Advertisements

[VIDEO] When Transparency Really Means Tyranny: Protecting Nonprofit Donor Privacy

It’s a big aspect of free speech, and a big obsession of the Left, which is consumed with violating the anonymity of donors so Alinskyite flying monkeys and boycott stooges can attack business owners and corporate mavens who dare to lend financial support to causes that are in line with their consciences but not politically correct … (read more)

Source: Prager UNational Review

Advertisements

‘If you’re a lawyer arguing against free speech at the Supreme Court, be prepared to lose’

Free Speech Wins (Again) at the Supreme Court

David French writes:

… Given existing First Amendment jurisprudence, there would have been a constitutional earthquake if SCOTUS hadn’t ruled for Tam. The Court has long held that the Constitution protects all but the narrowest categories of speech. Yet time and again, governments (including colleges) have tried to regulate “offensive” speech. Time and again, SCOTUS has defended free expression. Today was no exception. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito noted that the Patent and Trademark Office was essentially arguing that “the Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend.” His response was decisive:

[A]s we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Quick, someone alert the snowflakes shouting down speeches on campus or rushing stages in New York. There is no constitutional exception for so-called “hate speech.”

Indeed, governments are under an obligation to protect controversial expression. Every justice agrees.  The ruling is worth celebrating, but when law and culture diverge, culture tends to win. The law protects free speech as strongly as it ever has. The culture, however … (read more)

Source: National Review

In two First Amendment rulings released this week, the justices argue they’re saving would-be censors from themselves.

reports: The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two notable victories for free-speech advocates on Monday as it nears the end of its current term. The two First Amendment cases came to the Court from starkly different circumstances, but the justices emphasized a similar theme in both rulings: Beware what the free-speech restrictions of today could be used to justify tomorrow.

In the first case, Matal v. Tam, the Court sided with an Asian-American rock band in Oregon named The Slants in a dispute with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTO had denied band member Simon Tam’s application to register the group’s name as a trademark, citing a provision in federal law that prohibits the office from recognizing those that “disparage” or “bring … into contempt or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” Read the rest of this entry »


A Tale of Two Covers

trump-person-of-year-timenr-liberal-freakout


[VIDEO] Van Jones Tears Up on CNN: ‘This Is a White Lash’ and ‘Nightmare’

David French has a few words about this

whitelash

Read more here, at National Review

 

 


[VIDEO] OH YES HE DOES: Does Donald Trump Take Every Side of Every Issue? 

At NRODavid French writes:

…One of the more frustrating and fruitless conversations in modern politics is with a Trump supporter who just insists that Trump can be trusted. But trusted to do what? If you want boots on the ground in the Middle East, Trump’s your guy. If you want America to stop sending its soldiers to die on foreign soil, Trump’s your guy. If you want higher taxes, Trump’s your guy. If you want lower taxes, Trump’s your guy. The list goes on…

Read more at NRO.

TRUMP-tv

Source: National Review


[VIDEO] David French on CNN Regarding Decision to Not Run for President

french-rothman


[VIDEO] Carly Fiorina: ‘Climate Change Can’t Be Stopped by America Acting Alone’

Climate-Change-e1377805589403

The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies.

David FrenchDavid-French-NRO writes:

“…whether climate-change regulations will have any meaningful impact on the climate? Climate-change activists constantly say that “we have to start somewhere.” But what if in fact we’re starting nowhere? What if we’re asking Americans to sacrifice to no purpose? What if America can’t stop climate change?

[Follow David French on Twitter]

That’s Carly Fiorina’s argument, and it may represent the best, and most easily defensible, path forward to consensus. Here she is, like Ted Cruz,  making her case to Katie Couric:

The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal.

Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Photo: Corbis

Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Photo: Corbis

“Nations, as the saying goes, do not have friends, only interests. Our geopolitical competitors will not sacrifice their strategic interests for the sake of combating global warming. Nor will developing nations sacrifice their economies, or their people’s lives, by restraining their own economic growth.”

California enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions. We’ve already been made to pay the price for the veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline when even the State Department declared that it would have “negligible impact” on the environment.

[Read the full text here, at National Review Online]

[Also see – ‘None of this will have Any Meaningful Effect on the Planet’s Climate’]

[More – Obama’s Last Shot – Climate Change – And Why It’s Doomed To Fail]

[More – Why The Left Needs Climate Change]

The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies — as if our decision to fall on our own sword will so move India and China and the rest of the developing world (which has a lot of fossil fuels left to burn to lift its people out of poverty) that they’ll essentially have their own “come to Jesus” movement in defiance of national interest and centuries of national political culture. “America leads,” they proclaim. “The world laughs,” is the proper response. Read the rest of this entry »


Dept. of Unpopular Reality: ‘George W. Bush Didn’t Create ISIS; Islam Did’, by David French

islam-nr

David French, National ReviewRead more…


[VIDEO] Kelly File: Bullied by People with Badges: The Wisconsin Constitutional Atrocity

Via Nancy French, Twitter

This is a great segment on the Wisconsin Constitutional atrocity on Megyn Kelly’s show last night… featuring David French and his viral article on National Review

pic_giant6_042015_Wisconsin-Genn

[The vital article: Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’]

[Also see – Wisconsin’s Shame: Even Salon Agrees the Raids Were Wrong]

[More – ]

David-600x433

Source: patheos.com

Follow Nancy on FacebookTwitter, and Instagram.

wisconsin-police-gestapo3

Also see – Wisconsin Democrats Using “John Doe” Laws To Terrorize Conservatives]

More –  David French’s bio and archive on National Review


Advocacy for Terrorists Masked in the Language of Compassion: The Evil Sentimentality of the Pro-Hamas Left

patheos-pro-terror-compassion

For National Review OnlineDavid French writes:

Rarely has civilian death been so propagandized by so many of our fellow Americans. Oh, now, I know they’ll protest this characterization. They hate — just hate — the horrific loss of life in Gaza. They hate it so much that they’re moved to wax as eloquently as they can about the horror of death in schools, in mosques, in hospitals — all the places where people are supposed to be “safe,” supposed to seek “refuge.” They can’t stop writing about this death, emoting about this death. And they write and emote until you can almost see the splash of their crocodile tears on your computer screen.

washington-post-palestinian-suffering

They love peace, you see. They love it so much that they attempt to use every one of their God-given gifts to make you feel what a Palestinian widow feels, to make you stand in the shoes of a man weeping for his lost son. Feel the ultimate anguish. Hear the wailing. Don’t look away from the blood or the rage or the tears.

Have hundreds of thousands of parents and children and aunts and uncles shed similar tears in Syria? Look away from that. No, look away. I mean it. I need your eyes to focus back where they should — on that dead Palestinian child…

Read the rest of this entry »


David French on Hobby Lobby: ‘The Left Is Weeping Hot, Bitter Tears, and It Should’

Indulgent Pulp Fiction Propaganda disguised as prestigious literature: Left-Wing Paranoia Peddling Author Margaret Atwood in a Twist

Margaret Atwood with a Twist: Margaret Atwood is the author of “Handmaiden’s Tale”: Deliciously Fun Third-Rate Trashy Left-Wing Paranoid Pulp Fiction. Hailed by Critics as Prestigious, Important Literature.

“For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties…”

For National Review OnlineDavid French nails it:

 [Read the whole thing here]

Andrew’s and Molly’s post reflecting the hysterical reaction on the Left to the Hobby Lobby decision makes for both entertaining and instructive reading. It’s entertaining because — regarding the issue they claim to care most about, access to contraceptives — the decision blocks exactly no one from obtaining the drugs they choose to purchase. There’s just slightly less free stuff on the market. This is hardly Handmaid’s Tale territory.

It’s instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade — or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns – then you best salute and fall in line. Read the rest of this entry »


David French: The Radical Left’s High-Stakes Gamble on Intolerance

Greek communists shout slogans in front

For NRODavid French writes:  Not for the first time, the radical Left is moving rapidly away from any respect for free speech and pluralism and is decisively throwing itself into creating a self-righteous culture of intolerance and intimidation. It’s playing a dangerous game, one that is already alienating its own allies.

I don’t often type this, but I agree with every word Andrew Sullivan says here about Mozilla ridding itself of its independent-thinking CEO:

As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

And I say this even less, but I also agree with Michelle Goldberg, writing in The Nation about a different leftist intimidation campaign — the move to cancel Stephen Colbert’s show after he made a lame racial joke:

Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. “[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote…

Read the rest of this entry »


Why People Carry Guns: A Response to David Frum

Why-Carry

David French  writes:  I’m virtually certain that David Frum was simply trolling Twitter (a popular pastime) when he tweeted on Saturday: “Hypothesis: the people who most want to carry are the very last people on earth who should be allowed to carry.”

[See John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) at Amazon]

In the remote chance that an otherwise-thoughtful person was actually arguing that the people who most want to exercise a constitutional right are the “very last people on earth” who should be allowed to exercise that right, I thought I’d take a moment to explain why a person carries.

Read the rest of this entry »


Free-Speech Wars: You Are What You Say, Not What You Do

youth-hipsters

David French writes: I appreciate Michael’s post about the latest Huffpo-reported controversies involving Steve Martin, Joan Rivers, Jennifer Lawrence, and many, many others. Peruse the pages of lefty news outlets like the Huffington Post and you’ll routinely run across headlines like, ”[Insert Celebrity Name] said WHAT?!?” or “[Insert previously unknown individual] fired for insensitive remarks.” Even the conservative press can sometimes feel like an engine of perpetual outrage over hateful or insensitive comments.

These “two minutes hates” are deeply corrosive to our free-speech culture, but they’re also the inevitable outgrowth of succeeding generations that increasingly define virtue not through actions but through attitudes. In other words, watch what I say. What I do is irrelevant. You’re a bad person if you say the wrong things, no matter what you might do for your family or your fellow man. A lifetime of good works can be rendered irrelevant by a single thoughtless tweet.

But what else can we expect when we live lives of increasing narcissism and when youth (the audience most fired up by social media) retreat from engagement with the real world? For years now, we’ve heard that Millennials were special – “Generation We” — the generation that was most concerned with social justice and helping others. Others said no, describing experience with a generation that was constantly managing its own image on social media, immersed in tweets and “likes” and selfies — all while expecting great returns for little work. But what do the data say? Is it Generation We or Generation Me?  Here’s Jean Twenge writing in The Atlantic:

In my 2006 book Generation Me, I presented data showing generational increases in self-esteem, assertiveness, self-importance, narcissism, and high expectations, based on surveys of 1.2 million young people, some dating back to the 1920s. These analyses indicated a clear cultural shift toward individualism and focusing on the self. But perhaps both views were correct — maybe Millennials’ greater self-importance found expression in helping others and caring about larger social causes.

Read the rest of this entry »


Why Are Liberal Men Unhappy?

imagesDavid French writes:  Last weekend AEI’s Arthur Brooks published an interesting piece on happiness in the New York Times’ Sunday Review. I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but this observation (taken from the comprehensive work of the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey) was particularly interesting and runs counter to perceptions fostered by pop culture:

For many years, researchers found that women were happier than men, although recent studies contend that the gap has narrowed or may even have been reversed. Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.

Fascinating. While I’ll let others comment on the happiness of conservatives, let’s address liberal men. Why are they so much less happy?

A core component of modern leftism is its comprehensive attack (and accompanying redefinition) of masculinity. This attack poisons how men experience their own nature, relationships, and purpose.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tea-Party’s Obamacare Defunding Mission: Not Only More Realistic, but More Compassionate

guard lincoln memorialDavid French writes:  One of the more irritating aspects of the recent government-shutdown unpleasantness has been the “I told you so” lamentations of the defund/delay plan’s critics — as if they had anything approaching a workable alternative. I highly recommend Andrew McCarthy’s weekend column. It’s a devastating takedown of the notion that Obamacare repeal is just a multi-election Republican winning spree away. Even if we were able to achieve a Republican perfect storm, sweeping the Senate in 2014 then taking the White House in 2016, does anyone foresee a filibuster-proof Republican senate majority? Isn’t the best-case outcome of that strategy a tweaking of the law not unlike, say, welfare reforms in the 1990s — positive changes that still leave intact a trillion-dollar-per-year, failed entitlement superstructure?

As Mr. McCarthy notes, the tea-party plan was a Hail Mary pass, but those sometimes work. I will note, however, that unlike in every football game I’ve ever watched, in this case members of the offense actually joined the defense in batting down the pass.

Not only did the tea-party plan have a chance, it was far less cynical and far more compassionate than the Republican alternative. The Republican alternative to the tea-party plan boils down to this: Let the people suffer (also called ”let Obamacare implode”), then they’ll come to us, we’ll win a buch of elections over several cycles, then we’ll make it better. Read the rest of this entry »


Ted Cruz and the Power of Conviction

cruzscreenDavid French writes: As I type this post, Senator Ted Cruz’s filibuster is winding down, and while the leftist outlets (and, sadly, some Republicans) spew forth their vitriol, I can’t help but think that moments like this and Senator Rand Paul’s “Stand with Rand” filibuster represent key turning points for the conservative movement. I’m far less interested in the Washington inside baseball of who’s mad at whom and far more interested in the effect of passionately demonstrated conservative conviction on our culture. Read the rest of this entry »


Four Lies of the Left

  1. Rebel through conformity
  2. Feel virtuous without acting virtuous.
  3. Your sexual self-expression is brave
  4. Feel morally superior to people who exhibit actual virtue

Read David French’s inspired analysis of these four lies at NRO

And while you’re there, an even more inspired work: Robert Ferrigno’s beautiful essay, remembering Elmore Leonard.