Our reader V the K linked this report about Sandra Fluke’s distaste for opposing points of view:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about “manipulating [students'] emotions” with misleading statistics about abortion.

So, if this organization offered misleading statistics, why then didn’t Ms. Fluke take it upon herself to demonstrate their inaccuracy and argue the merits of her own position?  If this story is true [and it appears it may not be*], this woman is not much interested in debating ideas, but in preventing the airing of views with which she disagrees.

In this, she has much in common with her ideological confrères in the Occupy Movement.

Just over a week ago, “unruly Occupy students at American University in Washington, D.C., shouted down Republican governor Jan Brewer of Arizona on Friday, forcing her to flee the room with aid from security guards.”  H/t:  Instapundit.

This week, they disrupted “a panel discussion [at AIPAC] led by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, FL led a discussion about Stopping Iran: Can the West End Iran’s Nuclear Drive?”

In the fall of 1964, liberal students at the University of California/Berkeley launched the “Free Speech Movement”; they wanted to end the school policy preventing student groups from operating “on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical.”  Now, liberal students want to prevent their ideological adversaries from expressing their views.

They times, they are a-changing.

* (more…)

Sunlight, I’ve always believed, is the best disinfectant.

We should not hinder people from voicing their opinions, no matter how hateful because only when they voice them can we counter them.  Today, in her inimitable style, Amy Alkon, an Angelena diva who quips that if she “were any more gay-friendly,” she’d “have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend”*, takes a school superintendent to task for labeling “a column in a school newspaper that criticized homosexuality as ‘bullying.”

Why should people be scared of someone voicing such an opinion?  Shouldn’t their silly commentary provide an easy target, a jumping off point for an argument in defense of homosexuality?   Why do some folks wish to suppress opposing opinions?

Basically, Amy tells this superintendant to grow a pair:

Look, I was bullied. Girls followed me through the halls in junior high and taunted me with anti-Semitic epithets. When it started to get serious (when they started throwing chairs in my path), I told my dad, and he went to the principal and it stopped.

The point is, there are measures that can be taken before we start crumpling up the Constitution. And sorry, but you don’t have a right to not be offended, not even if you’re in high school. What you should learn to do is think and write and debate well so you can see that your point of view wins the day. And if somebody throws a chair at you, and there’s nobody to go to the principal’s office for you…maybe that’s the real problem we should be dealing with, but…

Emphasis added.  Seems Amy’s got more balls than the school superintendant who has a man’s name (Todd Carlson).

A gay couple had called the school and complained after they had read the “offensive” column.  Carlson responded to their complaint.  They would have done better to have written a strongly worded letter intended for publication in the journal.

Via Instapundit.

* (more…)

Ed Morrissey doesn’t think so:

Do teachers in public-school systems have a “special ethics” code that prevents them from publicly speaking on policy issues?  Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him.  The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness . . . .

The school district suspended Buell, who had been the school’s Teacher of the Year in 2010-11, because they are concerned that gay students might be “frightened or intimidated” in his class.  That’s a pretty thin rationale for punishing someone over what appears to be more or less mainstream opposition to the gay-marriage law.  Even saying the above in a classroom would be a thin rationale for disciplinary action, unless school districts will be taking action against all teachers who talk politics in the classroom, and a Facebook posting is not a classroom speech.

If this were at a private school, then the school would entirely be within its rights to dismiss the man.  But, a public school should only be able to dismiss him if it holds all its teachers to a similar standard, suspending them from publicly speaking out on political issues.

Could Christian students be intimidated if they heard a teacher speak out against the public expression of their faith?

Oh, and one more thing, my favorite political science professor is college was a Marxist who regularly denounced Ronald Reagan and his policies, yet I wasn’t frightened or intimidated in his class, despite my open support of the Gipper.  That professor may have been wrong about politics (and economics), but he could still teach in an even-handed manner — and show respect for those with whom he disagreed.

Do hope the PC police in Lake County, Florida bear that mind as they weigh the case of Mr. Buell.

If I worked out in the afternoon, it seemed almost inevitable that I would catch Eliot Spitzer’s “In the Arena” on one of the TV monitors in my gym.  I often noted how few conservatives he had on the show.  Frequently, the former Democratic governor would “moderate” panel discussions between two liberals, from time to time CNN’s own in-house liberal, Jeffrey Toobin, the man Andrew Breitbart bills as “a pompous, morally compromised legal expert” facing off against another left-of-center pundit (maybe even a fellow Journolister?).  Last night, it was Obama adviser Fareed Zakaria and liberal historian Simon Schama (though, to be sure, the latter is, by and large, an honest historian).

Now, CNN is a private enterprise and has every right to provide leftist pundits a platform.  And is under no obligation to present the conservative point of view.  We have the right to change the channel.

Seems quite a lot of people did just that when Mr. Spitzer’s show came on.   Guess they didn’t resign themselves to their workout facility’s choice of channel.  CNN is canceling the show.

But, this leads me to ponder something.  The preponderance of pundits on CNN lean left.  Yet, on FoxNews, even on Sean Hannity’s show, panels almost almost include liberal pundits.  Why then do so many mainstream media critics so eager to criticize Fox for its bias while ignoring that of CNN?

Well, I guess it doesn’t really matter anyway.  Audiences seem to be voting with their remote. (more…)

Every year at LA’s Gay Pride festival, a handful of unhappy extreme social conservatives religious fanatics protest the parade. This year, I counted six. Wrong as I believe them to be, I have always supported their right to assemble peacefully and express their grievances. We should be able to be strong enough to face their criticism.

This year, I was pleased to see some counter-protesters standing in front of them brandishing their own signs.

Ain’t free speech grand?

Here’s another piece of wisdom the Gipper recorded on one of his many note cards, included in the wonderful recent release, The Notes: Ronald Reagan’s Private Collection of Stories and Wisdom:

One way to distinguish truth from all its counterfeits is by its modesty:  truth demands only to be heard among others while its counterfeiters demand that others be silenced.

He attributes this bit of wisdom to Sydney Harris.

Every now and again, I’ll meet a man (or woman) who technically qualifies as an “ex-gay.”  Yet, even though these individuals once slept with members of their own sex and now have chosen life partners of the opposite sex, they don’t identify as such.  Some, usually the men, only reluctantly acknowledge their homosexual past.  The women occasionally do — oftentimes to their husbands’ amusement.

Those who dwell on their past seem as if they’re trying to convince themselves they’re no longer attracted to men.  The more they protest (to borrow an expression), the more we doubt their sincerity.  While most people who change rarely mention their past attitudes, ex-gays seems obsessed with theirs, as if their entire identity is tied up in not being gay.

Indeed, as reader ThatGayConservative informed me in an e-mail, one ex-gay group has even come up with an app for their obsession:

Exodus International, the notorious “ex-gay” organization, has just released an iPhone app that, according to its website, is “designed to be a useful resource for men, women, parents, students, and ministry leaders.” The Exodus website further boasts that its app received a 4+ rating from Apple, meaning that it contains “no objectionable content.”

Those who have successfully pushed to have Apple pull the app have called ”Exodus’ message is hateful and bigoted” (emphasis in original), might want to examine their own prejudices.  Just because someone is obsessive does not mean he is hateful or bigoted.  (Why must every attitude which does not correspond with the ideology of the gay left be defined as some form of hate?)

Now, Apple is a private company and should be free to pull — or provide — the app.  But, one wonders at the intolerance of the anti-ex-gays, why are they so committed to suppressing this obsessive group.  If they were truly confident of their own ideas, wouldn’t they welcome opportunities to contest ex-gays’ contentions in public fora and in open debate? (more…)

“THE TWELVE WORST COLLEGES FOR FREE SPEECH. Syracuse is No. 1.”

Via Instapundit.

(With apologies to Bobbie McGee for the headline….)  (And h/t to Instapundit for the articles that inspired this post)

You may recall that in the early days following Jaren Loughner’s (the pot-smoking anarchist) shoot-up in Tucson, I joined with Glenn Beck in his challenge.  I ask you to read it again carefully.  What I am about to write, in my opinion, does not violate that challenge.  But I’m open to interpretation.

Ladies and gents, this call from the Progressives and the liberal media for “civility” is total bullshit.  Please note I rarely use profanity in my posts or comments here.  But yes, I call total and utter bullshit.  This is a ploy by the Left to silence the 40% of Americans who told Gallup last year that they hold conservative principles.

It is easy for Progressives and Democrats to ask for “civility” when they are the ones who call for violent revolution and have been since their halcyon flower-sniffing, pot-smoking, anti-American days of yore.  Us GenXer’s refer to those days as The Sixties.  When we say “The Sixties” — it is with the derisive tone of voice usually reserved for the phrase: “um… this is escargot?”

Oh yeah, and “civility” is easy to call for when your Marxist-taught President’s best buddies are an admitted terrorist (William Ayers) and a black liberation preacher who repeatedly damns this nation (Rev. Whose-Name-Must-Never-Be-Uttered-By-Media).

One calls for “civility” when one’s ideas are soundly rejected in an historic legislative landslide the likes of which few living Americans are cogent enough to remember.

Now those same people are asking that the free peoples of the United States of America disarm themselves in favor of the tyranny of “civility”.  Well, I say HELL NO!  I don’t want violence, but I certainly don’t want these people dictating the terms of my Constitutional surrender.

So I invoke THIS passage of Glenn’s challenge:

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

There can be, in my view, nothing more violent in the long-term than straying from the limited government principles of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.  What the Left has systematically proposed to do since the Progressive movement was born is to violently shred our American Republic and tell you to shut up while they do it.

Not on my watch.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE:  Here’s the podcast!

Tonight on the Gay Patriot’s America BlogTalkRadio show, I’ll be joined by conservative news guru AndrewBreitbart.

The show will air live tonight at 9PM Eastern Time.

Join the show online at this link —>
GayPatriot’s America

I’m looking forward to the show!

This is rich:

After 25 years, Canada has officially banned the Dire Straits song “Money For Nothing” because it’s extremely offensive! You Know, it has the word “Faggot” in it. Blog Pals and Facebook Friends, Please link to the offensive song and lets offend Canada like never before!!!!

Here you go, Sonic:

Doug Powers notes that while the “original version has been banned . . . it can be played provided the offending word is edited.”

Give me a break.

Guess those bureaucrats up north just think if we ban an offensive word, then presto chango, not only will people not feel offended, but bad people will change their ways, the sun will stream through the clouds and we’ll all sing kumbaya.

Taking no prisoners in his response (as is his wont), blogger R. S. McCain bold challenges those Americans labeling their ideological adversaries as haters:

Somebody call Mark Potok at the SPLC. Tell him I played this homophobic anti-Canadian anthem and demand to be denounced for it!

(Via Instapundit.) Oh, and if you’re offended by that blogger’s style, well, understand he’s doing it to make a point. So too may have been a certain band.

I agree that the word is offensive, but also believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Throbert McGee offers a “much better” US analogy:

. . . bleeping-out every instance of the word “nigger” in edited-for-TV versions of Blazing Saddles — even though the movie’s script very pointedly puts the word ONLY in the mouths of characters who are idiots, villains, or both.

Readers of this blog know that I’m a big fan of Juan Williams.  He’s one of the smartest liberal pundits out there, able to concisely summarize the Democratic position on any given issue; he also has a great deal of admiration for the president.  Listening to him, we conservatives can learn what the “other side” thinks.  And he shows respect for his conservative sparring partners.

Michelle Malkin who has debated him “vigorously . . . many times over the years“, points out that he argues with “respect and cordiality”.

Now, NPR has fired him because, as Ed Morrissey put it, he “made the unpardonable sin of admitting that people boarding flights in ‘Muslim garb’ makes him nervous“.  According to the New York Times:

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

How PC have we become when the government-subsided radio network fires a man for admitting his own fears, fears shared by many Americans in a post-9/11 world?

This is a real loss to journalism, when a liberal with integrity can’t keep a job on a liberal network.  Maybe it wasn’t that comment, but the fact that he offers commentary on (and supposedly thus lends legitimacy to) FoxNews.

PatriotPartner and I have arrived in Manhattan for the weekend. The Homocon event is Saturday night. Tonight, we are having a pre-GOProud dinner with some fellow homocons.

We are fulfilling a foodie desire and eating tonight at one of Gordon Ramsey’s restaurants in NYC.

Any suggestions for something fun to do in the city tomorrow?

Oh, the photo…. I can see the Republican Election in November from the window.

So, some extremist Florida pastor has now had his “15 minutes of fame“.  Pastor Terry Jones who had been planning to burn a “Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks said [today] he would not go forward with the event, adding he would meet with the imam planning to build an Islamic center near ground zero.”

You know, I wonder if fringe figure had gone forward with his publicity stunt if it would have attracted more media than the miniscule membership of his congregation.

Would anyone even know who this guy was if, as Mike Thomas asks in the Orlando Sentinel, the “media had ignored” him?

James Taranto contends that the media helped make this crazy pastor’s stunt successful:

. . . a fringe Florida pastor’s announcement that he would observe 9/11 by burning the Islamic holy book was not, in itself, news. It was a mere publicity stunt–which the media, by treating it as news, made into a successful publicity stunt.

It is a publicity stunt that fits a pernicious media narrative, exemplified by a New York Times story we quoted yesterday titled “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong,” which cited the Koran burning as evidence of widespread anti-Muslim bigotry.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem, but it is only exacerbated by the media’s tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize it–and by the adversarial and snobbish attitude many journalists and some politicians have adopted toward the vast majority of Americans, who are not bigoted and who see the Ground Zero mosque as an affront.

While the media sensationalize this story, Sarah Palin takes notes of a story that media are ignoring “Book burning is bad. But the Muslim cleric who is running for parliament in Afghanistan is calling for the murder of American children in response to scorched Korans, which is worse. Where is the media’s focus?”   (more…)

Simple, yet effective country song about the state of our nation and how fed up most Americans are. (h/t – GP reader Spartann)

Unfortunately, standing up against the Obama Administration carries a heavy price. 

Bryan Glover, an assistant coach at Grassland Middle School near Nashville, co-wrote the country music song, “When You’re Holding a Hammer, Everything Looks Like a Nail.”

It was co-written by a parent who has a child on the team. Glover, 26, said he emailed a copy of the song to friends, family members and player’s parents through his personal email account.

And that’s when all the trouble started for the self-described independent conservative.

“The coach called me and said parents were upset – that I was being politically incorrect and the song had racial overtones,” Glover told FOX News Radio. “An hour and a half later I was told I was being terminated.”

“I was informed that I was being let go because of the song,” he said, denying claims there were any racial overtones in the song.

Racial overtones?  Good lord.  Hasn’t the “race card” expired already for overuse?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The House Speaker has “called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday“:

There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.

Now, an investigation of a political protest movement may pass constitutional muster, but it certainly smacks of authoritarianism.  An investigation does not mean she favors abridging freedom or speech or curtailing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” which is what opponents of the “Ground Zero Mosque” have been doing.  But, she sure doesn’t seem comfortable with it.

Why, may I ask, does she need to know how this is being “ginned up”?  Why can’t she just take issue with their arguments without casting aspersions at their motives?

Wonder if she also wants to investigate her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid who thinks the mosque should be built elsewhere?  Guess she’ll also be calling for an investigation of Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, director of Al-Arabiya TV who wrote  that the “last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.” (more…)

**WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!**

I’ve been thinking a lot about the prospects of the much feared age of “Big Brother” — where the Government knows all and uses that information to suppress.  And as dedicated readers know, my view of America and our past and future was radically altered after I read the book “The Fourth Turning.”

Clearly there are a lot of elements to Orwell’s vision that have arrived — too many to list, but originating with the Bush-era Department of Homeland Security.  But recently, I’ve thought about a new phenomenon that turns “1984″ upside down. 

The Internet, blogosphere, New Media, and everyone owning a video camera device has made the “Army of Davids” also an check and balance on the “Big Brother” State.  In fact, one could argue that We, The People are the true Big Brother (in a good way) by constantly monitoring and calling out the never ending moves toward tyranny by the Federal Government.  Exhibit A: Congressman Bob Etheridge (Ruling Class – NC).  Exhibit B: Congressman Brad Sherman (Ruling Class – CA) Exhibit C: Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (Ruling Class – TX)  Exhibit D:  Any Town Hall meeting in 2009 & 2010 (Ruling Class vs. We, The People)

I’ve also been pondering (under the influence of “The Fourth Turning”) whether or not the United States is in a “low grade civil war” (here and here) and whether it will become a “hot” one.  Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial that combines all of these ideas and lays it on the line.

Will Washington’s Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? – IBD.com (h/t – Instapundit)

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.  Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.  He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

<…>

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

It is interesting to see a number of people now thinking the way I have been since August 2009.  I certainly am not advocating armed revolution.  But I also know that we have the right to it under the Declaration of Indepedence (Read up on it, please. It is important.). 

Step one is holding Members accountable with the power of technology (someone should write a book about that!)  The second step is voting.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m not sure what is more disturbing.

This….

As part of “Inspire,” a 67-page English-language Al Qaeda magazine, Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — who has been linked to the botched Times Square bombing and cited as inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre and the plot of two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers — targeted the Seattle cartoonist for “assassination,” along with others who have participated in her campaign.

“The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection,” wrote al-Awlaki, who is an American citizen. “But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants.”

He warned that “assassinations, bombings and acts of arson” are all legitimate forms of revenge against the creators of blasphemous depictions of Muhammad.

<…>

The woman created her version of “Everybody Draw Muhammad” in late April, days after a Seattle cartoonist launched the online campaign to protest Comedy Central’s censoring of an episode of “South Park,” in which the Prophet Muhammad was depicted wearing a bear costume. The Canadian woman said she will no longer act as the administrator of such a page.

“I just want to be quiet now,” she continued. “I wish I didn’t do this.”

or this…

The 27-year-old Facebook page creator — a Canadian woman who asked not to be identified due to fears of reprisal — told FoxNews.com that she was visited at her home last week by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials who advised her to remove her page and not to talk to reporters.

Ah, the chilling effect of the death threat is alive and well here in The West… thanks to Islamists.  I think that’s their goal.  Oh yeah, and beheadings too.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another bill passes the House which provides great insight in the worldview of Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats.  The short version, via Glenn Reynolds, “Dem Congressman: We Must Have Campaign Finance Disclosure To Stop Republicans From Getting Elected.”

From Politico:

Overcoming opposition from within their own ranks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic House leaders pushed through a controversial campaign finance reform bill Thursday on a 219-206 vote.

The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.

But the House bill exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests from all or part of the legislation, which Republicans charged was the product of “backroom deals” and Democrats said was necessary to get the bill passed.

Emphasis added.  So, Democrats are exempting special interests just to get this thing passed?  Kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think?  Unless of course, the purpose was not disclosure but, as per the Democrat referenced above, preventing Republicans from getting elected.

As the editorialists at the Washington Examiner point out, noting that “DISCLOSE was rammed through the House after being introduced with only a few hours’ notice and too little debate allowed“:

The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats’ union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent?

Unions, as Mark Hemingway notes in a companion piece on the Examiner, get privileged status under the bill: (more…)

My first death threat.  I feel proud.  This message was sent to me on Thursday via Twitter from out of left (literally) field.

steve (@stevexumba)
5/26/10 4:04 PM
@GayPatriot I hope that a homophobic teabagger beats you to death and leaves you to die, you uncle Tom motherfucker

Pleasant, huh?  I can’t say I’m surprised, though.  Some of the most vile hate speech on the Internet comes from the American progressives.  You rarely see the kind of language on conservative blogs as you do on DailyKos, Democratic Underground or AmericaBlog on an hourly basis.

I’m happy to report that the Twitter community rallied in support of me and trashed the liberal troll up one side and down the other.  In fact, he has deleted all of his postings to me completely.  But the Internet saves EVERYTHING.  And thanks to the Library of Congress’ agreement with Twitter, Steve’s death threat is part of recorded American history!  His Mom must be so proud.

I wonder if my last response to him on Twitter had anything to do with his trying to erase the evidence?

GayPatriot (@gaypatriot)
@stevexumba Under Federal & state laws, your statement to me does constitute a threat that can be pursued with criminal and civil charges

Ah, the cross we conservatives have to bear in America by standing up to political intimidation.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)