Category Archives: Conservatives

Majority of Americans, esp. Democrats, want to make “hate speech” a criminal act

The United States is exceptional in the world when it comes to the protection of free speech. But that distinction is now endangered.

Peter Moore reports for YouGov, May 20, 2015, that its latest research shows that many Americans support making “hate speech” a criminal offense, by a margin of 41% for vs. 37% against.

Hate speech is vaguely defined by YouGov as public statements which would “stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.”

Note that “hate speech” doesn’t mean a public statement that explicitly advocates or incites violence against a group, instead it is about “stirring up hatred,” which is vague and subjective.

What does “stir up” mean? What does “hatred” mean?

The same statement may arouse ill will in someone, but not in another. In other words, what is considered “hate speech” means many things to many people.

On this issue of supporting criminalizing hate speech, as on others, there are partisan and racial differences:

  • The majority (51%) of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech; only 26% oppose.
  • In contrast, a majority of both Republicans (47%) and Independents (41%) oppose criminalizing hate speech, with 37% of Republicans and 35% of Independents in support.
  • The majority of blacks (62%) and Hispanics (50%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 14% of blacks and 24% of Hispanics opposed.
  • In contrast, a majority (43%) of whites oppose criminalizing hate speech, with 36% favoring criminalizing.

criminalizing hate speech

Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review points out that

It’s important to note here that “stir up hatred against” does not mean “instruct a crowd to kill” or “explicitly incite violence against.” Both of those things are already illegal under the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg standard. Rather, it is a fancy way of saying “be really mean to.”

Cooke notes that in the UK, prominent British columnist Katie Hopkins is being investigated by the police and may be prosecuted under the Public Order Act, for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as “cockroaches”. But Hopkins did not threaten African migrants, nor did she ask her readers to meet her the next day and embark upon a violent crusade. She merely called African migrants by an ugly word.

Should Americans wish to become more like the British — as YouGov’s research shows a majority of Democrats, blacks and Hispanics want to — they would have to do no less than to repeal the First Amendment.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Éowyn

California Medical Association drops opposition to doctor-assisted suicide

Hippocratic Oath

According to a report from California Catholic Daily, May 22, 2015, the state of California has added a new first to its dubious list of achievements.

Formerly opposed to physician-assisted suicide — euthanasia in non-PC parlance — last Wednesday, May 20, 2015, the California Medical Association (CMA) removed its opposition to a controversial bill in the state legislature that would allow terminally ill Californians to end their lives with doctor-prescribed drugs.

In so doing, CMA became America’s first state medical association to drop its opposition to euthanasia.

Although CMA has long opposed doctor-assisted suicide on grounds that it violates doctors’ ethical and moral obligations to provide the best treatment possible, the medical association recently changed its bylaws so that it is now neutral on the issue by deleting the term “physician-assisted suicide” and replacing it with “aid in dying.” Its rationale is that it is simply acknowledging a shift in doctor and patient attitudes about end-of-life and aid-in-dying options. Dr. Luther Cobb, president of the California Medical Association and a Humboldt County general surgeon, said, “I’ve always felt that way, but I was surprised the membership of the organization had changed.”

Luther Cobb, MD

In January of this year, Sacramento lawmakers introduced SB128: End of Life Option Act, three months after Brittany Maynard, 29, set off a worldwide movement in support of “aid in dying” by sharing her own decision to die with the help of her doctor. Maynard, who had terminal brain cancer, moved to Oregon to access the state’s Death with Dignity law, which the California legislation uses as a model. Maynard claimed her final months were made more difficult by not being able to access life-ending drugs in her home state. She died Nov. 1, 2015, after using the lethal prescription. Her husband and mother have continued to share her story in the state Capitol to encourage lawmakers to change California’s laws so that others don’t have to move for similar end-of-life options.

SB128 would require two California physicians to agree that a mentally competent patient has six months or less to live before prescribing life-ending drugs. A terminal patient seeking the lethal prescription would then be required to make a written request and two oral requests at least 15 days apart.

Opponents of the bill argue that vulnerable people can be coerced into seeking the deadly prescription by heirs looking to profit or by health insurers who find it cheaper to offer aid in dying rather than chemotherapy to live. “It’s a bad bill because it has the possibility of impacting the most vulnerable in California who don’t have access to health insurance or the best of care and whose options are limited,” said Tim Rosales, spokesman for Californians Against Assisted Suicide.

SB128 passed along strictly party lines (Democrats for; Republicans opposed) in two Senate committees — health and judiciary. But since California voters persist in electing Democrats to a majority to the state legislature, the euthanasia bill is likely to become law.

Certainly, CMA’s move paves the way for passage of the bill, although opposition remains in the Catholic Church and among some disability rights groups. 

In removing its opposition to SB128, California Medical Association had sought an amendment to the bill to ensure that doctors who did not want to participate would also not be required to provide information on assisted-dying or refer a patient to a medical provider willing to offer such services, although there will still be other sources and opportunities for patients to learn about aid in dying.

The amendments are expected to be finalized and made public this week.

~Éowyn

Mitt Romney Fights Heavyweight Boxing Champ Evander Holyfield

image

Mitt Romney lasts 2 rounds against Holyfield in boxing match
By BRIAN SKOLOFF (Associated Press)
May 16, 2015 1:35 AM
AP – Sports

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and five-time heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield squared off in the ring Friday at a charity fight night event in Salt Lake City.

Romney, 68, and Holyfield, 52, sparred, if you could call it that, for just two short rounds before Romney ran away from the boxer and threw in the towel, giving up a round early in the lighthearted fight that came amid several other fights by professional boxers and an auction.

The two barely threw any punches and largely just danced around, occasionally lightly jabbing each other in the midsection in what was much more of a comedic event than an actual bout.

The black-tie affair raised money for the Utah-based organization CharityVision, which helps doctors in developing countries perform surgeries to restore vision in people with curable blindness.

Romney’s son Josh Romney, who lives in Utah, serves as a volunteer president for CharityVision.

Corporate sponsorships for the event ranged from $25,000 to $250,000. Organizers say they raised at least $1 million.

”He said, ‘You know what? You float like a bee and sting like a butterfly,”’ Romney said after the fight.

Attendees just enjoyed the festive atmosphere and the chance to see Romney in the ring.

”Oh, it was great. I was very proud of Mitt,” said Katie Anderson, who attended the event with her husband.

”I was happy it went to the second round,” Devin Anderson said.

Romney, the most-high profile Mormon in America, is hugely popular in the state, where more than 60 percent of the residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Beyond his religious connections, the former Massachusetts governor is remembered by many for turning around Salt Lake City’s 2002 Winter Olympics after a bribery scandal.

Romney has recently built a home in the Salt Lake City area and registered as a Utah voter.

News media are big donors to Hillary’s corrupt Clinton Foundation

More than a dozen media organizations, including NBC, Fox, Turner Broadcasting, Reuters, and the conservative NewsMax — the very news media who cover Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign — are big donors to her Clinton Foundation that is accused of trading State Department favors to foreign governments in return for their lucrative “donations.”

(See “Hillary and Bill Clinton got millions in bribes from foreign ‘entities’ in exchange for State Dept favors“)

How is this not a conflict of interest?

Ministry of Truth

Dylan Byers writes for Politico, May 15, 2015, that more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the non-profit tax-exempt Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation’s records show.

The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry’s ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for his previously undisclosed $75,000 contribution to the Foundation.

The following list, organized by the size of the “contribution,” includes news media organizations, companies, and individuals that have donated to the Clinton Foundation.

$1,000,000-$5,000,000

  1. Carlos SlimChairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder.
  2. James Murdoch, Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox, the holdings of which include the Fox Entertainment Group—owners of the 20th Century Fox film studio and Fox television network.
  3. Newsmax Media, Florida-based conservative media network.
  4. Thomson Reuters, owner of the Reuters news service.

$500,000-$1,000,000

  1. Google
  2. News Corporation Foundation, philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company.

$250,000-$500,000

  1. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Publisher
  2. Richard Mellon Scaife, the supposedly conservative owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

$100,000-$250,000

  1. Abigail Disney, documentary filmmaker
  2. Bloomberg Philanthropies
  3. Howard Stringer, former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive
  4. Intermountain West Communications Company, local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)

$50,000-$100,000

  1. Bloomberg L.P.
  2. Discovery Communications Inc.
  3. George Stephanopoulos, ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent
  4. Mort Zuckerman, owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report
  5. Time Warner Inc., owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting

$25,000-$50,000

  1. AOL
  2. HBO
  3. Hollywood Foreign Press Association, presenters of the Golden Globe Awards
  4. Viacom, a 2005 spinoff  from CBS Corporation

$10,000-$25,000

  1. Knight Foundation, non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism
  2. Public Radio International
  3. Turner Broadcasting, parent company of CNN
  4. Twitter

$5,000-$10,000

  1. Comcast, parent copmany of NBCUniversal
  2. NBC Universal, parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC
  3. Public Broadcasting Service

$1,000-$5,000

  1. Robert Allbritton, owner of POLITICO parent company Capitol News Group

$250-$1,000

  1. AOL Huffington Post Media Group
  2. Hearst Corporation
  3. Judy Woodruff, PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor
  4. The Washington Post Company

media's incestuous relationship with Obama admin↑Click image to enlarge

See also:

~Éowyn

Let’s have a WRITING contest for the next great American novel!

FOTM is taking a brief vacation from our world-famous caption contest. Instead, we’ll have a new kind of contest.

Are you ready for the challenge?

It was a dark and stormy night

Do you have the “write” stuff?

FOTM’s Mike has been posting a series of tips for writing to encourage all of us to help change our culture toward the good by writing. In his words:

Today we have a nation that has turned its back on God, honor, and beauty, and embraced all manner of sin. This is due, in large part, to the influence of culture and art. This is not an accident…. It is deliberate…. This series, The Write Stuff, is about reclaiming that culture. It’s for writers and novelists who are dedicated to using their talent to honor God, elevate men and women, and add beauty to the world. If that sounds like you, welcome aboard!

Despite our best intentions, however, all our efforts are for naught if no one reads what we write.

And that’s where Mike’s tips come in — to help us write well, so people will read what we write and, together, we’ll turn our wretched culture around.

Thus far, Mike has provided us with useful instructions and advice on:

Here are the Writing Contest instructions:

  • Enter the contest by submitting the opening paragraph (or two) of your story or novel as a comment on this thread (scroll down until you see the “LEAVE A REPLY” box), not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will winnow the submissions to a select few, then you — our readers — will vote for the winner in a separate poll.

To get the contest going, here’s Mike’s opening paragraphs of his teen detective novel:

It was a crime that Mr. Kingman never expected, and that scared him half to death.

The math teacher had returned home after a day at work to find his living room window shattered, his front door left ajar, and his apartment ransacked.

The thieves had stolen Mr. K’s laptop computer and his prized collection of rare stamps. There were glistening stains of blood on the broken glass strewn across his floor, and more blood splattered across the top of his desk where his laptop had been.

Even now, two days later, as his heels clicked down the hall to his eighth grade class at St. Mary’s Elementary School, he felt a cold shiver run up his spine as he thought about the crime.

After reading that, don’t you want to dash out and buy Mike’s novel? :D

So put your thinking caps on, and write that first brilliant paragraph (or two) of your best-seller!

This writing contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, May 19, 2015.

For the winners of our last caption contest, click here.

~Éowyn

FCC commissioner warns about political censorship of websites; is threatened for opposing net neutrality

Ajit Pai is one of two Republicans on the board of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and he’s warning that the federal government will use net neutrality to censor political content on websites. That, of course, is a violation of the American people’s right of free speech that’s guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

For his warnings, Pai has received threats to him and his family.

Ajit Pai

Rudy Takala reports for CNS News that speaking on a panel at the annual “Right Online” conference in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, May 2, 2015, FCC member Ajit Pai said he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Pai also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family: 

“I can tell you it has not been an easy couple of months personally. My address has been publicly released. My wife’s name, my kids’ names, my kids’ birthdays, my phone number, all kinds of threats [have come] online.

Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member FCC, has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality regulations passed by the agency on Feb. 26. The rules, which are set to take effect on June 12, reclassify Internet providers as utilities and command them not to block or “throttle” online traffic. But Pai said:

“I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself. It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that’…. The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated.

In February, Pai co-authored an editorial with former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman that warned of efforts by those agencies to regulate content online.

In comments to CNSNews.com, Pai also talked about the FCC’s finances, the imposition of taxes on Internet usage, and subsidies for Internet service.

Internet tax: The reclassification of Internet providers as utilities allows the FCC to impose a “Universal Service Fund” (USF) tax on their revenue. The USF has grown exponentially in recent years, and presently stands at $12 billion annually – so large that the FCC has requested it be allowed to transfer $25 million of the money to its own budget to “administer” the fund. As a result, some in Congress have proposed limiting the size of the USF to $9 billion. Pai said the USF tax should be lower than what a majority of the FCC wants it to be… Whatever it is, there has to be a cap. What we’ve found is that USF funding has exploded over the past couple of years so that the USF tax is 67 percent higher than it was in 2009.”

Welfare programs of phone and Internet subsidies: Those USF taxes are being used to fund government programs such as the Lifeline program (commonly known as the Obama Phone program) and the E-Rate program that subsidizes broadband access for schools and libraries.

And the government wants to expand those programs, which means even higher USF taxes.

Pai is in favor of reducing the budget of the FCC:

We should deny funding for some of the things the FCC wants to spend money on. Any funds, for example, to enforce these net neutrality regulations, [and] this shift of $25 million from the Universal Service Fund to the FCC itself in order to pursue its own policy priorities – I think we need to do more with less. I don’t think we’re doing that by asking for a much higher budget.

~Éowyn

Georgia teacher forced to retire for telling students Obama is not a Christian

A middle school teacher in Dublin, Georgia, was removed from the classroom and forced into retirement because she told her students that Barack Obama is not a Christian.

On April 28, 2015, Dublin Schools Superintendent Chuck Ledbetter announced the retirement of Nancy Perry, while simultaneously apologizing to students and parents for Perry’s actions. He said:

“It is not the place of teachers to attempt to persuade students about religious or political beliefs. In doing so, the teacher was wrong and that has been communicated to her… Just as importantly, we are communicating this message to all staff of the school district.”

In March, Nancy Perry, a veteran teacher at Dublin Middle School, told her students that Obama is not a Christian and that anyone who had voted for him was not a Christian either.

A 12-year-old black boy in Perry’s class told his father, Jimmie Scott, who complained to the school board. Paraphrasing Perry’s alleged comments, Scott told WMAZ that Perry told her students, “If your parents voted for Obama, they’re evil and I don’t see how your parents could vote for someone that’s Muslim.”

Nancy Perry, Jimmie Scott, Chuck Ledbetter

Perry denies ever having made the comments and repeated the denial to a television station.

A Dublin County School Board meeting was set up to address the complaints, during which what Perry allegedly said to her students was read out loud in a complaint. The letter was then posted to the Laurens County GA Democratic Party’s Facebook page:

The teacher made several negative comments about the President, including that he is not a Christian as he claims to be. She said that any parent who supports him is not a Christian. She challenged her students to prove their Christianity.

Perry was joined at the meeting by her husband Bill Perry, who is a school board member and a former radio show host in Dublin, where his Saturday morning show touched on topics like same-sex marriage and religion. Parents saw his presence as a form of intimidation.

13WMAZ reported that Jimmie Scott said that in their meeting with Bill Perry they never discussed his wife’s “inflammatory comments made to children,” but instead they showed Scott “propaganda from the Internet.” “She [Nancy Perry] showed it to me and said, ‘See, Obama is a baby killer. He aborts babies at nine months old as they’re coming through the birth canal,’” said Scott.

A local chapter of the NAACP then stepped in and called for the resignation of Perry, along with her husband Bill, who is a long standing member of the Dublin County Board of Education. NAACP officials accused Bill Perry of “micromanaging” the schools and threatened to involve the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, an accrediting agency.

Superintendent Ledbetter said he will work closely with the Dublin Board of Education to schedule training sessions for the district’s professional staff, “ensuring that the administration, from the central office to the principal of each school, clearly and consistently communicate to teachers our expectations. We expect these subjects to become a regular part of our annual training of staff. We also intend to plan for greater emphasis within the curriculum on the contributions, history, and culture of diverse people groups.”

Ledbetter has ordered all school principals to call his office immediately when a school board member tries to get involved in day-to-day school activities. He said, “An individual board member should not participate in a parent/teacher or parent/principal conference nor should an individual board member in any way attempt to involve himself in a parental concern or a personnel matter at the school level. Again, this has been communicated directly to the board member by the board of education and made clear to the principals in our schools that this is not to be allowed. As regrettable as this incident is, we believe that we can build from it to make an even better school system for all of our children. We will continue to work to build our relationships with every student and with every family.”

Sources: Atlantic Journal-Constitution, IJReview, Daily Mail

Someone should ask Jimmie Scott how a Christian could three-times voted for infanticide, by voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 – a federal law, signed by President George W. Bush, which extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. Obama did just that when he was Illinois state senator.

Obama means to overturn both the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. If the latter were overturned, what will happen to babies born alive after a failed abortion? They will be left alone in a room, to slowly die from starvation and neglect.

Then there’s the fact that black babies are disproportionately aborted in the United States at a rate of 871 a day.

That’s how much of a “Christian” that Barack Obama is. /sarc

See also:

~Éowyn