More Leftist hate speech

According to the Left, any criticism of Muslims, blacks, or homosexuals is hate speech so I like to show from time to time what REAL hate speech looks like:

"Joshua Blakeney, media coordinator of globalization studies at the University of Lethbridge, has written a piece for the alternative e-weekly The Canadian Charger where he gleefully rejoices in Christopher Hitchens’ recent throat cancer diagnosis. Hitchens, a journalist and pundit, is known for his staunch views on religion and unapologetic support for the war in Iraq.

But for Blakeney writing in The Canadian Charger, it seems “impending” can’t come soon enough. The cancer is “something to be celebrated,” writes Blakeney, a U of L Masters student, “because it deprives the war propaganda machine of one of its most erudite apologists.”

Source

Canada: Praying publicly and reading from the Bible is preaching hate?

We read:

"Tensions have erupted between residents of an east-Toronto neighbourhood and a church group accused of preaching hate outside the home of a local same-sex couple.

Over the weekend about a dozen parishioners were confronted by about 10 residents of the street. Local resident Geoff Skelding captured the moment on video and posted it to YouTube -- allegedly after the group prayed outside the home of the gay couple and condemned them as sinners.

The confrontation took place in the Leslieville neighbourhood near Dundas Street East and Greenwood Avenue. It's the same community where the church, Highfield Road Gospel Hall, is located.

In the description of the video he posted to YouTube, Skelding said the parishioners have been active in the area for years. "Apparently they have been grouping in front of a couple's house and reading their bible loudly for the past 7 years," he wrote.

Source

I guess noisy preaching and praying could be annoying but the underlying Christian teaching that moves the group is to hate the sin but love the sinner. And if you can't hate sin, that's about the end of Christianity.

The people concerned are clearly ones with very strong Biblical beliefs and are trying in fact to save the souls of the sinners, not trying to project hate at them. They are just practicing their religion. And the Bible-based religion concerned is the sort that America was founded upon.

If they gathered before my house and endeavored to save me from my atheism, I would go up to them, shake them by the hand, thank them for their good work, assure them that they will get a blessing from their Lord for it, but tell them that I have thought about it long enough for them to be wasting their time on me and suggesting that they find someone who is more likely to respond to their efforts.

And whatever result that had, at least I would be setting an example of Christian behavior and not projecting hate at THEM!

And I am not fantasizing about treating Christians fundamentalists civilly. When Jehovah's Witnesses call at my door, I always greet them in a friendly manner and immediately ask them if they have put out any useful reference books on the Bible recently. That throws them completely off track and we simply move on to a civil discussion of their reference publications. I even buy something sometimes. Some of their books can be quite useful in finding Bible texts relevant to a given subject.

"Do unto others ...." is a pretty useful rule of behavior even for an old atheist like me. It's a rule that works well for everyone as far as I can see. But I am a conservative atheist. It's sad that Leftists seem to be too full of hate to use that rule too.

Muslims can use the N-word?

The guy behind the ground zero mosque in NYC is allowed to, apparently

"Also, in the course of his remarks in the speech we're discussing, he uses the "N" word, referring to "n—-rs or whities." I can't help form wondering: Is the Reverend Al Sharpton, who has endorsed the Islamic supremacist mosque at Ground Zero, going to come forward and say something about this? Will he condemn Rauf? Will the mainstream media say something about it? Will they condemn Rauf?

For whatever point the Imam was arguably trying to make, by what standards is he let off the hook for using the word, while others, like Dr. Laura recently (who used the term to make a point about its usage), is not and widely condemned?

Please, Rev. Sharpton and the media, do come forward and explain this all to us, so we'll know the way that Rauf is using the "N" word that is acceptable for everyone else to use it.

Source

Tax as a way of silencing critics

We read:

"Philadelphia is going after a popular method for citizens to express their discontent with government: blogs. The rulers of the City of Brotherly Love have not outlawed blogs; rather they are using what the nation’s fourth chief justice, John Marshall, called the “power to destroy”: taxation.

The city government is demanding that some bloggers pay $300 for a licensing fee and then pay taxes on all profits. Of course, most bloggers don’t make any money; their posting is informal and irregular. That, however, does not matter to Philadelphia officials.

For all of the revenue talk, however, I suspect there is a more important reason for this new government outrage: intimidation of anyone who would use a blog to criticize government officials. The connection is easy to make. Bloggers in Philadelphia who might utter words of dissent against the city’s ruling class would make themselves visible, especially if the comments took hold with a larger audience. Thus city officials would be able to access the records to see if the blogger had paid for a business license. If not, the rogue would be brought to justice.

This past year I used one of my blogs to write on the trial of Tonya Craft and its aftermath in northwest Georgia, and I admittedly took no prisoners. I reported on obvious instances of alleged perjury from prosecution witnesses and pointed out huge inconsistencies in the prosecutorial evidence.

Obviously, I did not earn friends on the prosecution side, and I am sure the prosecutors and judge would have loved to have shut down my blog, especially since the jury acquitted Craft. (Three days after the verdict the district attorney declared that the blogosphere “created an environment hostile to the State’s ability to receive a fair trial.”)

In this day of governments grasping for revenues, it is not surprising to see Philadelphia trying to milk the bloggers. I suspect other cities will follow suit. However, I believe that the larger issue is that governments once again are looking for any means to silence their detractors. Entities with the power to tax their critics also have the weapons to destroy them.

Source

PA: High school yearbook under fire for Hitler quote

We read:

"A Pennsylvania high school is under fire after a quote from Adolf Hitler appeared in its 2010 student yearbook, The Express-Times reported Thursday.

Easton Area High School in Easton, Pa., reportedly unveiled its new student yearbook this month featuring a quote from the Nazi dictator that appeared prominently alongside the words of other famous leaders and authors. The quote, which reads, ‘And in the last analysis, success is what matters,’ drew fierce criticism from parents and administrators who questioned how the words ever got published next to pictures of smiling students on Page 190 of the yearbook, the newspaper reported.”

Source

Something of a storm in a teacup, it seems to me. It is a perfectly normal motivational quote and nobody would have thought anything of it if Hitler had not been given as the author.

Interestingly, the yearbook was called "Rechauffe", which means something made up from old material; a rehash. So the Hitler quote did rather fit in there.

Third Circuit Vindicates Free Speech (Again)

We read:

"Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a resounding decision in favor of free speech by invalidating several unconstitutional speech codes. In McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, the Court struck down campus policies banning expression that is “offensive,” “unauthorized,” or which causes “emotional distress.”

The Court reasoned that such prohibitions were so “hopelessly ambiguous and subjective” that they could be used by university officials to arbitrarily silence protected speech, a danger the First Amendment does not permit.

The decision reaffirms what the Supreme Court has been saying for decades: state officials cannot prohibit expression simply because it angers or offends someone. Period. And this is especially true on campus—the proverbial “marketplace of ideas.” Having now stricken three school speech codes this decade, the Court of Appeals has sent a clear message that students’ First Amendment rights are alive and well in the Third Circuit.

Source

Good news about comment spam

Good for me at least

Blogspot have recently enabled a spam detection system for comments -- and it works very well. I have just deleted 23 comments from the spam box that had accumulated over the last few days. And all of them were correctly classified as spam.

I imagine some spam will still slip through, however, so I would still be obliged if readers would notify me of any they see -- as the sooner it is deleted the better.

Must not warn of dangerous places in DC??

Not if they are black neighborhoods, apparently

"Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck is planning a big rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday. But a Tea Party blogger is drawing critics tonight after his "Visitors Guide" to D.C. - warned people to stay out of certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods it turns out, that also happen to be home to many African Americans.

Conservative blogger Bruce Majors says he was trying to help. "I wrote a little blog telling them where it's safe to go, where it's cheap to eat." But that "little blog" has created a big controversy - with majors now facing accusations of racism. Majors says when it comes to his critics these people are "absolutely insane."

But some D.C. leaders say they have concerns about the tone of Majors blog and the Tea Party itself. D.C. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton says the blog is telling people to stay away from black neighborhoods. "It's very worrisome," says Norton.

But Bruce Majors say he knows there was no racial message in his blog and stands by what he wrote saying "I think it's a deliberate political ploy by people who are desperate and who don't have any other ammunition."

Source

Apparently you are supposed to offer yourself up as a victim of black crime -- in support of the Leftist delusion that blacks are just the same as whites, only browner.

Leftists need their delusions. Reality freaks them. So you must not do or say anything that tends to undermine one of their delusions or they will burst into rage.

Leftist hate speech from the BBC

We read:

" For most of us, condemning someone for where they went to school reeks of the class envy politics of much of the last century. No one, however, seems to have told the BBC where the terms Old Etonian, public school and Oxbridge appear to have become insults.

An editorial in the magazine Country Life has suggested the broadcaster is prejudiced against perceived ‘toffs’. It claimed that the BBC had a ‘family size bucket of chips’ on its shoulder and claimed that this type of ‘bigotry’ would be regarded as unacceptable in any other area of British life.

Country Life published the piece in response to a Channel 4 News item which interviewed state school pupils who wanted to go to Cambridge. The students suggested Coalition leaders had not experienced enough hardship to understand the issues facing the public. The magazine said: ‘These students were merely repeating the mantra of the moment.

‘The BBC, for example, has acquired a new lexicon of abuse, the only one it still permits itself. Milder terms include “Old Etonian”, “Oxbridge”, “public school”, “upper-class”, “toff”, “aristo”, and the unspeakable “posh”.

These look harmless enough, but listen to the animus with which they’re used. Even in lighter contexts, such as Radio 4’s The News Quiz, “toff” is a cue for bigotry of a kind no longer acceptable in any other area of British life.

SOURCE

Leftist thugs attack political freedoms

In the modern world, political speech that is not funded is speech suppressed

"MoveOn.org is up to its usual tricks rallying support for a boycott of Target because Target gave $150,000 to gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican from Minnesota. They try to demonize Target for using corporate monies to support Emmer and influence democracy.

This is the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling which allows corporations to donate unlimited sums of money directly to political candidates."

Source

Arizona Man Fights to Keep Gadsden Flag Flying Outside His Home‏

We read:

"An Arizona man fighting to keep a historical American flag flying outside his home vows he will not take it down unless a judge orders him to.

Andy McDonel of Leveen, Ariz., says he received a letter from his homeowner's association, Avalon Village Community Association, on Aug. 6 instructing him to "remove debris" from his suburban Phoenix home within 10 days or face a $25 fine.

"They were talking about the Gadsden flag," McDonel told Fox News on Wednesday. "I fly it to honor the Founding Fathers of America, you know, the perseverance they went through. They sacrificed their honor, their lives and their fortune to establish this great nation."

McDonel says he's been told his 3-by-5 flag doesn't meet requirements, but he cited Arizona statutes that allow for the display of U.S. flags, military flags, the Arizona state flag or tribal nation flags. Unless a judge or a relevant authority orders him to take the flag down, McDonel said, he'll continue to fly it.

"This falls under a military service flag," McDonel said. "I think they're associating it with a political movement going on right now. The history and the significance of the flag far supersedes any political movement that's going on."

Source

Free speech for Wikileaks?

I rarely find much to agree with on Salon but the following excerpt seems well-founded:

"There is not a shred of evidence that any act WikiLeaks has undertaken -- including the release of the last batch of Afghan war documents -- "has killed people." To say that Assange is "a murderer of American and Afghani people" is so far removed from reality, exhibits such an irresponsible detachment from the truth, that it's hard to express in words.

Even the Pentagon admits that there is no evidence whatsoever to support Carroll's factual claims. From The Washington Post, August 11: "'We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,' [Pentagon spokesman Geoff] Morrell said." It's plausible to speculate that WikiLeaks' disclosure creates some risk of future harm, but to assert that "American and Afghani people" have been killed by such disclosures is just a total fabrication.

Carroll's emphatic decree that Assange "is a criminal" because he "broke U.S. law" is even more ignorant, though at least in an interesting and revealing way. He's not alone in being unaware that the U.S. -- unlike many other countries -- does not have a general criminal prohibition on disclosing state secrets. It is, of course, illegal for those with an affirmative duty to safeguard secrets (such as government and military employees) to leak certain categories of classified information, but it is generally not illegal for non-governmental third parties -- such as media outlets or private citizens -- to publish that information.

That's why it's extremely difficult to prosecute newspapers for publishing classified information -- such as when The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers or the story of Bush's illegal NSA spying program, or when Dana Priest exposed the CIA's network of secret black sites. To simply assert that WikiLeaks or Assange clearly broke the law by publishing classified information -- despite the fact that they are not government employees -- is to exhibit a monumental ignorance of the subject matter on which one is opining.

There are legal theories under the Espionage Act of 1917 which, in some very narrow cases, can make it plausible to prosecute even non-governmental actors for publishing information, but doing so is very difficult. The Bush DOJ tried and failed to invoke those theories to prosecute two AIPAC officials -- private American citizens -- who were accused of receiving classified information from a DoD official and then transmitting it to the Israeli Government and to various journalists.

Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics -- such as myself -- found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling.

There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them.

What's most interesting to me about the certainty of Carroll and plenty of others that WikiLeaks broke the law is that Assange -- unlike the two AIPAC officials whom the Government was unable to convict -- is not even a U.S. citizen, and WikiLeaks is not an American organization.

Just consider the mindset implicit in this belief that they "broke U.S. law": once the Pentagon decrees that something is secret, not only American citizens -- but every human being on the planet -- is thereby barred from talking about or disclosing it, upon pain of being declared a criminal.

As I've said many times, the criticism that WikiLeaks should have been more careful in redacting the initial release of documents out of concern for innocent Afghans is a reasonable (though sometimes exaggerated and hypocritical) one. But the broader anger at WikiLeaks seems clearly grounded in its defiance of U.S. Government decrees over what may and may not be publicly aired.

Source

Columbia grad wants to know who called her a 'whore' on YouTube

I think this is a case of libel rather than free speech but the right to comment anonymously is nonetheless an important one -- in political matters at least. There are some very vindictive Muslims, homosexuals and Leftists around who are prone to attack anyone who challenges them. So anonymity ENABLES free speech in some instances

"A Columbia business school grad wants a judge to unmask the cowardly creep who anonymously labeled her a "whore" on YouTube. In a Manhattan Supreme Court suit, Carla Franklin says she has "suffered damages in the form of distress and mental anguish" from the mean-spirited posting, and wants a judge to give her a court order to force Google and YouTube to turn over the poster's identity.

Google and YouTube don't comment on specific legal cases, but typically will turn over IP addresses and other identifying information if there's a court order.

The lawyer said his client has no way of knowing how the postings may have affected her job search out of school, but noted that under New York law, calling someone a "whore" when they're not is considered defamatory because it "impugns a woman's chastity."

Source

Chastity?? There's such a thing in NYC?

The pathetic Leftist faith in verbal magic rolls on

Don't label heroin users as 'junkies'

"People should stop calling heroin users "junkies" or "addicts", an influential think tank on drugs has said. The UK Drug Policy Commission said such names stigmatised users and made it more difficult to get off drugs.

Its report suggested that the policing of drugs on the streets and methadone programmes forcing users to go to chemists were "publicly humiliating".

Instead, the study said that British society needed to show more compassion towards drug users. Authors of the six-month report said the terms "junkie" and "addict" were distrustful and judgmental and led to feelings of low self-worth among drug users.

"The crux of this problem, I'm afraid, is the persistent view that drug addiction is the problem of the addict," he said. [It isn't??]

Source

Drug addicts have for some time been referred to simply as "users" in professional circles -- but even that vague term has already acquired a tone of contempt.

US teacher loses job after Facebook posts about 'germ bag'

We read:

"A teacher who was forced to resign after calling her students "germ bags" on Facebook has admitted what she did was stupid, but refused to apologise.

June Talvitie-Siple, 54, from Quincy, Massachusetts said she thought her Facebook posts were only visible to her friends when she also described the parents of her students as "snobby" and "arrogant", The Patriot Ledger reported.

The high school maths and science teacher in Cohasset, Massachusetts was forced to resign from the school after parents spotted the posts and complained to the school superintendent.

Ms Talvitie-Siple had complained to her friends on the social networking site that her students were "germ bags" as she had been sick for six months and students kept infecting her.

She also wrote: "I'm so not looking forward to another year at Cohasset Schools," adding that the community was "arrogant" and "snobby".

Source

But what if everything she said was true? I have a feeling that it might have been. So do we have here a case of someone losing their job for telling the truth?

Competent math and science teachers are hard to find so I suspect that the schoolkids concerned will be the losers from the thin skin of the teacher's critics

When It Comes to the Ground Zero Mosque: `Truth Is the New Hate Speech'

Excerpt below from Pamela Geller -- as she answers the hate speech against her emanating from Britain's Leftist "Guardian". Giving voice to the fact that most Americans are opposed to the mosque is "hate speech", apparently

The left is dismissive of the grief and offense caused by the prospect of a victory mosque at Ground Zero. Despite all the competition from its many rivals in this game, the Guardian took first prize for smear, slander, libel and personal destruction. The notoriously anti-Semitic Guardian took on the Jewish Atlas, and could barely contain itself.

My crime? Hate speech. And that proves once again what I have contended all along: "truth is the new hate speech." Knowledgeable conservative readers will get a charge out of the Guardian's story, which is a mixture of pure fiction and dangerous lies, all devoted to the marginalization of those who dare to expose the liberal media propaganda machine.

The anti-Semitism was open: "Geller," claimed Chris McGreal, the author of the piece, "writes for an Israeli media network based in the occupied territories that is the voice of the Jewish settler movement."

I do? They just make stuff up. I don't even know what they are talking about, but if Chris McGreal is in touch with this "Israeli media network," he should let them know that I would love to write for them - please point the way!

The rest of the piece is just as ridiculous. "Pamela Geller," the Guardian tells its mouth-breathing readers, "is on a mission to save the free world and she's doing it, on this occasion, in a bikini as she writhes around in the sea

The 2006 bikini vlog is back! I've recorded 400 vlogs and the sticky-fingered smear machine can't stop watching the one in which I'm wearing a bikini and wading in the ocean. I just hope they watch it with the sound on.

The Guardian does try to be serious, however, and to hurl some serious charges at me: "But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals."

Yes, I stand with the EDL, who are resisting the Islamization of Britain, and the Serbs, who are resisting the Islamization of the Balkans. I also stand against the genocide in South Africa. White supremacists? War criminals? This is the genocidal Guardian at its mendacious best. Nice work, goosesteppers.

Source (See the original for links)

Jewish symbols not allowed

We read:

"A Grafton woman is angry after being told to take down religious symbols. Marlene Tracy was told the decorations violated her apartment’s lease, but now she suspects discrimination. Tracy had a star of David and three small Israeli flags on the front door of her Grafton apartment.

But last Sunday, she got a note from management telling her to take it all down. The note said, “Please remove religious fixtures from the door.”

But why then, Tracy asks, do other doors in the complex have decorations? It didn't add up. I thought something is wrong,” Tracy said. 12 News found flower decorations, three welcome signs and a heart-shaped American flag that read, “God bless America” -- all hanging from other apartment complex doors.

“Why was I centered out if I was to remove what was on my door and everybody else has their things still there?” Tracy said. “I personally think there is some anti-Semitism. I do.”

Source

Dutch declare a MUSLIM cartoon illegal!

Maybe there's hope for the Dutch yet!

"A Dutch Muslim group was fined 2,500 euros for publishing a cartoon which suggested the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews, a Dutch appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The court in the western city of Arnhem overruled an acquittal handed down by a Dutch lower court, saying the cartoon, published on the website of the Arab European League's (AEL) in 2006, was "unnecessarily hurtful".

The cartoon shows two men in Auschwitz looking at several dead bodies. "I don't think they are Jews", says one man. The one man replies: "We have to get to the 6,000,000 (figure) somehow'. Six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

The AEL circulated it in 2006 after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad which triggered an outcry among Muslims in many countries.

Source

Dirty tricks against Wikileaks quickly unravel

We read:

"Swedish prosecutors withdrew an arrest warrant for the founder of WikiLeaks on Saturday, saying less than a day after the document was issued that it was based on an unfounded accusation of rape.

They said that for the moment Julian Assange remains suspected of the lesser crime of molestation in a separate case.

But Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, told NBC News that the allegation of molestation remains. However, Rosander said that after a new prosecutor looked at the allegations, the arrest warrant was withdrawn because the severity of the case does not require an arrest at this stage.

A WikiLeaks spokesman, who says he goes by the name Daniel Schmitt in order to protect his identity, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Iceland that the "extremely serious allegations" came as a complete surprise and that efforts to find lawyers for Assange are under way.... "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks.' Now we have the first one," it said.

Assange was in Sweden last week partly to apply for a publishing certificate to make sure the website, which has servers in Sweden, can take full advantage of Swedish laws protecting whistle-blowers.

Source

Secrecy is a prime weapon of tyrants and all governments use it to protect themselves so I am very proud of what my fellow Australian is doing.

It is however a pity that secrecy that is really needed -- in military operational matters -- can get caught up in the process. Assange has however held back a lot so far in an awareness of that consideration so is to be congratulated on those grounds too. There have so far been no established instances of his revelations actually leading to military problems

If they arrest him, however, his co-workers will let the lot flood out so Obama is obviously running scared. The swift reversal of the Swedish action sounds to me like a direct response to an urgent request from the White House

She tried to beat the double standard and lost

Laura Schlessinger thought she could use the N-word while DISCUSSING racial abuse but even that was not allowed. She mentioned that black males used it all the time so felt that she too had some right to use it -- but conservative whites are NEVER allowed to use it -- so she lost

"Talk show host Dr Laura Schlessinger is fighting back following her infamous use of the 'N' word on her syndicated radio show last week. The conservative pundit used the word 11 times during a conversation with an African American caller named Jade.

The incident set off a fire storm of criticism and Schlessinger was forced to apologise. Shortly afterwards her show, The Dr. Laura Program, was cancelled.

After appearing on Larry King Live to discuss the incident, Schlessinger sat down to an in-depth interview with the Hollywood Reporter and made it clear she felt she was being unfairly censored.

Source