer says:

"Doug Patton's July 15 column in Hernando Today uses a typical conservative ploy to paint liberals as bad people. He makes up stuff. He says, "Liberals revere their favorite socialists, past and present - Mao, Che, Hugo, Fidel and others."

That's ridiculous. Nobody reveres these monsters.

Source

If so, tell me any American Leftist in any position of prominence who has ever condemned Castro? They fall over themselves to excuse him in fact, just as they once always excused the ghastly Soviets. And how many times have you seen a picture of Che Guevara on a college kid's sweatshirt? And we know what the political atmosphere at colleges is. If it were not for the pervasive Leftism on campus, the kids would be ashamed of idolizing a murderous thug. And now that Hugo Chavez has just shut down most of the Venezuelan media, what has Obama said about that? The silence is deafening.

No conservative needs to make up stuff when it comes to pointing out where the hearts of the American Left (so-called "liberals") lie. Denial might be convenient at times but it won't wash.

Know a man by the company he keeps

Obama supports "Jewish conspiracy" theorists:

"[Obama] sent his no. 2 woman at the White House, Valerie Jarrett, to speak at the racist hate-fest staged over the Fourth of July weekend by the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving the funding of the Hamas terror group. At the ISNA conference, pure hate speech and Islamic anti-Semitism were promoted, and the Obama administration was there.

Imam Warith Deen Umar spoke about his books, Jews for Salaam: The Straight Path to Global Peace, and Judaiology. Umar, the former head of New York prisons' Muslim chaplain program, repeatedly described Jewish conspiracies to control the world: "Why do this small number of people," he asked, "have control of the world? ...There's some people in the world says no Holocaust even happened. Some of their leaders say no Holocaust even happened. Well it did happen. These people were punished. They were punished for a reason, because they were serially disobedient to Allah."

Source

Boissoin case to go before top court in Canadian province

Adverse verdict likely to be set aside. Penalizing body not willing to defend its actions.

"When Rev. Stephen Boissoin takes his case before the Court of Queen's Bench on Sept. 16, the court has a golden opportunity not only to right the wrong done to Boissoin, but also to strike down the law that gives the Alberta Human Rights Commission jurisdiction over matters of free speech. Boissoin published a letter in the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he criticized the representation to impressionable schoolchildren of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice. Boissoin used strong language and said this would lead to desensitizing kids and recruiting them into the gay lifestyle. One can agree or disagree with Boissoin's opinions, but what he said is irrelevant to the larger issue, which is his inalienable right to say it.

University of Calgary education professor Darren Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, on the grounds that under Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, Boissoin had made gays a target for contempt and hate.

Boissoin was fined$5,000 and ordered to "cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." No society which calls itself free should tolerate an individual being ordered by a semi-judicial body using no rules of evidence, to stop making "disparaging remarks" in perpetuity about anyone or anything. Boissoin ended up being punished, even though the commission's decision specifically stated its goal is "ameliorating the effects of discrimination, rather than punishing the perpetrator." Muzzling someone's right to free speech ameliorates nothing-- quite the opposite, in fact. It erodes basic Charter freedoms, and erosion of those freedoms is something which cannot be considered to have an ameliorating effect in a democratic society...

The HRC has chosen not to participate in the September court hearing, at which the constitutionality of its ruling will be debated; the case will really be Boissoin versus Lund. Both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has stated it finds Boissoin's letter "abhorrent" and the Canadian Constitution Foundation will appear as interveners on Boissoin's behalf.

Source

Liberal Intolerance on TV

We read:

"Chuck Todd and company at NBC News are outraged that conservative talker Beck won't --or can't-- be fired for calling President Obama a "racist." They blogged as follows:

On the Glenn Becks and Howard Beales: The White House doesn't want to give Glenn Beck a bigger platform or extra oxygen -- especially regarding his remark yesterday that the president has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" -- so they won't comment, even off record.....

What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs.....

So much for the national discussion on race relations that leftists and journalists say America desperately needs.

Of course when liberal demagogues maliciously declare their enemies racist in the complete absence of evidence, such as when House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel (D-New York) said Republican tax cuts were racist ("It's not 'sp--' or 'ni--er' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'") we hear barely a peep from the liberal media.

Meanwhile, a radical pressure group called the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center wants adversary Lou Dobbs of CNN canned. The SPLC's Richard Cohen claims he wants Dobbs off the air because "[f]or years, Dobbs has been trading in baseless, conspiratorial claims that originate on the radical right."

Anyone who has monitored this fundraising powerhouse that masquerades as a public interest law firm knows the SPLC hates --and I don't use that word lightly-- Dobbs because of the hard line he takes on immigration issues. The group continually smears Dobbs as a racist and this helps its coffers grow.

Source

Alabama Bans Wine With Naked Nymph On Label



We read:

"Alabama doesn't want any images of naked flying nymphs hanging off bicycles on the labels of wine bottles sold in the state and that's just the way it is. Might give people the wrong idea. Who knows what folks might start trying on bicycles?

So the state's liquor control board has banned a California wine called Cycles Gladiator because its label uses an Art Nouveau image that once graced the posters of a turn-of-the-century French bicycle manufacturer. So "Fat Bastard" wine is OK but if you think you're going to sell a wine with an artful nude on the label in Alabama, you're just whistling Dixie.

As for Hahn Family Wines in Soledad, Calif., the state's move has been a marketing godsend.

Source

So have a laugh at those Alabama hicks. The sophisticates of NYC would never sink that low, would they? See below.

Book banning: That's the sophisticated NYC-style tolerance

They are about as tolerant as Joe Stalin, who said that "There is complete freedom of speech in Russia as long as you agree with me".

"Like many outlets of the CVS Caremark pharmacy chain, the store in Chelsea at Eighth Avenue and 24th Street has a book rack stocked with texts distributed by a Virginia-based company called Choice Books. These books are the inspirational type, many of them Christian-themed.

Leafing recently through titles like “Emergency Prayers” and “500 Questions & Answers from the Bible,” two Chelsea women were appalled by passages that called homosexuality a “cancer,” sinful and “detestable” to God. The women alerted Chelsea Now, a local newspaper, describing the passages as “hate speech” from which children had to be shielded.

Chelsea Now agreed in an editorial. In short order, CVS removed the two books from its stores throughout the city. “We are committed to building an environment of inclusion and acceptance that values diversity across all areas of our business,” a company spokesman, Michael DeAngelis, said in an e-mail message to me...

Source

Christianity falls outside "diversity", apparently. We can't be TOO diverse, now, can we? The Left walk in lockstep like the Prussian soldiers of old. They would not know the meaning of diversity or tolerance. They use their brains only to defend their orthodoxies.

Australian Islamic spokesman found to have incited racism but no penalty even considered

We read:

"Keysar Trad, the longtime spokesman for Muslim cleric Sheik Taj bin al-Hilaly, has been described as "racist" and "offensive" by a judge who today rejected his defamation claim against radio station 2GB. Mr Trad sued the top-rating Sydney station in the NSW Supreme Court after presenter Jason Morrison described him "gutless" and " just trouble" for his conduct at a rally after the Cronulla riots in December 2005, The Australian reported. Mr Trad's comment about the "shame of tabloid journalism' caused the crowd to boo and harass a 2GB journalist near the stage.

The reporter told Mr Morrison he feared for his safety, prompting the presenter to deliver his tirade the following morning, in which he also described Mr Trad as "disgraceful and dangerous individual who incited violence, hatred and racism."

In August 2007, a jury found Mr Morrison had defamed Mr Trad but Justice Peter McClellan found for 2GB in the second - or defence - phase of the trial that was heard in May, saying the statement were true and also protected as comment based on fact. "There is little doubt that many of the plaintiff's remarks are offensive to Jewish persons and homosexuals," Justice McClellan said in his judgment. "Many of his remarks are distasteful and appear to condone violence.

"I'm satisfied that the plaintiff does hold views which can properly be described as racist. "I'm also satisfied that he encourages others to hold those views. In particular he holds views derogatory of Jewish people.

SOURCE

And that it all well and good but it would seem perfectly clear that in his remarks the judge found Mr Trad to be in breach of Section 20C of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977 as amended, which holds racial vilification to be unlawful. So why was there not the slightest hint of prosecuting him for that? That good ol' Muslim freedom to do and say as you like, I guess. One law for Muslims and another for us peasants. Sharia has triumphed already in some ways, it would seem.

Federal government embarrassed by a sign saying "United States"

Because it could become a target for terrorism

"Four years ago, when the federal General Services Administration unveiled its plans for a new border-crossing station here in northeastern New York State, the design was presented as part of the agency’s campaign to raise the dismal standards of government architecture. Even many in the famously fractious architectural community celebrated the complex — particularly its main building, emblazoned with glossy yellow, 21-foot-high letters spelling “United States” — as a rare project the government could point to with pride.

Yet three weeks ago, less than a month after the station opened, workers began prying the big yellow letters off the building’s facade on orders from Customs and Border Protection. The plan is to dismantle the rest of the sign this week.

“At the end of the day, I think they were somewhat surprised at how bold and how bright it was,” said Les Shepherd, the chief architect of the General Services Administration, referring to the customs agency’s sudden turnaround. “There were security concerns,” said Kelly Ivahnenko, a spokeswoman for the customs agency. “The sign could be a huge target and attract undue attention.

Source

Even very clever politicians can fall foul of speech rules

Yes. I know about Joe Biden but who ever said he was clever? This is about the head of the British Conservative party, a graduate of Eton and Oxford:

"It was meant to be the ideal low-risk, softball interview before he headed off to France for his holidays. But yesterday David Cameron’s last media appearance before the summer break ended in awkward apologies after he used an inappropriate word during a breakfast radio programme favoured by his wife, Samantha.

The Tory leader used the word “twat” as he explained to Christian O’Connell, a presenter on Absolute Radio, why he did not use the Twitter social networking service. “The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it — too many twits might make a twat,” he said. In the studio his remark was greeted with laughter. Mr O’Connell said: “That’s fantastic.”

However, according to the Collins English Dictionary, the word can refer to female genitals, a girl or woman “considered sexually”, or a foolish or despicable person. Shortly afterwards Mr Cameron risked making the situation worse by saying people were “pissed off” with politicians — although he added hastily: “Sorry, I can’t say that in the morning.” ...

According to Mr O’Connell, the Conservative leader was ticked off by Gabby Bertin, his press secretary, as he left the studio. The presenter described the exchange between Mr Cameron and Ms Bertin in a podcast released shortly after the broadcast. “She leapt out of her skin after the first part of the interview,” the presenter said. “He said [to her] ‘That seemed to go OK’. She said, ‘Yeah, apart from the language’.

“He said ‘Oh, yeah, pissed, sorry about that, I’m really sorry’ . . . She said ‘No, it was the twat’. “He said, ‘That’s not a swearword’. I think he must be posh, where a lot of them don’t think twat is a swearword. His press secretary went, ‘It is’.”

The presenter hailed Cameron as “a good bloke” who had been as relaxed as if he were “down the boozer”. Mr O’Connell joked that the t-word was not viewed too seriously by radio regulators: “In terms of the fines we can get, it is not one of the big ones.”

Source

A very naughty man

It's just fine to make thousands of references to GWB as a "chimp" but ...

"The race row that has inflamed the US took a bizarre twist last night when a Boston police officer was suspended for abusing Harvard scholar Professor Henry Louis Gates and calling him "a banana eating jungle monkey".

In a furious and at times ungrammatical rant at a reporter on the Boston Globe newspaper, the anonymous email, allegedly written by Officer Barrett said: "If I were the officer he (Professor Gates) verbally assaulted like a banana eating jungle monkey I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (capsicum spray)."

Later in the email, quoted in full on the Boston Globe's website MyFoxBoston.com. the 36-year-old former English teacher suggested the headline for the newspaper's article on Professor Gates' arrest should read: "Conduct Unbecoming a Jungle Monkey - back to one's roots."

Source

While it was a comment in breach of current speech rules, it does seem to be a reference to what Gates said and did rather than his race. I imagine that the cop would argue that the excited chattering and screeching which apparently emanated from Gates was reminiscent of monkey behavior -- but I live on the other side of the world so I could well have it all wrong. If the cop had referred to ALL blacks as jungle monkeys, THAT would certainly be a racist utterance.

I think the cop should have called Gates a chimp. We know from how often the Left used it about GWB that it must be an OK term to use. Or am I missing something? Surely Leftists are not saying that GWB really does not look like a chimp but Gates really does? That sounds like racism to me!

Amusing:

Google have yet again blocked any new posts to my GREENIE WATCH blog -- as they say it is a possible spam blog. I wonder how long it will take them to unblock it and let me start posting there again this time? The format and general contents of the blog have been the same for years so one can only wonder at what forces were at work in this action. I imagine that the Warmists have been busily "flagging" it. Censorship of contrary views is a large part of their modus operandi. They can't stand the simple facts that I regularly put up there.

British police must not wear British flag -- but homosexual flags are OK

This shows how far Leftism has gone in Britain. They despise their own country.

"Scores of Scotland Yard officers are in open revolt after being banned from wearing Union Flag badges in support of British troops. Met chiefs have decreed that the tiny emblems – which cost £1 with proceeds going to charity – must be removed after a complaint that they are offensive. But furious junior officers are continuing to wear them in defiance at the politically correct stance.

The row started when 200 officers at Heathrow Airport were barred from wearing the badges last month on the grounds that they were in breach of the Met’s strict dress code.

The order is thought to have followed a complaint from a member of public that the symbol is ‘offensive’. But about 70 officers, many of whom have been in the Services or have relatives fighting in Afghanistan, have ignored the directive despite warnings of disciplinary action.

Mr Smyth, who represents more than 30,000 rank and file officers, said staff in the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group, CO19 firearms squad and dog units have joined the revolt. In a statement on the Metropolitan Police Federation’s website, he said: ‘As the country mourned the deaths of young soldiers and saluted the heroism of the men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Met officers at the airport were ordered to take off small, one-inch square Union Flag badges because someone had complained they were offensive.’

Officers at Heathrow were also ordered to take down a Union Flag hoisted on June 27 – Armed Forces Day – because it was not an ‘approved ensign’. Strict rules are in place about when the Union Flag can be flown at individual police stations.

In February, Scotland Yard was hit by another row over political correctness after the Union Flag hanging outside a police station was replaced by a gay rights flag to mark Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) history month. This is despite Met rules stating that only the Union Flag and its own flag can fly from force buildings.

Source

Off limits in Australia: sights and sounds of gambling

We read:

"Clubs, casinos and gambling venues could be required to undertake significant renovations to make sure children are not able to see, or even hear, gambling. Guidelines drawn up by state and federal ministers say children must not only be kept out of gaming venues but also must not be "exposed to gambling areas within venues"...

The independent senator Nick Xenophon said state governments must act immediately to protect children from the sights and sounds of gambling. "The states and the Federal Government finally agree that children are harmed by exposure of adult behaviours like gambling," Senator Xenophon said. Shielding children should include measures such as soundproofing play areas, restaurants and other non-gaming areas inside clubs or casinos...

A spokeswoman for the Minister for Families and Community Services, Jenny Macklin, said all states and territories had agreed to the principles before taking formal action next year. "The principles are about implementing a nationally consistent approach to ensure that minors are not directly exposed to gambling," she said. "A part of this is recognising the need to ensure that the physical layout of gambling venues does not expose them to gambling."

Source

Pakistan president Asif Zardari bans jokes ridiculing him

Being President of Pakistan is something of a joke so I suppose one cannot entirely blame him

"Pakistan's president, Asif Zardari, has been accused of suffering from a sense of humour failure after banning jokes ridiculing him. Pakistanis who send jokes about Asif Zardari by text message, email or blog risk being arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence.

The country's interior minister, Rehman Malik, announced the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been asked to trace electronically transmitted jokes that "slander the political leadership of the country" under the new Cyber Crimes Act. Mr Malik, said the move would punish the authors of "ill motivated and concocted stories through emails and text messages against the civilian leadership".

The step, which was described by human rights groups as "draconian and authoritarian", came after government was particularly riled by a barrage of caustic jokes being sent to the presidency's official email.

Critics have accused the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP), a party that espouses a liberal agenda, of stooping as low as the former military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, who took television broadcasters off air when he faced political opposition.

Mr Zardari, the widower of the assassinated former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, has long courted controversy. During his wife's two tenures he earned the nickname of "Mr 10 per cent" on account of his alleged penchant for demanding kickbacks on government contracts.

Source

Is there really a most offensive word in the English language?

I think that the following comment by Australian writer Evan Maloney is worth recycling

"That English guy who pontificates on all things auto (and pretty much all things else as well) [Jeremy Clarkson] got in trouble last week for using a word so heinous it can only be described in terms of it’s first letter (the “c” word). It’s been called the most offensive word in the English language and I read this and thought, “according to whom?”

I’m not denying that the word has a lot going for it in terms of offensibility, but is there really one word that can be crowned as the most offensive in any language? Isn’t it purely subjective? I think if I were aboriginal I’d be far more offended by a few other English words besides the “c” word. [He probably has "boong" and "Abo" in mind. "N*gger" is rarely used for blacks in Australia]

People who have lived in or travelled to a foreign country, or studied a foreign language, might have been amused by what arbitrary collections of sounds represent dirty words. In Poland “kurwa” and “pierdola” are two words that would get me sacked from a job writing for any publication here, but on news.com.au they are kind of quaint, I think.

I wonder if the “c” word isn’t so offensive simply because of the phonetics. There are other terms of abuse one can use that relate to female genetalia, like “you pussy”, but the “p” and the “s” are soft consonants while the “c” and the “t” are hard, so the “c” word can be intoned with a cruelty far more palpable than the word “pussy.” But the semantics are considerably different also. The former is used to describe someone who is weak, while the latter is used to describe the worst type of human being in every sense. It is offensive to use a term relating to women’s genetalia to attack someone, but then again, we call people d***heads and c**kheads and these words don’t come across half as bad.

Then again, the whole idea of offensibility is, like that of a good joke, all about the delivery. I’ve been called a “c” word before and known it was meant as nothing more than a laconic and a cheerful greeting. At least I think it was.

Source

It is true that the context is often what makes a word offensive or not. There was a very irascible guy I knew once who was always quarrelling with people over all sorts of things. He was of Polish descent so I used to call him a "mad Polack" (but with a smile). So I was actually just about the only person he got on well with. I could actually cool him down when he was ranting, which nobody else could.

Outrage over saucy messages on infant clothes



99% of the time it is mothers who dress their babies so if they think the commentaries about themselves are offensive, they wouldn't put them on their kids. And what right have others got to complain about what mothers choose to say about themselves? There are enough restrictions on what we can say about others without adding restrictions on what we can say about ourselves.

"BABY clothes boasting slogans such as "The condom broke", "Pardon my nipple breath" and "I'm living proof my mum is easy" have outraged family groups.

They want the raunchy rompers and tops withdrawn, but unrepentant retailer Cotton On says they are simply meant to be funny.

Kids Free 2B Kids director Julie Gale bought the items at Cotton On Kids in Malvern on Monday.

Others read: "I'm a tits man", "Mummy likes it on top", "Wipe my butt sucker", "So hot right now", "I like big boobs and I cannot lie", "I'm bringing sexy back" and "Practice safe sucks".

Ms Gale said as a comedy writer and performer she had a great sense of humour, but using babies and children as "a vehicle for sexual innuendo" was unacceptable.

Source

Brits losing in their attack on Michael Savage

His accusation that he was attacked on racial grounds has now been confirmed

"Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has suffered a major setback in her legal battle with American 'shock jock' Michael Savage after her officials were accused of banning him from the country on racial grounds. Emails written by Home Office officials privately acknowledged the ban on Mr Savage would provide 'balance' to a list dominated by Muslims - and linked the decision to Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

The officials admitted their action could look 'duplicitous' and cited his 'homophobia' as a reason the move would receive public support. The Right-wing radio presenter, whose hardline views on Islam, rape and autism have caused outrage in the US but whose show, The Savage Nation, has eight million listeners, was identified in May by Ms Smith as one of 16 people barred due to their political views.

Mr Savage, who had not even applied for entry to Britain, claimed his name had been 'plucked out of a hat' because he was 'controversial and white'. He has since served a £100,000 libel writ on Ms Smith, who announced his ban on television.

Now, correspondence released under Freedom of Information legislation suggests the banning of Mr Savage, whose real name is Michael Weiner, was based on a party political calculation made at the highest level of Government. One message, sent by an unidentified Home Office official on November 27 last year, said that 'with Weiner, I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases'.

The documents include a draft recommendation, marked 'Restricted', saying: 'We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists.'

Source

When "believe" is a bad word

We read:

"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.

So you urge scientists not to say that they “believe” in evolution?!

Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”

Source

I happen to be an atheist but I see nothing misleading in talking about a "belief" in evolution. It's just another theory and one that has its fair share of holes. Its only virtue is that it does not require a belief in supernatural entities or events. I actually think that unreserved acceptance of evolution as the sole explanation for our existence as we are now is nearly as big a leap of faith as belief in God.

I find it easy to say: "I don't know". Apparently many other people do not. I guess I just don't have a talent for dogmatism. The lady above certainly sounds very dogmatic to me -- religious almost.

When "bad" is a bad word

In Britain, of course:

"A teacher faces the sack after complaining about the behaviour of her class on Facebook. Sonya McNally, 35, has been suspended on full pay since calling the 13-year-olds ‘bad’ in a private conversation on the social networking site. In a post on March 20, the supply teacher wrote: ‘By the way, (class) 8G1 are just as bad as 8G2.’

Another teacher involved in the discussion, Kirsten Allenby-Moore, took offence. She complained to the council’s human resources department, writing: ‘I found the comments personally insulting as the 2 classes mentioned where [sic] both mine.’ It is understood she teaches both classes information technology once a week.

Education officials at North East Lincolnshire Council suspended Mrs McNally from Humberston Comprehensive School in Grimsby in April and launched an investigation. In a report to the headteacher, Mrs McNally is accused of ‘bringing the school into disrepute’. The previous headteacher resigned in December after Ofsted inspectors rated the school ‘inadequate’ in 13 key areas. [So it really is bad]

Source

British motoring guru Clarkson in row over four-letter abuse of Prime Minister

Amazing what you can get away with in Britain if you are popular. The fact that a naughty comment was made off-air did not save Carol Thatcher, one might recall

"Jeremy Clarkson has been given a 'ticking off' by a BBC boss after using the most offensive swear word to describe Gordon Brown in front of a studio audience. The Top Gear presenter made the remark as part of his warm-up act before filming at the Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, where the BBC2 car show is made.

Although some of the audience 'burst out laughing' at his comments, BBC2 controller Janice Hadlow later gave Clarkson a 'dressing down' in front of crew.

The 49-year-old host's remarks come less than six months after he was forced to apologise for calling Mr Brown a 'one-eyed Scottish idiot' during an interview with Australian journalists.

On Wednesday, Clarkson is understood to have told fans: 'I get into trouble talking about Gordon Brown, he is a silly c***.'

Witnesses say Miss Hadlow approached him at the end of the show and that Clarkson reacted angrily to her concerns. One insider said Clarkson was always 'irreverent' and used colourful language during his warm-up. They also pointed out that his comments were made off-air and were part of the usual banter before the show.

Despite this, Miss Hadlow and Clarkson 'had it out' near the programme's green room, where the BBC boss made it clear she had been annoyed by his behaviour and that it was unacceptable. However, a spokesman for the BBC last night denied claims that the pair had had an argument or that the matter had been referred to both the BBC Trust and its director-general.

'Janice Hadlow went to watch a recording of Top Gear as it is BBC2's top-rated programme, and as controller of BBC2, she holds both the programme and Jeremy in high regard,' he added.

Source

Jewish group sues Amazon over 'Nazi' books

This is yet another example of the fact that Jews can be so smart in many ways yet so dumb politically. I guess that emotion erodes their reasoning and reality-checking faculties.

"The American Jewish Committee said on Friday it was suing the German branch of online retailer Amazon for selling books which it said questioned the Holocaust and "trivialised" the Nazis.

According to AJC research, around 50 works including "Der Auschwitz-Mythos – Legende oder Wirklichkeit ("The Auschwitz Myth – Legend or Reality") by Wilhelm Staglich were on sale on Amazon.de this month. Some of these books, the AJC said, were classified by the German authorities as being unsuitable for under-18s.

"It is unacceptable that books are for sale on Amazon.de that normally are only available under the counter in far-right extremist shops," the AJC said in a statement. "We cannot let the spread of internet sales erode laws that ban Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred of minorities in Germany," it added.

A spokeswoman for Amazon Germany said that "of course" it did not sell any books that were banned or classified as unsuitable for under-18s. She added that in the interests of freedom of speech, it was not keen on stopping selling certain titles. "We think that the best response to questionable literature is not removing them but more discussion," a spokeswoman told AFP.

She added that the company had recently tightened up its rules regarding books that glorify or trivialise the Nazis and that certain books had been withdrawn from sale as a result.

Source

One understands the motivations above but the main effect of such bans could be to erode confidence in orthodox history. "Why the coverup?" is what many will ask. The already widespread idea that orthodox history is a coverup will only be reinforced if these bans are implemented. And with Arab countries already distributing such ideas on a large scale, what is the point of any attempted ban? The message will still reach those who want to hear it.

GOP Congressmen censored by Dems over chart

We read:

"House Republicans suggested Thursday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is standing in the way of Republicans sending to constituents a chart that is in the official record of the House Ways and Means Committee. The chart, recently submitted for the record during a Ways and Means hearing on the Democrats' health care reform bill, shows the Republican interpretation of the Democrats' proposed legislation.

The Franking Commission, which is responsible for determining which mailings can be paid for with the congressional frank, or stamp, deemed the mailing unacceptable.

Republican members are scratching their heads at the ruling. The chart is "part of the official record and now we're told it can't be communicated," said Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of California.

He suggested that the decision to prevent the publication of the chart came from someone higher than the House mail office, perhaps even as high as the speaker's office.

A spokesman for the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of the House Franking Commission, did not respond to the accusation against Pelosi, but said, "There are ongoing discussions to try and resolve the issue in good faith."

The author of the chart, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, alleged that Democrats are afraid of the purported visual representation of their reform plan. "This is the most outrageous example of censorship I have seen in Congress," he said.

Source

Leftism NEEDS secrecy -- because their motivations are not what they claim

US town employee fired over porn actress wife



We read:

"The mayor of a small Florida town has defended the town council's decision to fire its city manager after officials learned his wife is an adult film actress. Fort Myers Beach mayor Larry Kiker insisted that Scott Janke's termination had nothing to do with his spouse's job, that the town was merely trying to maintain order. Janke married Anabela Mota Janke, who goes by the stage name Jazella Moore, in October. He began working for the town in March 2008.

Kiker said he learned of Janke's wife's job after receiving a telephone call from a reporter on Tuesday. He said he then spoke to Janke, who agreed "this was going to be a big disruption for the town and he was not going to be able to do his job well". Within a few hours, Kiker had called an emergency town council meeting, and the group voted 5-0 to exercise a "no-cause" clause in Janke's contract, effectively firing him....

Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry, said the firing could present legal problems for the town.

Duke said even with a "no-cause" clause in Jenke's contract, as a government employee his rights are still protected. "There may very well be a case here," she said.

Added Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida: "His firing may run up against Florida's law that prohibits discrimination based on marital status."

Source

British schoolboy is first convicted of racist abuse of classmate

Bullying is very common at school and very little is normally done about it despite a lot of puffed-up talk. Additionally, blacks are often abusive and intimidating to whites (read the second post down here if you doubt it) but I have yet to hear of a black kid going to jail over it

"A schoolboy is facing the threat of a year in a young offenders' institute after he became the first to be convicted of racially harrassing a fellow pupil.

The 15-year-old boy, who cannot be named, caused a 14-year-old classmate to attempt suicide by repeatedly calling her "wog, coon, nigger, gorilla and golliwog" for six months. Lincoln magistrates, who convicted the boy of racially aggravated harassment, heard that the girl took a mixture of pills and wrote a goodbye note to her family. The behaviour of the boy, who had no previous convictions, was condemned as "merciless" last night by anti-racism campaigners.

However, his conviction - the first for the crime over an incident in a school - prompted questions over whether such bullying should be dealt with through criminal law. David Green, the director of Civitas, the right-leaning think-tank, said that while the boy's behaviour should be condemned, "the law does not belong in the schoolyard in these cases".

"We are not talking stabbings or serious assault here," Dr Green said. "This should be a matter for the school and the children's parents." Josie Appleton, the director of the anti-regulation think-tank the Manifesto Club, which will publish a paper on schools' obligations over racist incidents this autumn, added: "This should be dealt with in the school.

"Criminalising it undermines the authority of schools. Teachers have to be able to set a moral example."

The boy, who denied the charge, was convicted after a six-hour trial. He will be sentenced on August 13. He faces a maximum two-year detention and training order, including 12 months in a young offenders' institute.

However, Sunil Khanna, the boy's solicitor, said: "I'm not sure a criminal prosecution was the right way forward. "I know this goes beyond normal bullying, but mistakes that might have been down to youthful ignorance will now stick with him years."

The boy's grandfather said: “It's difficult to know what to believe, they can make more out of court cases sometimes than there is. He has always protested his innocence and we are not a racist family.”

Source

Ireland’s bizarre war on blasphemy

We read:

"It does seem bizarre that, in 2009, a modern European nation would seek to shield religious belief from criticism – yet that is what is happening in Ireland right now. In repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, the Irish government sought to expunge the worst excesses of Ireland’s draconian laws restricting free speech, but in the process it has ended up making offending religious belief a criminal offence.

Many are asking why on earth blasphemy should be criminalised, particularly at a time when the Catholic Church in Ireland is being investigated for widespread child abuse and its public image has hit rock bottom.

The government has responded to its critics by saying there is a constitutional requirement for a specific blasphemy law in Ireland. Indeed so: freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However, it goes on to prohibit the publication of ‘blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter'. One might call the Irish constitution a clear case of the left hand giving and the right hand taking away.

The fact that this has been the case since the constitution came into effect in 1937 seems to have blinded the government to its usual option: the traditional Irish response to divisive issues is to pretend that they don’t exist. It is not for nothing that Ireland’s acceptance of abortion for those with enough money to travel to Britain is called ‘an Irish solution to an Irish problem’.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the constitution, only one case was ever taken under the blasphemy prohibition since the introduction of the constitution in 1937 (a 1999 case against a newspaper, in which the Supreme Court concluded that it was not possible to say ‘of what the offence of blasphemy consists’ and that ‘the state is not placed in the position of an arbiter of religious truth’). So, at the very least, it seems peculiar to bring the issue into the light of day in 2009.

The new blasphemy law is clearly an issue of offence. In an era when robust debate is needed more than ever, the government of Ireland has not only succeeded in assaulting the right to free speech – it has also introduced a law that incentivises outrage by encouraging religious groups to play up hurt feelings when their views are challenged.

Source

Arab Christian Group Claims First Amendment Rights Denied On Public Property

We read:

"The leader of an Arab Christian evangelical group filed suit against the city of Dearborn, Mich., claiming the city violated his First Amendment right to distribute literature on public property. The incident occurred last month at the city's annual Arab International Festival, an event that attracted 300,000 visitors and has provided a favorite evangelizing venue for the group, Arabic Christian Perspective, whose members have attended for the past five years.

George Saieg, Arabic Christian Perspective's founder, says trouble started when he called the Dearborn police to let them know his group would be returning to the festival. City police told Saieg that, unlike in previous years, his group would not be allowed to distribute material on the sidewalks, and that Arabic Christian Perspective could either rent a stand at the festival or be assigned a specific location at which it could distribute its literature.

With the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian legal group, Saieg sought a temporary injunction to stop the city from preventing his group from distributing materials on the sidewalk. But the petition was denied, and the group was permitted to distribute literature only at one location within the festival.

Saieg says that the spot was a particularly bad one, and that his group was able to distribute only $5,000 worth of literature and Bibles -- a fraction of the $50,000 worth of materials that they had prepared. In past years, he said, when they were allowed to distribute on the sidewalks, they were able to give out most of their literature.

Now Saieg is suing to get the city's action declared unconstitutional and to make sure that it has access to the sidewalks at next year's festival.

But city officials say they acted correctly. "One federal judge has already agreed with us and denied a temporary injunction," Mary Laundroche, Director of the Dearborn Office of Public Information, told FOXNews.com. "The judge agreed with us that what normally would have been public sidewalks were actually part of the festival life during the festival."

She added that members of Arabic Christian Perspective were free to preach on the sidewalks, just not to distribute materials. "They were free to go throughout the crowd and talk with people at any time. They were just prevented from distributing materials, which was a public safety issue -- they could block vehicle and pedestrian traffic." [A SAFETY issue! What BS!]

Whether Saieg is welcome or not, two First Amendment experts said sidewalks are usually considered "traditional public fora" in which distributing materials is considered protected speech, and the city's defense of its action does not appear constitutionally strong.

Source

Race and religion to be in Australian law review

These are basically anti-Jihadi laws but the focus on "inciting violence against an individual" is narrow enough not to offend against most concepts of free speech. Although I am not myself entirely convinced, it is widely accepted that incitement to violence is not entitled to free speech protection. What constitutes "incitement to violence" is the grey area

"The Rudd government will consider creating a new law making it an offence to incite violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion or nationality, as part of its broad review of Australia's existing counter-terrorism legislation.

In the next few weeks, Attorney-General Robert McClelland will release a wide-ranging discussion paper canvassing options for an overhaul of Australia's counter-terrorism laws introduced in the wake of September 11. Mr McClelland said last night the new offence would expand the opportunity for prosecuting those who attempted to induce others, including vulnerable youths, to commit acts of politically motivated violence. It would supplement the existing commonwealth offence of inciting violence against a group. "We also need to focus on targeted initiatives to identify those exposed to, or at risk of being influenced by, violent extremists," Mr McClelland told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

The Rudd government had identified four key areas to focus on as part of a national effort to counter extremism, while recognising that any solutions had to be implemented with the support of local communities. These included the identification and disruption of violent extremists as well as supporting at-risk groups and individuals in their communities.

In many instances community members were often more readily able to recognise extremist behaviour and could be more effective in combating those views before they took hold. "I see centres for Islamic studies at tertiary institutions as having a particular responsibility in this area," he said. He said effective communications were also critical with experience having shown that the language used to describe terrorism could cause anxieties among among Australians and create divisions within communities. "It is vital that the messages we send do not in any way glorify terrorism or suggest a war or clash between cultures or religions."

SOURCE

Google cleared of responsibility for indexing defamatory comments

An out-of-character ruling by Mr Justice Eady. He normally finds defamation at the drop of a hat. He has almost singlehandedly made Britain the libel capital of the world. But apparently even he has his limits.

"A landmark ruling in the [British] High Court has cleared Google of all responsibility for indexing defamatory comments that appear in blogs, news articles and forums.

The search engine giant was brought to court by Metropolitan International Schools, a company which operates learning courses in the development of games under the name Train2Game. It was attempting to sue Google after comments it claimed were defamatory, written in a forum of a website, appeared on Google’s search results page.

However, Mr Justice Eady, a High Court judge who specialises in defamation cases such as the recent Max Mosley trial, ruled on Friday, July 17, that Google was not a publisher of the comments, only a facilitator through automated results and therefore could not be held responsible for them. "When a snippet is thrown up on the user's screen in response to his search, it points him in the direction of an entry somewhere on the web that corresponds, to a greater or lesser extent, to the search terms he has typed in. “It is for him to access or not, as he chooses. [Google] has merely, by the provision of its search service, played the role of a facilitator.”

A Google spokesperson said: “We are pleased with this result, which reinforces the principle that search engines aren't responsible for content that is published on third party websites. Mr Justice Eady made clear if someone feels they have been defamed by material on a website then they should address their complaint to the person who actually wrote and published the material, and not a search engine, which simply provides a searchable index of content on the internet.”

The ruling will bring the UK more in line with the US legislation on this issue. Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act makes it clear that intermediaries are not liable for defamation online. However, until now no such ruling existed in the UK, nor has Google ever had to defend itself against this claim before.

Source

Online journalist wins victory over 'legal jihad'

We read:

"The full Texas Second Court of Appeals yesterday rejected an attempt by a coalition of seven Islamic organizations to further their defamation lawsuit against an online writer and have him branded as less than a "real" journalist.

As WND reported, after Joe Kaufman wrote an article for the online FrontPage Magazine exposing terrorist connections in two American Muslim groups, he was sued by a swarm of Islamic organizations, none of which he had even mentioned in his article.

The lawsuit technique is called by some "legal jihad" or "Islamist lawfare," and the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing Kaufman in the lawsuit, claims Muslim advocates are using the strategy to bully online journalists into silence.

"The lawsuit against Kaufman was funded by the Muslim Legal Fund for America. The head of that organization, Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example," claims a Thomas More statement on the case. "Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats."

And though a three-judge panel of the court had unanimously dismissed the case, the Islamic groups sought an "en banc" opinion, meaning a ruling from the entire court of seven justices. The Texas Second Court of Appeals, however, issued a "per curiam," or entire court, opinion yesterday, upholding the panel's decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

Source

British jeweller in race probe over his ban on gypsies after string of raids on his shop

The global Left just cannot accept that all groups are not the same

"In the past 18 months alone jeweller Michael Plant has repeatedly been targeted by Eastern European thieves. At first he left it to the police to track down those responsible and hoped they would eventually be brought to justice. But with no sign of any arrests and still more raids, he decided to ban them from his shop - only to be threatened with prosecution for racial hatred.

'I'm not racist, but the fact is I have been targeted repeatedly by Eastern European criminals,' said Mr Plant, 62, yesterday. 'I should have a right to say which people come into my shop and not face allegations of racial discrimination. 'Obviously I don't think all of them are bad, but how can I distinguish who is good and who is bad? Some people coming in to this country illegally seem to have more rights than me.'

After each raid he called in the police to investigate but with no arrests and more stock stolen he decided to make a stand and placed a sign in his window which read: 'Sorry, we do not serve Rumanian or East European gypsies.'

After a tip-off from a member of the public, a senior police officer warned him that if it was not removed immediately he could be charged with producing racially offensive material. 'The sign was written in anger after the robbery,' said Mr Plant. 'I feared we would get more in that afternoon. 'I just put it straight in the door. The police took offence at the word "gipsies". 'I've had several robberies and the capture of criminals is very low.

Police said Mr Plant had fallen foul of the Race Relations Act which recognises gipsies and travellers as ethnic groups. A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: 'Police received a report that a shop was displaying a sign which contained writing that was deemed to be offensive. 'Officers have spoken with the owner of the shop. He has been advised that the notice is offensive and he has since removed it.

'We take all complaints of this nature extremely seriously.' [What they DON'T take seriously is theft]

SOURCE