Banning Hate Speech

 

Senator Edward Markey from Massachusetts wants to stop hate crimes. So, he has proposed legislation to study and recommend ways to stop hate crimes by stopping the hate speech that encourages such crimes. Some might argue that this would endanger freedom of speech but if you can’t trust Congress and the federal government to safeguard our liberties, who can you trust. I found this article in the Boston Herald, thanks to Instapundit.

 

U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey wants the government to study and recommend ways to stop the Internet, TV and radio from “encouraging hate crimes,” but First Amendment advocates say the bill is a menace to free speech.

“This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, arguing even hate speech is protected absent a crime. “It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”

Markey’s bill would direct a government agency to identify hate speech and create recommendations. Markey in a statement yesterday said the bill makes “crystal clear that any recommendations must be consistent with the First Amendment’s free speech protections.”

Harvard Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz said, “He’s not going to be able to come up with legislation that sufficiently protects the First Amendment. We always have to be able to respond to the racists and bigots, but not at the expense of the First Amendment.”

Gene Policinski of the First Amendment Center and the Newseum Institute said, “Anytime government in any form or level looks to study our speech — even something that we might all consider detestable speech — we need to pay attention. The First Amendment really permits everyone in the marketplace to speak.”

Michael Lieberman of the Anti-Defamation League said he backs the bill, which is similar to a Markey-backed 1993 study that found hate crimes linked to media “scattered and largely anecdotal” and recommended no government bans.

“If we thought this legislation would result in censorship, we would not support it,” said Lieberman. “You could take the position that any legislation could lead to government censorship, but the way we’re looking at this is a net positive. This updates a study that is 20 years old.”

House co-sponsor U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “Those recommendations are simply recommendations unless they are acted on. … If there’s speech that’s protected by the First Amendment, Congress will presumably not act.”

Throw him out!  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Notice that the article never states which party Senator Markey belongs to. I am sure nobody will be very surprised to learn that a lawmaker who proposes censorship is a Democrat.

 

This is a really silly idea. I doubt if any such bill would even make it out of committee and if by some miracle both houses of Congress actually passed anything like it, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional before the ink dries on the paper. I doubt very much if there is any actual evidence that any hate crime is inspired by hate speech and I doubt very much if attempting to ban hate speech from the internet, television and radio could possibly be effective.

 

I have to wonder though, what is it about these people, especially the most liberal Democrats, that their first impulse is always to shut down and censor people. Perhaps we should make a law that anyone in Congress who proposes such obviously unconstitutional legislation should be immediately dismissed from their office and barred from any elective  office for life.

 

Related articles

 

• Senate Dems Ready to Smash 1st Amendment for TV, Radio, Internet (politicaloutcast.com)
• Democrats In Congress Have Had Enough Of The First Amendment: Propose Monitoring For “Hate Speech” (downtrend.com)
• New Hate Speech Bill is Nazi Stuff (conservativebyte.com) I don’t think the Nazis tried to ban hate speech, but the point is well taken.
• Senator Introduces Bill to Silence Christians and Conservatives (godfatherpolitics.com)
• Internet and Broadcast Media Hate Bill Introduced in Senate (libertyfederation.com)

Denouncing the Koch Brothers

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich emailed me to let me know that he has started a petition at Moveon.org denouncing the Koch Brothers for corrupting our democracy.

We, citizens of the United States, denounce you, Charles and David Koch, for using your vast wealth—more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40 percent of Americans—to corrupt our democracy. You are thereby undermining the most precious gift we possess, our democratic system of government. You deserve to be shamed and condemned by all Americans.

We do not denounce the Koch brothers because their wealth of more than $50 billion exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 40 percent of all the citizens of the United States, or because they run and own one of the largest petrochemical businesses in the world, or because of their right-wing views.

The Koch brothers are entitled to their wealth and to their opinions, but when they use their vast wealth to overpower the voices of average Americans, that is unfair and they should be held accountable.

They’ve established a political front group, Americans for Prosperity, and are building their own permanent political machine, including hundreds of full-time staff in at least 32 states. They are pouring money into federal and state races—including more than $30 million already to help Republicans win the Senate this year. 

The Koch brothers are thereby using their vast wealth to undermine and corrupt our democracy—a shameful betrayal of our nation for which they deserve to be widely denounced. It’s time we join our voices together to publicly denounce the Koch brothers and their dangerous, corrupting influence. They may not be swayed by our voices, but when enough of us condemn what they’re doing, taking their money will become a political liability.

Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

Thanks!

–Robert Reich

I keep wondering why the Democrats are so obsessed with the Koch Brothers. What crimes have these men committed? Don’t they have the right to spend their money however they wish? How exactly are they undermining democracy or overpowering the voices of average Americans? Are they preventing anyone else from speaking or from supporting political candidates?

Robert Reich acts as if the Koch Brothers were doing something uniquely evil by spending large amounts of money to influence politics. Yet, if you look at Open Secrets’ list of top political donors, Koch Industries is all the down to 59th place with a total of $18,283,448 in contributions from 1989 to 2014. This does not include their efforts with Americans for Prosperity and other fundraising, but it is a starting point for comparisons. The top political donor from 1989 to 2014 is ActBlue, a Democratic leaning political action committee. They contributed a total of $100,887,828. Second and third are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees and the National Education Association with contributions totaling $61,339,129 and $61,339,129 respectively. Both these organizations contribute almost entirely to Democrats. In fact, the top sixteen donors either support the Democrats or are on the fence. Of these sixteen, eleven are labor unions. Say what you will about the Kochs, at least they are spending their own money, not money taken from members’ dues. The ones who contributed to both parties seem to be some of the largest corporations in America, like AT&T, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, and others. The top Republican donor is United Parcel Service with contributions totaling $32,565,382. 

Why doesn’t Robert Reich denounce any large donors, except for the Kochs? Why doesn’t he denounce the actions of the labor unions who not only contribute large amounts of money to Democrats but also provide many of the foot soldiers for their political campaigns? What about Hollywood? Even a mediocre actor can get a lot a attention for any political cause he may want to support, and most actors are liberal. Aren’t these examples of overpowering the voices of ordinary Americans. He also has nothing to say about large corporate donors who contribute to both parties. Why not? If a corporation is contributing to both the Republicans and the Democrat, chances are it is not promoting any particular ideology but is trying to buy favors or protection. At least the Kochs can credibly claim to promote a conservative/libertarian ideology beyond their business agenda.

 He states that he does not condemn the Kochs because of their wealth or their right wing views, but does he really expect anyone to believe him? I think it is precisely because of their right wing views that the Democrats single out the Koch Brothers for condemnation. Corporations buying concessions and favors from legislatures doesn’t seem to bother them. Trying to promote the libertarian viewpoint of a smaller, less powerful government seems to bother them quite a lot. Demonizing and denouncing some of the most prominent supporters of that viewpoint may help others to reconsider donating to conservative causes. Like so much else on the left, denouncing the Koch Brothers is all about power and bullying.

Related articles

• Dingy’s Latest Koch Brothers Rant: “Our Planet Will Be Plundered For Short Term Profits, Climate Change Will Continue To Be Denied”… (weaselzippers.us)
• Koch Brothers Already Accused Of Corruption In 2014 Elections (mintpressnews.com)
• You’re supporting the Koch brothers. Yes, you are. (prairieweather.typepad.com) Actually, I support freedom. As long as the Koch Brothers also support freedom, I am with them.

Uninstall Firefox

Dennis Prager says it better than I ever could in his latest column.

 

In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.

 

Actually, I have avoided Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, not so much for their political views as their insufferable self-righteousness. I really don’t care how much they want world peace or social justice, just make ice cream.

 

Anyway.

 

The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.

All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.

During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.

It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.

As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).

The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes.

And right now that position is opposition to same-sex marriage.

Think about that. In the United States of America today, the belief that marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and woman is portrayed as so vile by the left that anyone who holds it is unfit for employment.

A handful of those on the gay (and straight) left have spoken out against the forced resignation of Eich. If their words are to mean anything, they must join in the call to boycott Firefox. Otherwise, their protestations are meaningless, made solely to preserve their moral credibility.

The battle over Firefox is the most important battle in America at this particular moment. If you use Firefox, uninstall it. Instead use Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Safari, or try Pale Moon for Windows, which is based on the Firefox engine and will import all of your bookmarks. For mobile devices, you can try Puffin.

America can have liberty or it can have Firefox. Right now, it cannot have both.

 

I would like to add that if you are gay or support same-sex marriage, you should know that the sort of left-wing activists Prager is talking about do not really care about you and are not your friends. This is not about same-sex marriage. This is about power and bullying. Right now they support gay rights in the hope that they can weaken the influence of religion  in this country and damage conservatives. If it were politically expedient, they would just as soon throw homosexuals in jail, or stone them.

 

 

Related articles

 

• Uninstall Firefox (humanevents.com)
• M5Connect Web Browser Plugin (shoretelsky.com)
• CEO of Mozilla Brendan Eich Quits (spyghana.com)
• What does Brendan Eich’s ousting mean for freedom of speech? (christiantoday.com)
• Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace (wp-cron.com) These people get it.
• Mozilla’s Post-Purge Feedback Is Strongly Negative (minx.cc)

 

Stinkburgers

Last week, President Obama spoke in Ann Arbor Michigan. Among other things, he expressed support for raising the minimum wage and attack Republican policies. Here is an article from the Washington Post.

President Obama compared the Republican budget plan to a “stinkburger” or “meanwich” during a speech here Wednesday, using a series of zingers in an attempt to strike a contrast with the GOP on economic issues in an election year.

In a speech to an enthusiastic crowd of 1,400 at the University of Michigan, Obama repeatedly mocked Republican ideas about how to improve the economy, as he touted his own proposal to raise the minimum wage.

Obama, who visited the local Zingerman’s deli before the speech, said that Republican proposals to cut taxes for wealthier Americans and federal investments in education, as well as replace his federal health-care program, would harm the economy.

The GOP has proposed the same ideas so many times, Obama said, “It’s like that movie ‘Groundhog Day,’ except it’s not funny. If they tried to sell this sandwich at Zingerman’s, they’d have to call it the stinkburger or the meanwich.”

Obama’s appearance here was the latest in his bid to put pressure on Republicans to support his proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. Republicans have opposed the plan, citing federal estimates that it could eliminate up to 500,000 jobs, even as it raised wages for many more.

In the state that is home to the U.S. auto industry, the president cited the example of Henry Ford more than a century ago, who Obama said gave workers raises so they could “afford to buy the cars they were building.”

Setting the stage for a vote on the plan in Congress, Obama said the GOP will have to make clear whether they support paying the lowest-paid workers more money: “You’ve got a choice: You can give America the shaft, or you can give it a raise.”

Stinkburgers? Meanwiches? Has Mr. Obama been getting Malia and Sasha to write his speeches for him? I know what points he was trying to make he was trying to be humorous, but that just sounds silly. I am afraid that our political discourse has come a long way since the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Related articles

• Yeah You Stay Classy, Mr. President: Calls Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal A ‘Stinkburger’ (ijreview.com)
• How Eloquent – Obama Calls GOP Budget A ‘Stinkburger’ (lonelyconservative.com)
• Kindergarten: Obama Describes GOP Ideas as ‘Stinkburgers,’ ‘Meanwiches’ (conservativeread.com)

Boycotting Mozilla

By now, just about everyone who might be reading this post knows something of what has going on with Mozilla and its eleven day CEO Brendan Eich. For the heinous crime of donating $1000 in support of California’s  anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, a position held by none other than then Senator Barack Obama. For this thought crime, Mr. Eich has been obliged to leave.

This isn’t about gay marriage. It isn’t really about freedom of expression, or the right to donate to political causes without fear of retribution. This is about the most fundamental right of all , the right to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit.

There is a class of professional activists; the hyper sensitive, the perpetually aggrieved, the would be do-gooders and reformers, for whom everything is subordinate to the glorious cause. For these people, life is a Manichean struggle of ultimate good and evil. No one can be neutral or indifferent to the struggle. If you are not with them, you are against them and must be destroyed by any means necessary. No decision or action can be strictly personal. Everything is political. In Mr. Eich’s case, the fact that he was a co founder of Mozilla and had invented JavaScript was irrelevant. He had opposed the cause and could not be tolerated. Remember that notorious video that British environmentalists made.

 

Notice that the people who were blown up were not actually opposed to the Green agenda. Their crime was simply that they were not sufficiently enthusiastic. I don’t want to live in that kind of world. I don’t want to boycott Mozilla or stop using Firefox. I don’t want to make decisions on what I buy or use based on the political ideas of the providers. I would rather just live my life and express my opinions and let everyone else alone. If there are differences of opinions, I would rather discuss or debate the matter and not have to worry about being punished for taking the wrong side, or punishing others for disagreeing with me. It would seem, however, that those of us who want to be left alone and to leave others alone are not going to be allowed to do that. Since this is the world the busybodies and the bullies seem to want, I guess we will just have to push back until they go away.

I do not know if the people who run Mozilla are cowards who give in to the least pressure, from the right sort of people, or if they can be included among the bullies. It really doesn’t matter. They have shown that they are on the side against liberty and so do not deserve any support from me. I will uninstall Firefox.

Related articles

• Mozilla CEO Resigns Amid Criticism, Boycott Over Donation Supporting Biblical Marriage (christiannews.net)
• Mozilla CEO Resigns After Anti-Gay Marriage Donations Cause Backlash (goldenageofgaia.com)
• Gay Conservatives Agree: The Gangster-Style Ouster Of Mozilla CEO By Rabid Gay Activists Isn’t A Gay Rights Issue At All (mikesright.wordpress.com)
• Mozilla registers swell of negative feedback following Eich ouster (cactusjaq.wordpress.com) Good.
• FAQ on CEO Resignation (mozilla.org) Trying to please both sides. If they do not come out in defense of freedom, I will not use their products.

Indiana Rejects Common Core

Walter Russell Mead has some interesting things to say about Indiana’s recent rejection of the Common Core federal education standards. He approves of the move not so much because of any defect in the standard but from a sense that a one size fits all program for a nation as large and diverse as the United States is not desirable. Here are his reasons.

First of all, families should have as much freedom as possible to shape their children’s education. And the closer to the grassroots level educational decision-making resides, the more likely it is that parents can help shape important decisions about their kids’ education.

Secondly, it’s clear that our educational system is in the midst of a period of change, as it needs to be. Society is changing, the economy is changing, yet our educational system is still a product of the Industrial Age. It’s designed to produce people who are good at following directions, coping with boredom, and sitting still for long periods of time. Coming up with a new model suited for the 21st century is going to take time and experimentation. Letting cities and states (to say nothing of individual schools, whether public, charter, or private) try out new approaches is the best way to do this. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

More broadly, as the U.S. continues to grow, we need to work much harder to keep important decisions at state and local levels for the sake of national unity and the health of democratic society. The individual American has almost no influence over decisions at the federal level, but at state and local levels grassroots coalitions and social and civic organizations can make a real difference. America is based on the idea that ordinary people should be responsible for their own lives; a mass society dilutes that necessary freedom and authority. Our democratic society will wither away if Washington tries to make all our important decisions for us. Centralization of power also tends to exaggerate and heighten political polarization. Let Texas live as it pleases, and let Vermont be Vermont. America will be happier and more peaceful when smaller units of government make more of the really consequential decisions.

This last argument is one to keep in mind. We think of ourselves as a democracy, the sort of country in which the people rather than a king or dictator rules. Yet, how democratic can a country with a population of over 300 million actually be if all the major decisions are made by a centralized government in a distant capital? One person out of 300 million simply has no voice. Pundits and professional worriers always complain when fewer than half the electorate actually votes in any national election, but why should they? One person voting in any national election, presidential , senatorial or congressional really isn’t going to make a difference. As centralized government over a country as large as the United States can’t really be very democratic at all, despite the number of elections that are held. By necessity, any such government must tend to be despotic just in order to get things done. Three hundred million people are never going to come to any consensus on any issue.  For this reason,we would be a whole lot better if most of the decisions that affect people’s lives were made at the state and local level, where an individual could make a difference.

I also think that a lot of the so-called culture wars over social issues would be a lot less intense and divisive if we got away from the idea that the federal government should impose one solution over the whole country. Take same-sex marriage. Why not let California legalize it while Iowa could ban it? That way people in both places could be happy.The same could apply to abortion, gun control, and many other issues. If you don’t like the way an issue is handled in your state, well, it is easier to change policies at the state level and you could always move.

Of course, the progressives hate the very idea of the federal government yielding any of its power. It is a lot harder to make fundamental changes when you have to deal with 50 states than with one federal government. They always profess to love diversity, except in matters where diversity really counts.

Related articles

• Indiana Rejects Common Core (the-american-interest.com)
• Indiana Ends Common Core Education Standards (heritage.org)
• Indiana Replaces Common Core … With Common Core (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• Indiana First State To Back Out Of Common Core (indianapublicmedia.org)

Don’t Tread on Me

Organizing for Action wants to give me a free bumper sticker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a parody of the Gadsden flag often seen at Tea Party rallies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gadsden flag dates from the Revolutionary War. It was designed by Christopher Gadsden in 1775 and was one of the first flags used by Americans until the Stars and Stripes. Benjamin Franklin explained the significance of using a rattlesnake as a symbol for the American spirit.

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

It makes a lot more sense than his proposal that the new nation’s national bird be the turkey.

Notice the difference in significance of the two symbols. The one, the Gadsden Flag, shows nothing more than a desire to be left alone, with the implied threat to those that meddle. The other, the Obamacare Sticker shows a desire for services paid for by other people. Has the American character really degenerated so far?

Perhaps this image from the People’s Cube might work better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

• So this Obamacare Gadsden Flag Ripoff is Pretty Dumb (pjmedia.com)
• Tea party says OFA remake of its symbol is trolling (wyff4.com)
• Obama uses Gadsden Flag to Pitch Obamacare (campaignforliberty.org)

Dennis Prager the Misogynist

I got this message from the DSCC Rapid Response team.

McConnell Fundraiser: Wives have “obligation” to have sex with husbands
Automatically denounce him immediately >>

Friend – I’m absolutely disgusted: A misogynistic Republican radio host who argued that wives “ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible” despite their “mood” is hosting a $15,000-per-person fundraiser for Mitch McConnell today.

This isn’t the first time that this host — Dennis Prager — has been outspoken against women’s rights. Take a look:

• He said “women are not programmed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family”
• He’s denounced feminism’s “awful legacy” on women

The worst part: Mitch McConnell is raking in boatloads of money from this misogynist TODAY despite his repulsive views. This huge influx of dirty cash could cost Democrat Alison Grimes the lead in this deadlocked Senate race.

Automatically add your name: Denounce Mitch McConnell IMMEDIATELY for taking this dirty cash. Let’s get 100,000 strong against him by midnight.

Your Action History
Supporter Record: VN96C28FDA1
Last Petition Signed: October 24, 2013
This petition: (signature pending)

Right now, McConnell is trailing Grimes — McConnell (R) 42 – Grimes (D) 46 — in an incredibly close race. And Nate Silver reports that McConnell’s seat could determine control of the entire Senate. He’s desperate to stay in office, and willing to do anything to win.

But raising money with this sexist financier is simply over the line. There is NO excuse for McConnell lining his campaign coffers with a mountain of cash from someone who belittles women with such archaic views.

Take urgent action: Click here immediately to automatically sign the petition and denounce McConnell.

Thanks for your support,

Julia Ager
DSCC Rapid Response Coordinator

As a sometime listener of Dennis Prager I can attest that he is probably one of the most civilized people in talk radio. In a field full of shock jocks and simplistic ideas, Prager stands head and shoulders above many of his peers. It is therefore a little surprising to find him at the center of a controversy.

Dennis Prager

As I am only a sometime listener of Mr. Prager’s show, I cannot be certain of the context of the remarks that Julia Ager finds so offensive. Based on what I know of Prager’s talk show and his weekly column, I can suppose that his crime is to state that men and women are different emotionally and so may want different things out of life. This, of course, is the worst sort of heresy to the left, which holds that men and women are precisely the same and any differences are social constructs.  Dennis Prager is a misogynist  for stating  what everyone who has ever interacted with little boys and girls, and is not blinded by left-wing ideology, can see with their own eyes.

As for the remark about wives having an obligation to have sex with their husbands, I believe that Mr. Prager is stating another obvious point that when one is in a marital relationship, your life and body are not entirely your own. You cannot simply consider your own needs, but also the needs of your spouse. The apostle Paul puts this very well, if I may use Christian scripture to defend a Jew.

³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7:3-5)

The idea is not that the husband owns the wife and can demand sex whenever he feels like it. Rather the husband and wife form a partnership each member considering the needs of the other. If feminism holds that marriage is a war or a system of bargaining between the man and woman or that men and women do not need each other, than it has indeed  had an awful legacy for women.

But, you see what is really going on here. It has long been a tactic of the left to announce that some conservative has gone beyond the limits of what is acceptable discourse, limits they define. That person is denounced as a bigot and a hater and all right minded conservatives are expected to share in the denunciations and shun him. Somehow nothing any liberal ever does is ever considered to be unacceptable. George Soros can bankrupt the Bank of England through currency speculation and be convicted of insider trading, yet his money doesn’t seem to be dirty. Al Sharpton has said some truly repulsive thing and has incited riots,yet Democratic politicians race to his doorstep to receive his blessing. Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and many others can have a record of abusing women, yet they are not misogynist. People who have absolutely no shame at all ought not to be in the business of telling others what is and is not acceptable and we ought not to let let them get away with turning conservatives against each other in this way.

There is another issue here,one a little deeper than mere politics. Did you notice the words that Ms. Ager used to describe Dennis Prager’s remarks. They include, “disgusted”, “repulsive”, “sexist”, and “archaic”. Notice what she doesn’t say. Are the statements true or false? If men and women are, in fact, different on an emotional level, as Prager has said, then it doesn’t matter how repulsive or sexist his statements are, they are true statements. If they are not true statements, then why not call him out for making false statements? It is as if whether or not a statement is true, or at least whether or not it can be defended by available evidence, is of far less importance than whether a statement is progressive, or useful. The truth doesn’t seem to matter, at least not if it conflicts with ideology of political expedience.

I know that politicians and their enablers of every faction take this sort of view, to a great or lesser extent. Yet, I suspect that people on the left,with a nihilistic view that there is no truth or truth is a sociopolitical construct are far more apt to disregard inconvenient truths than others. Dennis Prager’s crime is restating some inconvenient truths.

Related articles

• Prager U: The bigger the government … (hotair.com)
• Prager U: The American Trinity #tgdn #tcot @prageru @DennisPrager (constitutionalbrian.wordpress.com)
• Turn Kentucky Blue – The Republican War On Women – ‘Wooing the Ladies: Mitch McConnell Fundraiser Thinks Wives Are Obligated to Have Sex’ (thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com) Because sexual harassment cannot be a war on women as long as the harasser votes the right way.

My Friend Barack Obama

I got an e-mail from the president himself yesterday. He is a friend of mine.

 

Friend –

The top Republican in the House said Americans should judge them not on how many laws they pass, but on how many they repeal.

The top Republican in the Senate said his top priority wasn’t to create jobs or expand opportunity, but to beat me.

I want to work with Congress wherever I can to do the job the American people sent us here to do — but it turns out Republicans and Democrats have some very different ideas about what that means.

Let me level with you: The only way we’re going to achieve our goals is by electing more Democrats in 2014.

Chip in $3 or more to help elect Democrats to a Congress we can all be proud of:

https://my.democrats.org/Elect-Democrats-in-2014

Thanks,

Barack Obama

 

All right, it is just a fund raising form e-mail, but I still feel special.

 

Personally, I think that the best thing Congress could do would be to take a year or two off from passing laws and working on repealing a lot of the obsolete, stupid, redundant, or useless laws we already have. They should then use the following year to go through every single federal agency, department and bureau and get rid of the ones that are no longer needed, not doing any work, or are redundant. They could start with an audit of the IRS, followed by a determination whether or not the surveillance done by the NSA has actually prevented  any terrorist attacks. As far as I am concerned, the fewer new laws, the better.

 

I also think that the best way to create jobs or expand opportunity would be for Barack Obama to get out of the way. The best way to keep him from doing any more damage would be to make sure a lot of Republicans get elected to Congress so we can have more gridlock. For this reason, even though Barack Obama is my friend, I cannot, in good conscience, contribute $3 to help get more Democrats in Congress.

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

• He’s My “Friend” (iowntheworld.com)
• Senator Obama and President Obama strongly disagree on the separation of powers (legalinsurrection.com)
• National: Dems Seek Ways to Limit Obamacare Fallout After FL-13 (reuters.com) I guess they need all the help they can get.

 

Factivists

First, there was Attackwatch, then the Truth Team, and now there are the Factivists, the latest attempt by the Democrats to get the truth out about the good job President Obama is doing and helping us rebut attacks from those awful, shady Republicans. I just learned about the Factivists today when I checked my email.

Friend –

Think back to 2012 for a minute.

Thanks to supporters like you, we made sure that Americans knew everything there was to know about Mitt Romney before Election Day (well, almost everything — still waiting for the rest of those tax returns). Lately, we’ve been helping to introduce the next generation of Republican leaders, like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie, to the rest of the country.

And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from doing all this, it’s that we’re really damn good at it.

But here’s the thing: Republicans are tired of getting beat by us. So they have shady Super PACs and outside groups — the ones with anonymous donors and no accountability — run wild to attack Democrats. And when the President and Democratic leaders are under attack, so is everything that you and I stand for.

That’s unacceptable, so we’re going to push back with our two strongest weapons: The truth, and you. That’s why we’re launching the Factivists program — our new grassroots rapid response team — and we need you to say you’ll be a part of it.

As a Factivist, you’ll get exclusive updates with everything you need to share the facts with your friends and neighbors. With your help, we’ll keep holding Republicans accountable for what they say and do, and we’ll get out the facts when they attack Democrats.

Because at the end of the day, that’s how we win.

Become a Factivist today, and get ready to fight back:

http://my.democrats.org/Join-the-Factivists

Thanks, and I’ll see you in the trenches,

Mo

Mo Elleithee
Communications Director
Democratic National Committee

P.S. — I made a quick video to introduce the Factivists to our party’s leaders at our Winter Meeting. Check it out, then join us.

I have to wonder why they keep changing the name of the group they create to spread their talking points. It seems that as soon as people begin to make fun of the latest organization, they remake it and change the name. No matter what name they go by, this permanent campaign seems a little off putting.

Related articles

• Move over, Truth Team; Here come the Democratic ‘factivists’ (twitchy.com)
• DNC Unveils New “Factivist” Campaign So You Can Attack “Your Republican Uncle” With Pics of Obama’s Birth Certificate… (weaselzippers.us)
• Democrats Are Now Crowdsourcing Flacks (ivoter.com)