Erick Erickson: The Dividing Line

"I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions.

We, as a sane and civil society, should not normalize publicly gloating over a political assassination. Outside of the militant libertarians, this should be something everyone agrees on. You might express those views among friends and, frankly, if a friend recorded you and made it public they’d both not be your friend and I’d advocate no sanctions against you for having voiced that view privately among friends. It’s the public championing of an assassin we need to shut down.

Americans used to have two basic things we all agreed on.

Nazis are bad.

No one should get killed for expressing their views.

What the left has done is attempt to expand the definition of the former to get around the limitations of the latter. If anyone the left disagrees with is a Nazi, well Nazis need to die.

It’s just wild to see people believe Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed for his speech, but the same people think it is a bridge too far for one to lose their job over believing that.

I am fine with doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, soldiers, and others losing their jobs for supporting, justifying, or defending the assassination of an American they do not like. I am not fine with anyone losing their jobs saying nasty things about Charlie Kirk that do not include justifications for or defenses of the assassination. And I really vehemently oppose prosecuting anyone for “hate speech” or other speech. Sadly, the United States Attorney General seems to think there is both “free speech” and “hate speech,” which she believes is not free speech and might be something the DOJ targets. That is not the law and is indefensible.

The Attorney General, on Fox News, went so far as to claim the Christian baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding — an argument the Supreme Court rejected. In Pam Bondi’s case though, it was the threat to prosecute a business that opposed printing fliers for a Charlie Kirk rally. If Bondi wins that argument, you will be baking the cakes for the trans birthdays.

Heather Cox Richardson has one of the largest substack subscriber bases on the planet. She is a leftwing historian who many, many people on the left go to in order to put the day’s event’s in perspective. Essentially, she tells them what to believe. Here she is September 13th... 

Source:Erick Erickson on Substack.

From Erick Erickson

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday: 

"I'm just getting to Chris Cillizza's point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful. 

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech... then we have an Attorney General who doesn't even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has. 

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is... we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison... have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous." 

From The New Democrat

There are a couple points here from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on and then I'll tell you what I think about them. 

Erick Erickson talking about free speech in reference to Charlie Kirk's assassination last week: 

"I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is the key point here: 

"I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

I literally asked Mr. Erickson yesterday on Twitter about in reference to his point: 

"I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is what I asked him: 

"What should be the consequences for speech that you don't like?" 

From Twitter. He hasn't responded to my question.

The 2nd point from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on, is something that he said on Twitter yesterday: 

"There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi." 

From Twitter

Since apparently Mr. Erickson doesn't want to answer what he thinks should be the "consequences" for people who use speech that he doesn't like... I'm going to tell you what people are able to do and what they can do in response to speech that they don't like, including hate speech. 

I'm not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole... any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated... anything that they want to talk about. 

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That's what's known as an exchange of ideas and open debate. 

And to Mr. Erickson's 2nd point: ""There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi."

I don't even take the United Nations seriously on everything, let alone agree with them on everything. I mean the People's Republic of China (which is still a Communist State) is a member of their Human Rights Council. But I think their definition of hate speech is pretty solid: 

"Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor".

Of course hate speech exists. And it's not just used against minorities, women of all backgrounds and gays in America. It's used against everybody, including Anglo-Saxon-Protestant males in America. Just because you believe hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, (which I do) doesn't mean you have to pretend that it doesn't exist. Even though you have the First Amendment right to do that. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salman Rushdie: Freedom of Speech

Source:Imgur- Author Salman Rushdie, making the case for free speech.

Salman Rushdie: "Nothing should be immune from criticism."

From Imgur

"Author Salman Rushdie, who lived for years under a death threat after his 1988 book The Satanic Verses drew the wrath of Iranian religious leaders, said the right to free speech is absolute or else it isn't free.

Following a speech at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Rushdie on Wednesday addressed the killings last week of 12 people at the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. He said he was angered that, in the aftermath of the shootings, some from both the left and the right began to vilify the victims."

Source:Mashable- Author Salman Rushdie.

From Mashable

"Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

From Wikipedia

Saying that someone has the right to be an asshole, is not the same thing as saying that you agree with assholes. We all say stupid, ignorant, bigoted things from time to time which is one of the prices and yet rewards for being humans: the right to learn and grow. And of course assholes are more ignorant and unfeeling than regular people, otherwise they wouldn't be assholes.

Saying that people have the right to speak freely is exactly that. From the most enlightened, to the most ignorant. It doesn't mean we can wildly accuse people of rape and other felonies, or shout fire in movie theaters, or falsely advertise ourselves, our services, and products, or incite violence.

It means that we have a right to our own views and the have right to express ourselves and make our thoughts known. Even if they're critical of certain people or groups, including the government, politicians, and other public officials. And it also means that every American has the exact same free speech rights as every other American, with no exception to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, color, sexuality, or birthplace.

And with our liberal, constitutional right to free speech comes a liberal amount of responsibility to what we say and what we believe. It means that every American has a constitutional right to express how they feel about what every other American says and believes. That also means that assholes not only have the same free speech rights as the enlightened, but they have the same responsibilities as everyone else. And people who hate their ignorance can call bullshit on them and tell them exactly how ignorant they are.

Liberal democracy as great as it is, is never easy and it will always be hard and complicated and yet always rewarding. And we can only reach our full-potential and be as great as we can be as a liberal democracy and federal republic as long as everyone is not only taking advantage of their individual freedom, including their freedom of speech, but defending every other America's individual freedom, including their free speech. Especially the people that they not only disagree with, but hate what that person or those people have to say. Otherwise we'll never be anything other than clones of whatever the populist or in-crowd is at the time, or the government telling us what we have to believe and what we can say.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

ACLU: Sam Walker: 'Conscientious Objectors'

Source:ACLU- The ACLU, standing up for free speech during World War I

"The ACLU was born out of World War I and the repression that resulted when the U.S. joined the fight."

"On the night of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made the trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol for a special session of Congress that he convened. In one of the most consequential speeches in U.S. history, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war that would take the country into the Great War’s killing fields in Europe. During his address that night, President Wilson called Americans to arms with the memorable pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

Read more from Sam Walker at the ACLU Blog

Source:Cardozo Life: 'ACLU in American Life'- NYU Professor Norman Dorsen 

"The ACLU began by defending conscientious objectors during World War I and went on to oppose Japanese internment, to defend the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and to represent abortion rights activists. NYU Professor Norman Dorsen, who headed up the ACLU for many years, is featured in this piece." 

In a liberal democracy like America, it's not enough to have a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee all of our individual rights like free speech, right to privacy, property rights, and other right, you need private organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union there to defend Americans individual rights, simply because you have politicians and other government officials who don't believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are more than willing to impose their religious and cultural values on others and do with through government force. You also need judges and courts who believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, otherwise organizations like the ACLU and others won't be that powerful. 

From Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

That's what the ACLU is about which is the right for all Americans from people who are as Far-Left as Communists who hate our liberal democracy and U.S. Constitution, to people as Far-Right and racial and ethnic Nationalists who believe that our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to European-Americans who are English and Protestant, or other Northern European Protestants.

Anyone can defend popular speech in America, because who could possibly offend by doing that? Unpopular nerds or radicals who simply don't fit in with the popular political or social class? It's the people who go out on a limb and take a stand even if that stand is radical and even hateful that need the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, a functioning court system, and private individual liberty groups like the ACLU who need individual rights to be protected just as much, if not more than the popular political and social classes in America. 

ACLU: 'A Supreme Court Fight For Students Free Speech Rights- The Story of John and Mary Beth Tinker'

Source:ACLU- Back when students believed in free speech. 

Source:ACLU

“In 1969, a group of public school students protesting the Vietnam War made First Amendment history that stands strong to this day.

Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker grew up in Iowa, where their father was a Methodist minister.

When they were teenagers in 1965, they started to see horrific news about the escalating war in Vietnam, thanks to the brave journalists reporting there. Young people we knew in Des Moines started to be sent to war — and they were coming home in coffins.

They decided to wear black armbands to school to send a message of mourning for the dead in Vietnam on both sides and support for a Christmas truce. The school suspended them and three others for wearing the armbands.

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union said that was a violation of their First Amendment rights and told them to try to negotiate with the school board to change the policy. When the board voted to continue the ban on armbands, the national ACLU took the case to court on behalf of them and another student, Chris Eckhardt.

Dan Johnston, a young lawyer also from Des Moines and just out of law school, argued the case. After defeats at the lower courts, he won 7-2 at the Supreme Court on February 24, 1969. “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the majority opinion said.

The court went on to affirm the freedom that young people have under the Constitution: In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students…are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.

There are still limits on what students can do in public schools. Under the ruling, students can’t violate rules that aren’t targeted at expression, like attendance policies, as long as their school is applying the rules equally, regardless of whether students have broken them to protest or for other reasons. And students can’t “materially disrupt” the functioning of their school, though what’s considered disruptive can depend on the situation.

Over the years, students have protested everything from apartheid in South Africa to a ban on dancing. And of course there were 2018’s massive student protests that followed the shooting massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Schools aren’t supposed to only teach things like math and science — they’re also supposed to prepare students to participate in society. The ability to speak out and make up your own mind through freedom of expression lies at the core of what it means to live in our society, and it wouldn’t make sense for public schools to try to stop students from learning to exercise their speech rights. A half century after the Supreme Court recognized that truth, it’s important now more than ever.” 

From the ACLU 

If you look at American political culture from the 1960s and 70s, they have a lot of things in common with the Millennial’s today in the sense that they both have serious leanings on the Left ( if not Far-Left ) and don’t seem to have issues with even with communism, let alone socialism in general and if anything have no issues with being labeled as a Socialist.

And if you look at groups like ANTIFA, they have no issues with being labeled as Communists and in some cases at least are even self-described Communists. But there’s one thing that makes the leftist political activists from 40-50 years ago different from the Millennial leftists activists today and that has to do with free speech.

Back in the 1960s, especially the late 60s, free speech protests were about free speech rights and defending the right for young Americans to be able to speak freely. That’s what the Baby Boomers back then who were still in college or just out of college were fighting for which was the right to speak freely and advocate for their own political positions whether it was the right to protest against the Vietnam War, civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities, or fighting against censorship as it related to their music and other entertainment. There was a real liberal element as it related to personal freedom and individualism for the political activists of the Baby Boom Generation that we don’t see from the Millennials today, in most cases.

Today, free speech rallies and protests are about protesting against free speech from people that college activists disagree with and in even some cases hate. We now have comedians whether it’s Jerry Seinfeld or Chris Rock even who refuse to perform on campus, because they don’t want to deal with the political correctness and censorship on campus there.

Millennials today, love their own free speech rights and the First Amendment protection for free speech in America, as well as the people who agree with them, but will fight like hell in order to censor people who disagree with them. And label them as bigots who have no place in their America and don’t even have the right to be heard, according to them.

The Baby Boom protesters, were the real Liberals on campus at least as it related to free speech and personal freedom. Unlike the Millennials today, who in many cases sound like Communists who don’t believe in free speech and personal freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'- For Separation of Church and State

Source: Americans United- For Separation of Church and State. 

Source:Americans United

From Wikipedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

Source: Americans United- Defenders of the First Amendment 

I believe in my blogging over the years I've made it very clear what my politics are and I've tried to do so as well. I'm a Thomas Jefferson-Milton Friedman-John F. Kennedy Liberal, who believes in free will, free exercise of thought, free expression, and free choice. All things that Socialists and Nationalists tend to hate, because they believe they know what's best for everyone else instead. Separation of Church and State, is not a socialist or communist phrase, it's a Tom Jefferson ( one of our Founding Liberals ) who coined that term that all First Amendment defenders believe in as well. That government shouldn't and doesn't have the constitutional authority to prohibit religion and religious belief in America, but it doesn't have a right to promote religion and force Americans to live by some religious code and a certain set of moral and religious values.

Unlike communist states like the Communist Republic of Korea or theocracies like the Islamic Republic of Iran and even the Saudi Kingdom with is an Islamic theocratic monarchy, the United States of America has a the perfect balance for religion because of our liberal First Amendment and our liberal constitutional free speech rights. Which says Americans have a constitutional right to either believe in or not believe in religion, or practice or not practice religion. That's called freedom of choice which is protected by both our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment. And that government has no role in religion whatsoever other than to protect the constitutional right of all Americans ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice, or no religion at all. Which is one thing that makes America not only great, but exceptional as well.
Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'

Glenn Beck: 'Comedy Has Been Taken Over by Insanely Self-Important People Like Stephen Colbert'

Source:The Blaze- The real Glenn Beck. 

"America's comedians seem to have lost their sense of humor." 

Source:The Blaze

My counterpoint to Glenn Beck here is going to sound like an impression of Captain Obvious and perhaps put me in contention for the World Championship of obvious statements and yet Glenn Beck seems to miss this here..

Comedians like anyone else in our great, vast, liberal democracy, we call America, with our guaranteed constitutional liberal right to free speech, don't live in vacuums. Everything that any of us say in this country is opened to interpretation and reaction. 

The best comedians in America and everyone else go where the material is and joke about not only what they believe is funny, but more importantly to their bottomline what their viewers and audience believes is funny. The reason why comedians are more political now and Glenn Beck is right that we've seen more comedy in politics in the last twenty years or so, but the reason for this is that the country is more political now.

If comedians tell jokes and do material that only they believe is funny or the people they work with believe is funny, their performances and writings will be as humorous as a preacher giving a sermon on Sunday and they'll either sound like they have no comedic timing or that they're dead serious. 

Thanks to the internet and now social media, new technology Americans are more engage now with politics and their government, as well as entertainment and what comedians are saying about our politics and government. And they see so much (to be frank) bullshit and corruption in our politics, as well as partisanship that they want to laugh and perhaps need to laugh about it to avoid having to check into some rest home and having to go under medication to treat their depression.

If a lot of our politicians weren't so stupid, dishonest, corrupt, and partisan and everyday life in politics was like a day in Pleasantville and Pleasantville was the capital of the United States instead of Washington, comedians wouldn't be joking so much about politics in this country because everyday life in politics wouldn't be so funny and they would find other things to do with their time and material. 

We live in a liberal democracy with a private market economy. If people here want to hear jokes about politics and their government, that's exactly what they're going to get. Because successful comedians go where the material and jokes are. 

And my point about what Glenn Beck and what he said about the so-called Left in comedy and them making fun of people on the Right: as Glenn Beck said, the Right is in power in America right now. The Left is out-of-power, so of course you are going to see a lot of comedians making fun of the people who are in power in America today. If Democrats were in-charge in Washington, especially left-wing Democrats, the Glenn Beck's of the world would have no issues with comedians taking on Democrats. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Foundation For Economic Freedom: TJ Brown- Dear Regressives: Crackdown is Not an Effective Way to Deal With Dissent

Source:The Daily Review

"Aw! Shut up, you're hurting my feelings! I can't hear you, because I'm not listening. I can't hear you, so you better shut up."

Remember back in elementary school when you would be confronted by someone you wish didn't even exist and didn't even want contact with and there aren't any school officials around and they got in your face and you didn't know how to deal with them effectively without looking like a bigger wimp or geek. Well, neither do I (for the most part) but I went to school with kids like that who would be called bullies today. So-called cool kids who felt the need to make the unpopular feel even worst than they already did. And some kids would sing that little song that I just quoted and even cover their ears. That's what Richard Dawkins and other on the Left, Center-Left call the regressive-left. Leftists who don't believe in liberal values like free speech, free choice, individualism, the ability for people to be able to think for themselves and live as people. And not as members of groups.

The regressive illiberal-left in America, that have more in common with Democratic Socialists and even Communists, far-left collectivists, who feel so superior over everyone else that they believe they and government should have the power to make up other people's minds for them. I mean what the hell are you doing in college if you don't want to hear opposing views and other points of view that are designed simply to make people think. Well maybe you're there just to play sports. But for the non-athlete at college what are they doing there if they don't want to hear what others think and debate the key issues of the day that they're going to have to deal with post-college. The way you deal with dissent or opposing views is to debate them and try to show people why they're wrong in a respectful way, or ignore them and move on with your life. But to simply try to use the heavy-hand of big government or whatever institution you're associated with, to shut up the opposition, is an obvious case of fascism.

College is all about free speech and freedom of protest. And when you say you are your political allies have the right to protest and free speech, but the opposition doesn't, you're believing in fascism. Whether you come from the Far-Left or Far-Right. You're saying you have so much confidence in yourself and what you believe, that there is not just any need of opposition, but the only thing that opposition would do is threaten your position that is so fabulous (on your Planet Pluto) and people who disagree with you are simply bigots anyway (according to the New-Left) and don't have any free speech rights anyway. And free speech doesn't exist in the first place anyway, (again in your small world) it's collective speech that should be the goal instead. What the collective or Board of Experts believe is the right way for people to speak to each other. That is not free speech, not individualism and not liberalism, but an illiberal form of political correctness. That shouldn't exist in a liberal democracy.

Skep Torr: The Dark Side Of Political Correctness

Source:The Daily Review

The dark side of political correctness, where should I start? The two most offensive aspects I find about it are the hypocrisy and the pure fascism of it. Apparently in PC World minorities are entitled not to be offended even if the critic is correct with everything they’re saying. But majorities are essentially free speech targets. In PC World you would almost be expected to make fun of criticize Caucasians, especially if they’re on the right. What the New-Left calls white people or the man. But even if you’re correct in how you criticize anyone else you’re somehow a bigot. Someone is bigoted to point out the horrible human rights record of Saudi Arabia when it comes to women especially. Because Saudis are Arab and Muslim. Even though they have a horrible human rights record.

But if you make fun of and criticize Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they make bigoted statements towards women and gays, you’re somehow progressive, because you’re speaking the truth. Even though SASP’s are no more bigoted towards gays and women as Islamists. And then the fascist element if it. This idea that you can’t say something, because it might offend someone else even if you’re correct in what you’re saying and you especially can’t do this in college. Perhaps the first place where you want free expression and ideas to be heard so people can learn about them and learn how to think for themselves. I mean where do political correctness warriors think they live? It can’t be Communist Cuba where they wouldn’t be allowed to hold these PC rallies without government permission. They live in America where we all have a guaranteed right to free speech.

The alternative to political correctness is education and I mean real education. Not someone standing up in front of a class and telling people how to think, but instead sharing actual facts and real information and different philosophies out there and then letting the students figure out what this all means and what’s good and bad based on what they have learned. And instead of banning language because it might offend someone you use criticism that is correct to improve yourself. And use language and thought that’s simply wrong as an opportunity to point out how ignorant the commentator is. Instead of trying to shut someone up simply for being stupid and expressing themselves. Instead educate them on their own stupidity and see if they’re smart enough to learn and improve themselves. But fascism is never the answer in a liberal democratic free society.

The Politics of Writing: The Value of Comedy

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them, ‘where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it.’ And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress to use as an example. The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato with impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

I only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large muscular person who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

The Federalist: Lewis M. Andrews- Political Correctness Is A Mask For Far-Leftists Intellectual Insecurity

Source:The Daily Review

I agree that political correctness is a mask for insecurity on the Far-Left, as well as the Far-Right. When Neoconservatives hear things that they view as Un-American or immoral and want stricken down and prevented from ever being heard again. But with the Far-Left they view some world in their Utopian dreamland where people they view as insecure and have been persecuted in the past to the point that they deserve governmental special protection. To the point that minority groups shouldn’t have to even hear criticism about them even when it’s true. That the only people who should be criticized are ‘The Man’, (meaning the White man) Christian-Conservatives and even right-wingers who are minorities. And they should be portrayed simply as ‘White people’ with dark complexions.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where everything is swell. (To quote The Beaver) Where everything is perfect, where people regardless of race or ethnicity, never have to hear anything negative about them, because everything is swell. They’re perfect. No such thing as teenage pregnancies or poverty. But that is not the world we’ll ever live in, at least in my lifetime. We have a large religious-right in this world, both Christian and Islamic. And to say that only Christian-Conservatives are bigots towards women and gays and leave Islamists off the hook, is denying facts that are right in front of you. To say that only Anglo-Saxon redneck jokes are acceptable, but if you make fun of African-American ghetto people and impersonate people from that community, you’re a bigot, but jokes and impressions of rednecks are perfectly acceptable, is a form of bigotry.

If you believe only the Christian-Right and rednecks, are the real bigots and Neoconservatives in general, but Islamists who have similar positions towards gays, women, as well as ethnic and racial minorities and in some cases would go even further and are more authoritarian and would put gays to death simply for being gay, make the case. Try to make the case that only Caucasians have bigoted views. That only the Christian-Right hates gays and believes women should be subservient to men and good luck with that. Perhaps you’ll win the lottery and win a million dollars. Become a millionaire on Wall Street by only investing only five bucks. Never get wet in a Seattle rain storm, or ever see snow in Minnesota again, even if you live there year-round, etc. Maybe you’ll just become the most bless person in the world as well.

Library of Law & Liberty: John O. McGinnis- The Political Dangers of Rising Political Correctness

Source:The Daily Review

I have several issues with political correctness, but I believe my main issues gets to the Marxian, or Marxist angle of it. That suggest freedom of thought and speech is somehow dangerous. Which is how authoritarian regimes stay in power by preventing their regimes from having to hear from any real opposition from inside of their country. The more that communications has advanced just in the last twenty-five years makes that even more difficult. But for the life of me I can’t understand why someone who calls them self a Liberal or Progressive, would be arguing for something that is illiberal and regressive. Which is preventing free thought and education from flowing to the people these illiberal’s say they care about.

The other angle about political correctness that I hate is the pure hypocrisy of it. You make fun of the Christian-Right about their bigoted views about gays and their place in the world for women, you’re funny and progressive. You make the same jokes about the Islamic-Right or Islamists, who in some cases are even further right than the Christian-Right on those issues, you’re a bigot. You make fun of Anglo-Saxon rednecks jokes and call rednecks Jim Bob and Mary Lou and accuse them of having kids with their cousins and make kissing cousins jokes, you’re funny. You make African-American ghetto jokes about people named Tyrone Jackson and Sheneka Jackson and jokes about all the different fathers that Sheneka has had for each baby she has, you’re a bigot.

The phone booth size political correctness world that illiberal’s live in, (phone booths are booths that people use to make phone calls in) jokes about minorities and criticism even if true about is considered bigoted. But jokes about majorities even if wrong and highlighting stereotypes about Caucasians, especially Southern Anglo-Protestants, are considered progressive. Americans who can’t take a joke, should stay away from comedy, or only listen to illiberal New-Left comedians. And while they’re doing that maybe they’ll be able to learn to walk with both legs again after they get their foot out of their ass. Maybe they’ll drink more alcohol and less caffeine and take up pot and learn to relax. Perhaps go outside and see a world where not everyone agrees with them. Which is what liberal democracy is about the right for people to freely express themselves and share their viewpoints.

Remember we’re talking about liberal democracy. Not illiberal democracy or Marxist Statism. We’re talking about a society where people can freely express themselves and be very informative. Or risk sounding like a complete asshole who know everything about nothing and nothing about anything of value. And in a society like that you’re going to hear things that might offend you. That you might disagree with and even find hateful. You’re also going to hear things that are inspiring and very informative. You would be wise to pay attention to the hard information. Get out of your coffee houses and put your i-phone down from time to time and you might actually learn something. Even accidentally, but you would be doing yourself a lot of good. While you put the asshole in their place for being exactly that, but not trying to silence them simply for being ignorant.

Big Think: John Cleese- Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare

Source:The Daily Review

If you're familiar with the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell plots a situation where a country is run by a special elite, or Board of Experts. That would decide what is best and appropriate for everyone else in the country. Including the most private and personal of activities like how we think and what we say. Well if you're familiar with the political correctness movement you know that is what the people in this movement want to do when it comes to thought and speech in this country. And would like to decide what is appropriate for everyone else when it comes to how we think and speak in this country.

Anyone familiar with comedy knows that it is about as non-partisan an institution as you'll ever see. It doesn't target groups, but people who do and say funny things and things that could be embarrassing for them. Stupid things and activities that famous people could be involved in. Comedy generally speaking is not about race. Except for comedians who make it about race and take the idea that making fun of Caucasians or minorities, is perfectly acceptable, but when you make fun of the other you're a bigot. My other issue with political correctness and why I can't take it seriously and don't bother to struggle to do so is the hypocrisy of it. Making fun of Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants, perfectly okay. But if you make a hip-hop joke you're a bigot in their view.

Free speech and comedy go together like chocolate cake and vanilla ice cream. Perfectly, but free speech and fascism/political correctness, are like hot dogs with peanut butter. Mustard with apple pie. I fate fascism and like mustard, but not with apple pie. Salesman need to go where the customers are and comedians need to go where the jokes are. You can't restrict a salesman when they pick customers, because it might offend other customers. And you can't restrict comedians, because one group or groups of people can't handle legitimate criticism, or having their short-comings made fun of. If you want to have a successful business and a comedy industry that thrives and makes people with sense of humors laugh.

For the oversensitive Americans amongst us regardless of race or ethnicity, comedy is probably not for you. And you should stick with your coffee houses and French poetry readings and reality TV. And when you want comedy listen to some Far-Left comedian bashing rich people especially rich Caucasian men and claiming how much they're destroying the country. And leave comedy in general for people who like to laugh and don't give a damn about who is getting made fun of as long as the jokes are funny and in good taste. Making fun of someone's real short-comings  and especially doing it in a critical informative way, is not bigoted. But informative and a way of educating people.

To suggest one group of Americans or groups of Americans, are off limits when it comes to comedy, even though we live in a liberal democracy and liberal democratic republic, with a liberal guarantee of free speech, is to suggest one group of Americans, or group of Americans are somehow perfect in an imperfect world. But not only that, it also suggest that you might live in the wrong country. That liberal democracy is too hard for you and you need to live a place where people tell you what to think and what to say. Because you can't think for yourself and don't believe anyone else can either. Perhaps the country in Nineteen Eighty-Four, would be a good country for you. And leave America for people who love individual freedom including free speech and are smart enough to handle it.

Paul Richards: The Free Speech Movement: Civil Disobedience in Berkeley (1964)

Source:The Daily Review 

I hate as a Liberal hearing California being called a liberal state and some bastion of liberalism. And just go back to the 1960s and how they came down on students who were simply looking to express their free speech rights on campus and get involved in politics. If you go to the last ten years or so and they were one of the first states to pass a same-sex marriage ban and I believe they had at one time a ban on homosexuality, at least as it relates to sex. Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California there and served two terms from 1967-75. They recalled a moderate Democratic Governor in Gray Davis in 2003 and replaced him with a modern Republican in Arnold Schwarzenegger.

California, even with their individualistic hippie movement in the 1960s that was based in Northern California and a certain extent Southern California, was at the heart in support of the political correctness movement, but coming from the right-wing in America. Especially at the state level in the California State Government. And trying to ban students from protesting and speaking out against the political issues of the day. Now they're reversed course and still support political correctness, but do it from the Far-Left instead of the Far-Right. And will deny right-wing speakers from speaking on their campus's and even left-wing speakers like Bill Maher, if they don't like what he has to say. His views on Islam in late 2014, is an excellent example of that.

What the free speech movement of the 1960s especially the mid 60s starting around 1963 and going through 64 and 65 and through the Vietnam War, was about was free speech. The right for American citizens who happen to be in college to express themselves on the issues. Protest in favor of equal and civil rights for all Americans and protest against the Vietnam War. The political correctness warriors back then, were on the Right. Who still believed it was 1956 or something and that all Americans looked at America and American culture and the world the same way and if there was anyone who didn't share those cultural and political views. they needed to be shut up. Which is how the New-Left in America reacts when people disagree with them on cultural issues today.

The free speech movement back then and I at least believe still does today when you look at Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, to use as examples and you have Conservative Libertarians on the Right as well, but back then at least the free speech movement came from the Left. From people who loved being Americans and America, but especially loved the rights, freedom and responsibility that came with being an American. Like Freedom of Speech and choice, the right for Americans to be themselves. And not have to either by legal, or cultural force to live life the way that the so-called establishment believes that they should. Which is what the hippie movement and the free speech movement, gay right and so-forth. The right for Americans to be Americans which are individuals. And not clones of the establishment.

Constitution Daily: The First Amendment Speech Debate on College Campuses

Source:The Daily Review

This point has been made several times before and I am one of those bloggers whose made this point over and over, but college is about learning new ideas, thoughts and expressions. If its censorship that you want, then perhaps you need to create time machine or something that will take you back to the 1950s when the words damn and hell were essentially forbidden in public. Well at least on TV and in the movies. And if it’s just a nice polite world that you’re looking for, well for minorities that is, leaving majorities subjected to whatever everyone else wants to say about them for good and bad, then perhaps you need to create your own country. Perhaps Paradise Island or someplace in the Pacific or Caribbean where there isn’t any hate or bigotry. At least towards minorities that is.

To paraphrase President Andrew Shepard from The American President. America, is not easy. You have to want it bad in order live and make it here. Because we’re a country where you can essentially whatever the hell you want to short of inciting violence, falsely accusing people, or harassing people. Americans, have the constitutional right to be enlightened, but we also have a constitutional right to be assholes. We also have the constitutional to be truth tellers even if what we have to say may tend to offend people who we’re talking about.

That is called America, that is called liberal democracy, that is called the land of the free. This is what a liberal society and free society is about. The right for people to be free and live freely even if what we’re doing and what we have to say may tend to offend people who are oversensitive, or have much more culturally conservative perspective on life. America is not a good place for tight asses and people who can’t take a joke and who always find the one cloud on a beautiful sunny day. America, is about freedom and individuality and free expression. Even if that may tend to offend people who can’t ether take a joke and even understand criticism, let alone take it.

I’m almost to the point that I believe everyone who attends college in America should be required to pass a class on both the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment and Bill of Rights in general. Because apparently they didn’t bother to learn those things in high school. I had to take and pass a government course in high school in Maryland in the early nineties just to graduate from high school. When most of these students weren’t even born yet. Gives you a little idea how old I am. And I’m glad I did do that, because it’s a reason why I’m a political junky and blogger today.

But I guess today’s students were too busy texting the student who sits right next to them, or listening to their I-Pod in class, or googling what shoes Khloe Kardashian wore with her new bag when she went shopping in Beverly Hills last weekend. Or whatever else they might have done when they should have been paying attention to their teacher’s lecture on American history and social studies. You want to know why Americans get stereotyped as stupid? I’ll tell you anyway. Because we now have a generation of Americans who don’t understand their country’s history and form of government and their own constitutional rights. Like Freedom of Speech.

And when these kids finally get to college after finally completing summer school, it suddenly occurred to them that some Americans say some rough things about other Americans including minority Americans and some of those negative things are negative facts. And they’ve decided they’re going to try to force their sense of decency on the rest of the country. But America simply doesn’t work that way. America, again is that gigantic melting pot of a country. The largest, the most diverse, most beautiful, the freest melting pot in the world. Where all sorts of people have the right to express their own views. And they can’t be shut up for telling the truth. Or because people can’t take a joke, or simply don’t like what someone has to say.

Myrtle Beach News Examiner: Norman Byrd- A President Ben Carson to Police Liberal Colleges For Political Bias

Source:The Daily Review

Presidential dreamer Dr. Ben Carson, the last few weeks has made it a point to show people how strongly he's in favor of Freedom of Speech and opposes political correctness, which is a form of fascism that comes from the Left and the Right. And has said things like, "PC is dangerous because it muffles people. This country was founded upon on Freedom of Speech, or thought and expression." Which is a great thing to say and believe and I agree with that, but saying those words aren't worth the air, or paper you used to express them if you don't believe in what you're actually saying.

But almost at the exact same time he proposes if he were to ever become president and his fantasy came to real-life, to use Federal taxpayer dollars and the U.S. Department of Education, that a lot of supposed Conservatives believe shouldn't exist in the first place, to monitor college and students for what he would call liberal bias and Un-American propaganda and speech. And threaten to strip those colleges of their Federal funding if they don't comply with his rule when it comes to speech on campus. I'm obviously not old enough to remember the 1950s and Senator Joe McCarthy and what others in Congress were doing in the 1950s, being born in the 1970s myself. But this looks like McCarthyism in the 21st Century to me.

Political correctness and other forms of fascism, are not left or right, but wrong. Undemocratic, anti-free speech, anti-personal freedom, pro-big government and dictatorial rule. Political correctness from the Far-Left is well-known and famous. With so-called Social Justice Warriors wanting a society where minorities wouldn't have to hear any critical or offensive speech towards them. Even if the speaker's are right in what they say about minorities and minority groups. But its just as bad if not worst coming from the Far-Right with their goals of having a country that thinks and looks at the world they way they want them to even through government force. That you comply with what they believe, or else and or else has to do with government sanctions and stripping funding.

I'm not impress with Dr. Carson at all other than his professional background and he seems like a very intelligent and likable guy. Just not when he's talking about politics and expressing political opinions. He gives the term amateur new meaning when it comes to first-time political candidates and gets stuck either with making hypocritical statements like when it comes to political correctness, or speaking about issues he apparently knows very little if anything about. Like national security, where his own staff has admitted he needs to do a lot of homework. I see him as a lot more qualified being a hipster motivational speaker, or talk show host, perhaps like Tony Robbins and Dr. Phil McGraw, than actually running for, gee I don't know, the most powerful and important office in the world. Which of course is President of the United States.

If you believe in Freedom of Speech and are against political correctness, great! I and a solid majority of Americans outside of the New-Left, Millennial Generation and Christian-Right, agree with you. But again free speech is not speech that you agree with. It is also speech that you may disagree with, find offensive, sinful and even dangerous. To say you support free speech when it comes from your side, but fascism for everyone else, is like a company CEO who says he supports capitalism for the working people, but socialism for companies and executives when the executives run business's under ground and need to be bailed out. No one in their right mind would take that person seriously.

America, moved past the 1950s officially over fifty-years ago and culturally at least since the late 1960s. Women not just work, but most people don't have a problem with that. Gays, are no longer subjected to live in prisons, mental hospitals and closets, simply for being gay. America, is just a lot different culturally than it was fifty-years ago and has a lot more personal freedom now. Freedom that we've always had to live and think individually, but now are no longer looked down upon generally if we have different political views and different ways of living. The Christian-Right, has never gotten over that and have been looking for ways to take us back to the 1950s ever since. And there form of political correctness fascism would be one way to accomplish that.

David S. D'Amato: The Most Liberal Value: Free Speech

Source:The Daily Review

If someone told you that believe in free speech all the time, except when someone says something that they disagree with, find offensive, or offends people they believe deserves special protection, how would you respond to that? Someone says something that offends someone all the time in America. Whether the supposed target of the speech is right to be offended or not. Welcome to liberal democracy where you always have to the right to express yourself. The right for people to be intelligent and ignorant in the same society and even in the same person.

Again, we're talking about expression and speech. Not politeness, or meanness. Free speech in America is a guaranteed constitutional to a liberal amount of free speech that covers both politeness and meanness. As well as criticism and constructive criticism. Which means Americans have a hell of a lot of freedom to express themselves. That is what liberal free speech is about. Our Founding Fathers, (Our Founding Liberals) made Freedom of Speech our First Amendment for a very good reason. They saw it as our most important constitutional right.

No such thing as liberalism without free speech, free expression, freedom of assembly, the freedom of beliefs and philosophy including freedom of, or from religion. Without these guaranteed liberal constitutional rights liberalism doesn't exist and we're left with a world with one statist collectivist ideology after another with no one on the Left promoting freedom and free democracy. Except for perhaps today's so-called Progressives, Democratic Socialists really, who are more interested in the collective than individual rights including free speech.

Without liberalism and Liberals, we don't have the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think about that for a second for anyone who wants to or claims liberalism as their political philosophy. Liberalism, the philosophy of liberty and individualism, as well as tolerance and equality, just as long as they're not forced upon people by the state. Without liberalism we don't have all of those guaranteed individual rights that Millennial's today have no problem taking advantage of when they're expressing their own views. Just as long as others aren't able to do the same when they say things that these college students disagree with.

If someone wants to convince me they're a Liberal, I'm going to ask them about free speech. I imagine their first answer will be something to the effect that they're in favor of it. That will be the easy part, but then like a good prosecutor that I'm not I'll ask them about political correctness, critical speech and even offensive speech. If they say they have no issues with redneck or Christian jokes as far as people having the right to make those comments, or that they agree with them, I'll agree with that person on that.

But then I'll ask them, "how about minorities and Muslims? Do you support free speech or political correctness? Do you believe minorities deserve special protection that majorities don't when it comes to criticism and humor, or that everyone has the right to free speech regardless of who they're speaking about?" Depending on how they answer those questions will determine if they're a Liberal or not. The person who says they're a Liberal and supports free speech regardless of who, or what it is about, will be the Liberal. At least when it comes to free speech. I would also want to know how they feel about Freedom of Choice in general and the Right to Privacy. Government's role in helping who are struggling, to use as examples. But my first question would about free speech.

Liberalism, of course is not just about free speech. Liberalism is about individual rights and free choice, quality opportunity for everyone to succeed and that government even has a role here to see that everyone can succeed in society. But a big part of liberalism has to do with free choice and free expression. Our liberal free speech rights, our liberal rights to express ourselves. Including public anger at our government when they do something that we hate and strongly disagree with and that even includes flag burning. Something that I'm against, but I support the right of others to disagree with me on that. Without freedom of speech as a liberal value, you don't have liberalism. It would be like being a Socialist who doesn't believe in the welfare state. A Libertarian who doesn't believe in the Right to Privacy. The philosophy would be destroyed as a result.

The Washington Post: George Will: On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech

Source:The Daily Review

I believe getting on people for what Halloween costumes college students is the last straw at least for me when it comes to the whole free speech debate on campus and off campus as well. As far as how stupid this whole debate is. We now have a generation of Americans who don't know how to relax and take a joke. Not sure they can even deliver a joke as well. We have a generation of tight assess. I wasn't a fan of the Millennial Generation ten years ago. I saw them as superficial, technology, social media and celebrity news obsessed assholes. Who were experts on everything that is meaningless and unimportant, but had a hard time coming up with the name of their own U.S. Representative, or Senator, let alone whose the mayor of their hometown. And perhaps would struggle to name all fifty-states. Spotting them their own state wouldn't be enough help for them.

I still see as Millennial's as superficial tight asses. But it gets worst, because now they have some view that it is now their mission in life to deny all minorities from having to hear, read, or deal with anything that may offend them. Apparently being not so bright they haven't figured out that they still live in America and if they don't like free speech, perhaps going to college in Cuba, (if the Cubans would take them) would be a better place for them to go to school. Perhaps they would actually learn something down there. Or maybe they would just miss being able to make their own decisions and holding protests on campus without first getting approval not from the President of the school, but from the President of the Communist Republic. America is not safe zone for opposition and critical speech that may offend people who can't take a joke, or handle the truth.

College, is a place for learning, developing and experiencing. So you have some idea what life is like when you're in the real world and not everything is given to you and you have to work and earn everything that you get. Where not everyone is going to be nice to you and always tell you how great you are. That place is called America and in America, Americans have the right to be themselves and express themselves. Let people know what they think of them and be positive about people. As well as let people know when they come up short. In a liberal democracy we have the right to express ourselves about anything we want to. But with what comes with that is being accountable for what we say based on what other think about our views. But also what others about us as people and they might not always be nice. America is not a great place for oversensitive tight asses who can't take a joke, or criticism. And hopefully the Millennial Generation is still young enough to learn that.

TIME Magazine: Charlotte Alter: Here’s What All Successful Student Protests Have in Common

Source:The Daily Review

What separates the student protest movements of the 1960s from today, is that the 1960s protesters were protesting for freedom. Protesting for civil and equal rights for all Americans. Protesting in favor of free speech on campus and in general. Protesting against an unjust war that they hated and so they wouldn’t have to go fight in that war themselves. The so-called student protesters today are protesting in favor of political correctness over Freedom of Speech. They want a special new right for minorities. The Right Not to be Offended. No American currently has that right in the U.S. Constitution, but these New-Left protesters feel that minorities in America are entitled to it.

So you have the 1960s student protesters, the Baby Boomers the hippies, the real Liberals from this era who wanted the ability to be left alone, live their own lives and live in freedom, before the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s, that wanted to tear down the American establishment and our form of government and move to a socialist system. The 1960s hippies marching for individual freedom for all Americans and not have to fight wars they think are immoral. And you have the sons and daughters, perhaps even grandsons and granddaughters of the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s, protesting today against free speech. And create a new right for minorities that doesn’t exist for anyone else.

The hippies, were successful, because America was politically changing in the 1960s and becoming that country that we really are today. Of people who believe in the right to be left alone and be free to live our own lives and even freely express ourselves. While the New-Left, represented a fringe in the 1960s that believed capitalism was immoral and even racist, that our form of government was even undemocratic and completely wanted to change the American way of life and impose their socialist and even Marxist values on the rest of the country. And today you have the New-Left still representing a fringe that sees free speech as dangerous and that minorities deserve the right not to be offended. The 1960s protesters were successful, because in many cases they had the country with them. The New-Left protesters today don’t have that.

Joshua Waimberg: 'Schenck v. United States: Defining The Limits of Free Speech'

Source:National Constitution Center- U.S. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

"Note: Landmark Cases, a C-SPAN series on historic Supreme Court decisions—produced in cooperation with the National Constitution Center—continues on Monday, Nov. 2 at 9pm ET. This week’s show features Schenck v. United States.

In a case that would define the limits of the First Amendment’s right to free speech, the Supreme Court decided the early 20th-century case of Schenck v. United States.

The case began, as many do, with an act of Congress. Shortly after the United States entered into World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. It was passed with the goals of prohibiting interference with military operations or recruitment, preventing insubordination in the military, and preventing the support of hostile enemies during wartime." 

You can read the rest of this article at the National Constitution Center. 

"Do you have an absolute right to free speech? The Supreme Court gives it 1919 answer.

 Learn the basics about the must-know US History Supreme Court Case challenging the constitutionality of the Espionage Act. If you are in a US History course you best be knowing this case. Trust me." 

Source:Keith Hughes- on, well perhaps you can figure out the rest yourself.

From Keith Hughes 

I’m not a lawyer, which is probably as obvious as Ayn Rand wasn’t a Socialist, but I bet a good lawyer who is sane, sober and awake at the time, could make a damn good case that the military draft is unconstitutional. 

Forcing Americans to fight for causes they not only don’t believe in, but didn’t voluntarily sign up for, looks unconstitutional to me, at least from the outside looking in as a non-lawyer. It is one thing if you decide to join the military and get an assignment to do a mission you don’t believe in. But it is completely another to force people to not only be part of the military, fight for the military and then fight for causes they don’t believe in.

Of course you have to complete missions once you’re already in the military because you signed up for that. And soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, can’t pick and choose what missions they accept, or not. The military couldn’t function properly that way. But to force someone to not only give up their personal and even economic freedom, (at least to a certain extent) and then yank them away from their family and community, force them to fight for you and fight for a cause they don’t believe in, sounds like a violation of an American’s personal freedom and constitutional rights there.

As far as this case here: Charles Schenck, was a noted Socialist in the United States in the early 20th Century. The Leader of the Socialist Party in America and a solid anti-war activist, which Democratic Socialists at least tend to be. And what he was doing in this case was protesting strongly against a war that he didn’t believe in as someone who wasn’t a member of the U.S. Military. It would be one thing if he was in the military and he was actively and publicly protesting against a war that he agreed to be part of by signing up for the Military. But he was a private citizen here protesting against the World War I draft and the war itself.

Charles Schenck actively and publicly opposing the World War I draft, would tell people what he thought about it and the war and encourage Americans to oppose the draft as well. This looks like a clear First Amendment case here with an American opposing a war that he was obviously against and had every right to do so. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, has made plenty of bad rulings over the years and this one is probably not in the top ten. Especially when you’re talking about cases that involved Japanese, German and Italian-Americans, being held in deferment camps during World War II, simply because of their ethnicity. But this is one of their worst First Amendment rulings. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Bob Newhart: 'On Being Politically Correct Comedy'

Source:B.V. Dahlen- comedian Bob Newhart, taking on political correctness. Good job, Bob! LOL

Source:The Daily Review 

"Bob Newhart on "Being Politically Correct", at the Bob Newhart Show, The Ferguson Center for the Performing Arts, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia. March 16, 2012." 

From B.V. Dahlen

I like Bob Newhart's line about gays and straights implying at least that we're both funny and we just make fun of each other.

I swear to God (even though I'm Agnostic) that gay men especially, because lesbians tend not to be as sensitive, (ha, ha) could make all the butch masculine straight-men jokes all they want and straight men would probably just laugh at them. Because we know ourselves and know so many straight men and how we tend to act.

But if you make a feminine gay man joke and make fun of a queen, you're automatically viewed as a bigot and homophobe by the Illiberal-Left Political Correctness Police. Even if you believe that gays, men and women, should have the same rights and responsibilities under law as straights, male or female. And that you're even friends with gay men and are friendly with lesbians.

I mean that is the whole point, right: when you make fun of someone or groups of people and that is all you're doing and you're not throwing slurs and bigoted insults and that sort of thing, not that bigots don't have a right to their sense of humor as well, that is all you're doing. You're jabbing at characteristics and flaws of people and groups.

When you make a gay man joke, or do an impression, you're not saying that all gay men are feminine and sound like women and walk like runway models and the whole deal. You're just making fun of queens who are gay men with feminine characteristics. Like being oversensitive and not crazy about people knowing who they are.

If comedians can't make of people, they might as well become car insurance salesman. (And saleswomen, to be politically correct) Because that is what life would be like for a comedian who isn't allowed to make fun of people. Either through their writing, or performances. One dreary day after another where you're literally counting how many times someone slammed the door in your face. After you told someone about the great car insurance deal you could give them on their Ford Escort. Except that you're not allowed to make fun of it, because you'll be accused of being bigoted towards door slammers.

Comedy and humor, is exactly that: Not exactly a true story, but someone making fun of something, or someone who has done something. Not to be taken seriously and by the way, great comedians generally have a self-deprecating sense of humor. So how about everyone else as well.