Gay Patriot Header Image

Two for one!

Ann Coulter and Jesse Lee Peterson, together at last. Enjoy!

YouTube Preview Image

He’s Baaa-aaaaaack

After Milo’s trouble in February, I knew he’d be back. He has a lot to say, he needs the attention, he’s fun and the camera loves him.

Via Breitbart.com, it’s MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK. (I think the all-caps are part of the shtick?)

In light of recent controversies, I am planning a huge multi-day event called MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK in Berkeley later this year. We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression and the First Amendment. All will be welcome, regardless of political affiliation.

[…]
During MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK, we will give out a new free speech prize — the Mario Savio Award — to the person we believe has done most to protect free expression at UC Berkeley and its surrounding area. Each day will be dedicated to a different enemy of free speech, including feminism, Black Lives Matter and Islam.

If UC Berkeley does not actively assist us in the planning and execution of this event, we will extend festivities to an entire month. We will establish a tent city on Sproul Plaza protesting the university’s total dereliction of its duty and encourage students at other universities to follow suit.
I intend to return Berkeley to its rightful place as the home of free speech — whether university administrators and violent far-left antifa thugs like it or not.
– MILO

Mario Savio was, per Wiki, “a key member in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. He is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially the ‘put your bodies upon the gears’ address given at Sproul Hall…on December 2, 1964.”

P.S. I respect and admire Ann Coulter, but do you want to know the difference between her and Milo? A penis and $20,000. (My understanding is that she charges 20K to speak to College Republicans, while he charges them zero. If that’s incorrect, I would be happy to hear it in the comments.)

The Left Explains Why It Opposes Free Speech

Posted by V the K at 10:01 am - April 20, 2017.
Filed under: Free Speech

If I read this manifesto from the students of Pomonoa College and the Claremont Colleges right, the reason the Radical Democrat Left opposes Free Speech is because Free Speech would lead people to the discovery of Objective Truth. Objective Truth is historically associated with white males, and is therefore bad.

“The idea that there is a single truth—‘the Truth’—is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment . . . This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”

So rather than seek the Truth (which is what the White Supremacist Patriarchy does), we should instead constantly shout the approved politically correct slogans and sociological buzzwords at each other. That’s my takeaway from the  manifesto, anyway.

Taken to its logical conclusion, we ought to reject gravity, because our understanding of gravity is an “objective truth” of the White Supremacist Patriarchy. Members of “Marginalized communities” should be able to throw themselves from the roofs of academic building and fly. Because once you are “woke,” you will realize that gravity is a White Man’s Construct, and anyone who accepts gravity is a tool of the White Supremacist Patriarchy.

Many of the students who wrote the manifesto will go on to careers as college administrators and Government bureaucrats with immense power over the lives of the citizenry. Ponder that.

Thought for the day

A sign seen at the recent Berkeley riots:

Hate speech IS Free speech

My thoughts on the above:

The Left tries to criminalize “hate speech” because, as Milo likes to point out, the Left wants to justify their own physical violence. Defining offensive speech as a crime will blur the line between speech and actions. Then lefties can claim that their many crimes of physical assault, vandalism, robbery, murder, etc., are self-defense, or justified by the victim’s beliefs/speech that are so offensive. Muslims try to pull the same trick.

I believe in keeping a strong line between speech and actions. For example, I believe that someone’s taunting (words) or alleged political-social beliefs or drawings of Mohammed can never justify your throwing the first punch at them.

The world does have some hateful people in it and genuine occurrences of “hate speech” – and I don’t like them. But that’s what my own right of free speech is for: to refute others’ dumb/wrong speech. And my right to free association, also: so that I may avoid people I don’t like, kick them out of my own house at least, and so on.

In this dim and confused world, any truthful speech will offend somebody, somewhere. The right to speak your conscience freely is the same as the right to say things that will offend others and hurt their feelings. The two are inseparable.

From the comments: A pointer to the Neal Boortz quote,

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

UPDATE: On April 20 and as if on cue, Howard Dean said “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” Wrong, Mr. Dean. Threats and “fighting words” may not be protected, but Ann Coulter’s political speech (what you choose to call “hate speech”) is protected. And should be.

The Left-Wing Fears Debate

Posted by V the K at 8:59 am - February 17, 2017.
Filed under: Free Speech

Left-Winger Bill Maher invited Milo Yiannopoulos to participate in his HBO show that, as I understand it, consists mainly of leftists throwing out smug platitudes and talking points while an audience of trained seals claps like idiots.

In protest, one of the other left-wing panelists backed out, and made a big deal of virtue-signaling his reasons for doing so.

“He has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes,” Scahill wrote. “Appearing on ‘Real Time’ will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign.”

I call BS. The real reason alleged journalist Jeremy Scahill backed out is simply because he is afraid to go up against Milo; who is wittier, sharper, more appealing, and his better ideas on his side. Scahill knows he can’t win, so instead he fakes a “brave stand” and claims to be backing down out of principle. (As if leftists have principles.)

The whole attitude of the left on all matters has become “There is no need to debate. We’re right. Shut up.” This is not an attitude born of confidence, but of fear. They know their ideas are bad. They know their ideas can’t withstand honest debate. They know they can’t win. They don’t want the debate. They want an echo chamber.

People who think they can win a debate want to have the debate. People who don’t think they can win a debate want to shut it down before it happens. And if they are really afraid of losing a debate, they smash windows and set things on fire.

In related news, California won’t be sending any teams to the National Debate Tournament because it’s being held in a horrible red flyover state that isn’t as enlightened as Berkeley.

I Feel as Though I Have Nothing in Common with These People

Posted by V the K at 8:50 am - January 16, 2017.
Filed under: Free Speech,Unhinged Liberals

Left-wing protesters seeking to deny Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli their right to free speech, and the right of their audience to peaceably assemble, demonstrated their superior debate skills by literally throwing feces and assaulting a cameraman.

The above video shows the exact moment Shkreli — who first achieved notoriety when he bought the rights to a lifesaving HIV drug and jacked up the price astronomically — was pelted in the face with feces (probably dogs’ droppings, not human excrement), with a protester calling him a “piece of sh*t.”

Protesters heckled any Milo’s supporters who were there and other prospective attendees with chants calling them “bigots,” “fascists,” and “racists.” Per an ABC 10 report, most of the protesters were not in fact UC Davis students. The protests began peacefully, but quickly escalated into violence as protesters jumped the barricades set up by campus police. The news station confirmed that one anti-Milo protester threw hot coffee at its camera crew and their equipment.

Also, Andrea Boccelli has bowed out of performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration because leftists have threatened to murder his family.

“Climate of Hate” update again

I hope future readers (if any) realize that the title is ironic. Left-liberals claim that we’re living in a climate of hate. If we are: It’s the hatred that is spewed by America’s Left.

First: Yesterday, President Obama clarified that he will NOT call off the anti-Trump protestors.

“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”

…Obama [said] that the right of free speech should be exercised…

Let’s be clear: This is beyond baloney. Obama never faced protests where conservatives smashed windows, set fires, and physically attacked his supporters in the streets. Destroying property and people isn’t “free speech”.

As lefties told everyone last spring, when the Left’s paid agitators were trying to foment violence at Trump rallies: The leader’s duty to denounce the violence and insist on peaceful speech/protest from his supporters. That is Obama’s duty, now. Once more, the clown Obama disgraces America and himself.

And by the way: Obama didn’t face protestors in any number, until long after he was sworn in and did some (bad) things. While we’re at it, Merkel’s Germany does not let German citizens have free speech. The article describes Germans who were threatened with jail for criticizing Germany’s refugee influx on social media. Pathetic!

Some other items:

JK Rowling: SJWs Stand with Tyrants

Posted by V the K at 5:25 pm - May 22, 2016.
Filed under: Free Speech

JK Rowling has a message for all the Trigglypuffs and Social Juicebox Wankers seeking to shut down the right of others to disagree.

13254830_10153077136432465_8331296819984634849_o (1)

The full context of the quote; she despises Donald Trump, but would not deny him the right to be heard because that’s what tyrants do.

“I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there.”

“His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot,” Rowling continued. “His freedom guarantees mine. Unless we take that absolute position, without caveats or apologies, we have set foot upon a road with only one destination. If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.”

When Chalk Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Chalk

Posted by V the K at 2:32 pm - April 14, 2016.
Filed under: Academia,Free Speech

DePaul University has banned sidewalk chalk; because cisnormative microaggression triggers.

“While these chalk messages are part of national agendas in a heated political battle, they appeared on campus at a time of significant racial tension in our country and on college campuses. DePaul is no exception,” Depaul’s vice president for student affairs Eugene Zdziarski wrote in a campus-wide email obtained by Campus Reform. “The university has been addressing campus climate issues in an effort to provide an inclusive and supportive educational environment. In this context, many students, faculty and staff found the chalk messages offensive, hurtful and divisive.”

Why Is the Left So Afraid of Free Speech

Posted by V the K at 11:54 am - February 26, 2016.
Filed under: Academia,Free Speech

Another conservative attempting to engage in Free Speech on a college campus confronts a leftist mob who not only don’t want to hear what he has to say, but seeks to deny others the opportunity to hear him.

Students who wanted to hear Shapiro speak had to be ushered quietly into the lecture hall through a back door while unhinged student activists and faculty members screamed and tried to force their way through a police barricade protecting the front door.

As we reported earlier, the University tried to cancel/postpone the speech until they could assemble a left-wing panel to provide “balance;” something that is never done when left-wingers

ABC News in Los Angeles reported:

Shapiro arrived at CSULA and was speaking to the campus chapter of Young America’s Foundation on the topic of “When Diversity Becomes a Problem” when a fire alarm was pulled.

While the siren was sounding, Shapiro continued his speech, stating he would not be silenced.

“If this sort of thing happened during classes at this university, the kid who pulled the fire alarm would be off this campus so fast it would make your head spin,” Shapiro said. “But not you out there, the protesters, the special magical leftist children protected from the consequences of living in the real world with my taxpayer dollars. You get to shut us down for disagreeing with your thug tactics and your nasty, pathetic, evil ideology.”

According to tweets by Shapiro, protesters blocked entrances to the University-Student Union where he was speaking, attempting to obstruct those who wished to attend. Cameras captured shouting and pushing as intense interactions occurred between protesters and those attempting to attend the event.

After speaking for about an hour, Shapiro tweeted he had to be escorted by police from the campus for safety concerns.

The leftist mob chanting “This is what democracy looks like” were quite accurate. Under a democracy, there are no individual liberties; only what the mob will permit.
Why is the left so terrified of conservative speech?
It couldn’t possibly because the leftist agenda relies on fairy-tale narratives that fall apart under the slightest level of scrutiny or examination. Could it?

“Danger Spaces” for Free Speech and Open Discourse

Posted by V the K at 11:11 am - November 2, 2015.
Filed under: Free Speech,Freedom

Liberals (or Progressives, or Leftists, depending on the degree of honesty with which they are willing to label themselves) especially feminists are fanatical about shutting off avenues of Free Speech that questions their dogma. Some feminists demand that, when a speaker they don’t agree with comes to a college campus, they must be given safe spaces with coloring books and stuffed animals, lest the mere presence of such a speaker cause them trauma. Some feminists have demanded making the entire internet a “Safe Space” by outright banning of disagreeable comments from the internet.

The correct response for those of us who cherish open discourse is to label spaces where free and open dialogue occurs as “Danger Spaces.” First of all, it sounds cool. Second, it creates a dramatic contrast with the the prissy “Safe Spaces” demanded by the feminist left. Third, it brands Free Speech as something dangerous and exciting and thereby encourages people to seek it out.

Fourth, and I think this is the most important thing, it points up how idiotic and silly the leftist/feminist notion that free speech is so dangerous they have to create “Speech-Proof” shelters to protect themselves from it really is.

Dangerously-Austin-Powers-meme-collection-1mut_com-13

Signs, bad and good

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 9:47 pm - October 25, 2015.
Filed under: Academia,Free Speech,Gun Control,Second Amendment

Bad: By a 56-31 majority, U.S. college students want speech to be regulated.

Good: By a 56-41 majority, Americans believe that more people carrying concealed guns would make us all safer. Particularly the young: “Younger Americans are more likely to choose the ‘safer’ option [in Gallup’s poll] than those aged 30 and above.”

So, young Americans -at college- are against free speech. But young Americans -in general- understand correctly that a well-armed society is a polite(r) society. I’ll take the difference as a sign that something is very wrong with U.S. colleges.

Irwin Schiff, R.I.P.

This past week, we had news that Irwin Schiff passed away on October 16. Schiff was a U.S. veteran, author, heroic income-tax protestor and, sadly, a U.S. political prisoner.

photo of Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff, 1928-2015

Big Government advocates will sometimes claim that the U.S. tax system is voluntary. They say it because they want to deny the obvious: that government is force (by its nature, it operates by forcing people against their will) – and that, as advocates of Big Government, they do basically want a dictatorial, regimented society.

I’ve seen lefties making the “voluntary” claim in GP comments. But as a stronger example, here is Democrat leader Harry Reid saying, “Our system of government is a voluntary tax system…We have a voluntary system.” Because, says Reid, if you don’t pay taxes in the U.S., “You don’t go to jail.”

That “voluntary” claim is nonsense, in practice. Some people, such as Eric Garner in 2014, are hounded by the police for selling untaxed cigarettes and then fatally assaulted by the police. Others like Gilbert Hyatt may be hounded by State authorities for decades, although they paid all taxes in full. Others like perceived Tea Party groups may be blocked (silenced) by the IRS for their political beliefs, before they could even have a chance to file tax reports.

And those who refuse to pay income taxes due to their outspoken moral and constitutional principles, such as Irwin Schiff, are jailed – and then forced to die in jail from untreated cancer. So much for the U.S. system being “voluntary”. You can be a conscientious objector to the draft! But not to the federal income tax.

I could try to tell more of Irwin Schiff’s story, but Peter Schiff does it best in his article, Death of a Patriot. Read the whole thing.

And consider downloading and reading Irwin Schiff’s last book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes. It’s free.

It’s free because, during Schiff’s lifetime, the government enjoined him from selling it. That makes it a banned book; indeed, it’s supposed to be the only book banned in the U.S. in the last 50 years (other than libel cases).

The book also claims that the U.S. income tax system is voluntary. I must suggest that Mr. Schiff’s own experience shows that, as a practical matter, he was mistaken about that. But he covers the history of the income tax in the U.S. and the IRS’ own use of the word “voluntary”. As such, Schiff may well have been right about the underlying Constitutional principle, or what *should theoretically* be true under the U.S. Constitution (which today’s U.S. government flouts in many ways).

Anyway, the book’s unusual ban, and Schiff’s cruel death in federal prison, should tell you something about our government’s true priorities. Hint: It’s much more to do with protecting the government’s power and jobs, than protecting or serving you.

Rutgers U: “There is no such thing as Free Speech”

Posted by V the K at 9:15 am - August 25, 2015.
Filed under: Free Speech

Now that the left has firmly taken over the Academic Establishment in the USA, they don’t want any pesky dissenters questioning their authority.

A guide to preventing “bias incidents” published by Rutgers University warns students that the idea of “free speech” is a lie, Campus Reform reports.

“There is no such thing as ‘free’ speech. All speech has a cost and consequences,” opens the page dedicated to the school’s “Bias Prevention & Education Committee.” The page, maintained by the school’s office of student affairs, encourages students to “think before you speak” and also offers four other core suggestions to avoid the specter of bias incidents.

 

Free Speech Wins Out in Kentucky (for the Moment)

Posted by V the K at 7:40 am - May 12, 2015.
Filed under: Free Speech

An appeals court in Kentucky has overturned a lower court decision that a Christian owned T-shirt company could not refuse to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival. The higher court upheld the right of the business not to be coerced in participating in speech with which it disagreed.

No doubt, the Gaystapo is preparing an appeal.

Funny how free speech has become a “right-wing thing” isn’t it?

Chik-Fil-A T-shirts: The New Hate Crime

Posted by V the K at 10:47 am - May 9, 2015.
Filed under: Free Speech,Gay Culture

Since so many leftists think that “Hate Speech” falls outside first amendment protection, it’s important to remember that under their rules, they get to define what “hate speech” is. In Maine, apparently, just wearing a Chik-Fil-A is considered anti-gay hate speech.

During the high school’s televised announcements that morning, two students on the broadcast wore Chick-fil-A T-shirts, Snyder said.

The students didn’t say anything about the Gay-Straight Alliance or the school’s LGBT community, but she believes they knew what they were doing.

The appearance started a flurry of tweets, with students calling out the two boys who wore the Chick-fil-A shirts.

The tweets continued over the weekend, and on Monday students who tweeted at the boys wearing the shirts were called to the high school principal’s office.

Students were told they were being punished for tweeting during school hours, and because some of their tweets contained obscenities, [one of the suspended students] said.

[One of the suspended students] responded to a tweet in support of the students in the Chick-fil-A shirt that said, “You’re expressing your feelings … Why can’t he?” Her response was, “Being an offensive [expletive] is not expressing your feelings.”

The LGBT Community is doing a great job training young people to behave like fascist brownshirts.

Leftists Go Nanners After “Straight Pride” Posters Displayed on Campus

Posted by V the K at 1:56 pm - April 26, 2015.
Filed under: Free Speech

At Youngstown State University, some people got fed up with having “gay this” and “LGBT that” shoved in their faces 24/7/365.25 and decided to remind people there’s nothing wrong with being straight.

xc506a1237aea1475aa4f5f0ca2a0b615_S.jpg.pagespeed.ic.OLOHkRy3c4

With this message:

Brought to you by the students that are sick of hearing about your LGBT pride. Nobody cares about what you think you are, or what you want to have sex with. We have nothing against your sexual orientation. We just don’t give a f*ck.

I suppose I Could clickbait this with “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next,” but, the reaction of the gay left and the University Administration was entirely predictable.

YSU’s public information officer, Ron Cole, told the Huffington Post that the posters were “completely bogus.”

“With the help of a bunch of students, we quickly went out to take them all down,” Cole said. “Reaction has ranged from concern to outrage. While we recognize the right to free speech, this is counter to our mission of being a diverse and accepting campus.”

Proving that Mr. Cole does not know the meaning of the words “free speech,” “diverse,” or “accepting.”

America is number…12? 16? 49?

The U.S.A., once number one for economic freedom, has sunk to number 12 per the Heritage Foundation. (Top seven: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Chile.)

Somewhere, some leftist is going “Yeah cool! Because economic freedom sux!” Well then. The U.S.A., once number one as a place to be born, has sunk to number 16 in The Economist magazine’s more Europe-friendly rankings. (Compare to 1988 ranking, here.)

What about political-social freedoms, like freedom of the press? The U.S.A., once number one for that, has sunk to number 49. Behind South Africa, Slovenia, even Germany.

As Reporters Without Borders puts it:

In the United States, 2014 was marked by judicial harassment of New York Times investigative reporter James Risen in connection with the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged under the Espionage Act with giving him classified information. US journalists are still not protected by a federal shield law that would guarantee their right not to name their sources or reveal other confidential information about their work. Meanwhile, at least 15 journalists were arbitrarily arrested during clashes between police and demonstrators protesting against black teenager Michael Brown’s fatal shooting…

And where would RPB rank us, if they could consider that our tax authority specially targets our domestic political dissidents (Tea Party conservatives)?

“Thanks, Obama!”

How to completely lose perspective in 15 days, the French way:

French court convicts three over homophobic tweets, in case hailed as a ‘significant victory’ by LGBT rights campaigners

Je suis… meh, nevermind.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Casa)

What Should One Say to a Left-Winger Who Wants to Take Away Your Human Rights to Appease Violent Radicals?

Posted by V the K at 5:20 pm - January 17, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Free Speech

If news accounts are correct, a Libertarian-leaning Australian Senator had a terse reply to a Multiculturalist Social Democrat who wanted to curtail free-speech rights in the name of not offending the oh-so-delicate feelers of Islamics.

An anti free speech social Democrat named Gary Burns in Australia got a firm rebuke when he wrote to senator David Leyonjhelm about how Australia’s multiculturalism is the law. Leyonjhelm responded harshly, saying “Go f**k yourself you communist turd.”

YouTube Preview Image

I think pretty much the same thing whenever I hear certain politicians flapping their yaps, but I keep it to myself. I know it was not a civil way to reply, and not  one that should typify political discourse, but what should one’s response be to people who want to take your human rights away from you? Some would argue that Leyonjhelm should have replied with a well-thought out argument on the virtues of free and open speech. That probably would have been a waste of time; you can’t reason people out of what they weren’t reasoned into.

Meanwhile, the recipients of Senator Leyonjhelm’ s email have responded with Drama Queen Butthurt.

“This boofhead is not a fit or proper person to represent the good people of NSW. I’ve been called many things in life but never a communist,” he said.

“When I received the offensive email from the Senator I was so shocked I clutched my pearls and reached for the smelling salts.”

BTW

Mr Burns has previously sued broadcaster John Laws under the Anti-Discrimination Act for calling gay men “pillow biters”.