The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Is Flag Burning Protected Speech?
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
.
Fixating on the Fixer-Uppers
Expressed by the "inclusive" message of "conform or die, you backward bigots," tolerance as defined by the Left has more in common with the Inquisition than Webster's Dictionary. The latest intolerant lynching comes from the Internet's leading "lolcat" gif distributor, BuzzFeed, which occasionally takes a stab at journalism. The site unearthed a "shocking" possibility about two HGTV superstars with the headline, "Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage." What's so shocking about Christians holding the orthodox view that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are sinful? Nothing, but from the Rainbow Mafia's perspective, this "intolerant" belief must not be tolerated or allowed to go unpunished.
But what's the story here? A lovable Christian couple with a hugely popular fixer-upper show may believe something — that has never been mentioned on the show — that the Left deems offensive. Clearly, this hit piece was designed not to report a story, but to threaten a popular couple should they not disavow beliefs the Left finds reprehensible. Buzzfeed is merely acting as the thought police.
The template for this is simple. Back in 2014, the Benham Brothers, who own a successful real estate company in North Carolina and happened to be conservative Christians, were fired from HGTV after the Rainbow Mafia bullied the network. BuzzFeed knows they can foment a major "issue" because HGTV is so otherwise flamboyantly "gay." This is also reminiscent of Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich being forced out of his job over donations to California's Prop. 8 on same-sex marriage. Or the Oregon bakers who were put out of business and fined $135,000 for declining to cater a lesbian wedding. The list of examples is growing all the time.
One reason why a large majority of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump was to push back against the leftist social engineering and destruction of America's values — specifically these kinds of threats to religious liberty. Obviously, the Rainbow Mafia intends to double down, and Chip and Joanna Gaines are just the latest victims. ~The Patriot Post
.
Climate Regs Impede Carbon Reductions
Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, participating nations were to pursue a roughly 5% emissions reduction, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012. The endeavor was considered a success by most environmental warriors. As a newly released Breakthrough Institute study notes, "Every country achieved their emissions reduction commitments." But was the agreement really all it's cracked up to be? The aforementioned Breakthrough study goes on to reveal that, no, it's not.
"Overall, the carbon intensity of economies that were party to the Kyoto Accord fell more rapidly in the decade before the agreement was signed than in the decade after," according to the report. "In the 10 years before signing, the compound annual growth rate for carbon intensity was -0.7%. In the 10 years after signing it was only -0.2%."
"Similarly," the study continues, "the low-carbon share of energy was growing at an annual rate of 1.0% in the ten years prior to 1997, and only at a rate of 0.3% annually for the ten years after, meaning deployment of clean energy stalled or slowed in comparison to fossil fuels in these countries after they signed Kyoto." What's the explanation? "What becomes clear in looking at climate policy as it has been implemented at the international level is that most countries have only been willing to commit to decarbonization targets that are consistent with expected business-as-usual trends, accounting for measures that they have intended to take in any event."
Thankfully, America did not participate in this scheme, thanks to the Republican Senate blocking Bill liar-Clinton and Al Gore. And though the liar-nObama administration cosigned the U.S. to last year's Paris climate accord, past efforts to implement a carbon-reducing system would have fallen short, just like the Kyoto Protocol. According to Reason's Ronald Bailey, "[T]he Breakthrough analysts conclude that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have actually fallen faster since 2010 than they would have had the the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme been adopted by Congress. The U.S. trend toward lower carbon dioxide emissions was helped along by the global financial crisis, a weak recovery, and the ongoing switch from coal to cheap natural gas for electricity generation."
As for what comes next, Breakthrough says, "Even should the next administration withdraw from the Paris Agreement and abandon the Clean Power Plan, the United States might outperform the commitments that the liar-nObama administration made in Paris if it keeps the nation's nuclear fleet online, continues tax incentives for deployment of wind and solar energy, and stays out of the way of the shale revolution. By contrast, a Democratic administration indifferent to the fate of the nation's existing nuclear fleet and hostile to shale gas production might ultimately slow US decarbonization trends."
Given these circumstances, the most pertinent question is this: Why are ecofascists hampering our ability to reduce emissions, which can be accomplished without onerous government regulations? ~The Patriot Post
.
Self-Censorship: Free Society vs. Fear Society
by Giulio Meotti
by Giulio Meotti
Mohammed cartoon Flemming Rose
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ In the summer of 2005, the Danish artist Kåre Bluitgen, when he met a journalist from the Ritzaus Bureau news agency, said he was unable to find anyone willing to illustrate his book on Mohammed, the prophet of Islam... Three illustrators he contacted, Bluitgen said, were too scared. A few months later, Bluitgen reported that he had found someone willing to illustrate his book, but only on the condition of anonymity. Like most Danish newspapers, Jyllands-Posten decided to publish an article about Bluitgen's case. To test the state of freedom of expression, Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor at the time, called twelve cartoonists, and offered them $160 each to draw a caricature of Mohammed. What then happened is a well-known, chilling story. In the wave of Islamist violence against the cartoons, at least two hundred people were killed. Danish products vanished from shelves in Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, the UAE and Lebanon. Masked gunmen stormed the offices of the European Union in Gaza and warned Danes and Norwegians to leave within 48 hours. In the Libyan city of Benghazi, protesters set fire to the Italian consulate. Political Islam understood what was being achieved and raised the stakes; the West did not...
.
Scoop Jackson Republicans
by Erick Erickson
{theresurgent.com} ~ Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson was a Democrat in the era of pro-life, conservative Democrats who hated communists, loved America, and could relate to the blue collar workers of the rust belt... Jackson was loved by labor unions, hated by communists, and hated by liberals. He was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976, losing first to McGovernor and then to Carter. If you heard any of Donald Trump’s speech in Ohio last night, you’ll hear the echoes of Jacksonian democracy in it — Scoop with a scoop of Andrew to go with it. Trump’s speech was all about “made in America,” build up American infrastructure, hire Americans, and build up the military. He wanted less business regulations, tax reform, and he is going to make America awesome...
.
Oregon School District Thinks Santa Claus Is Disrespectful and Insensitive To Others
by Jay Caruso
{redstate.com} ~ When exactly did we become a nation of whiny babies? When was that plateau reached? A school district in Oregon sent a memo to staff telling to decorate their doors for the upcoming Christmas season... but asked them to remember to be sensitive and respectful to others and avoid images of a fat elf in a red suit that goes by the name of Santa Claus. For real. You may still decorate your door or office if you like, but we ask that you be respectful and sensitive to the diverse perspectives and beliefs of our community and refrain from using religious-themed decorations or images like Santa Claus. How about a snowflake?...Here they go again. AGAIN. http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/12/01/oregon-school-district-thinks-santa-claus-disrespectful-insensitive-others/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
.
U.S. soldiers plead guilty in military
human smuggling ring
by Sharyl Attkisson
{sharylattkisson.com} ~ Two U.S. Army soldiers caught with two illegal immigrants in their vehicle last June have reportedly plead guilty to human smuggling. Marco Antonio Nava, Jr. and Joseph Cleveland were arrested last June... They told authorities it wasn’t the first time they’d smuggled illegal aliens into the U.S. for payments of $1,000 or $1,500. They named other military peers they said were involved in the ring at Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas. No word on the status of the investigation into the rest of the alleged smugglers. The illegal immigrants had been picked up at a trailer, then dropped off at a house 30 minutes north of Houston, Texas. According to Nava, each of the soldiers involved was paid $1,000 cash for that successful smuggling trip. They were to be paid $1,500 for the June 18 run a week later that Border Patrol agents intercepted. Border agents were able to review text messages exchanged between six soldier smugglers... https://sharylattkisson.com/u-s-soldiers-arrested-for-allegedly-smuggling-illegal-immigrants/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SharylAttkisson+%28Sharyl+Attkisson%29
.
ISIS Sets Eyes on Creating New ‘State’
by David Harris
{clarionproject.org} ~ Despite taking heavy losses in a battle with the Philippines military, an ISIS-affiliate has reportedly raised its flag over municipal buildings in a southern city in the South-East Asian country... This led one expert to forecast Islamic State will announce a new province on one of Philippines largest islands. Senior Analyst at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre Otso Iho believes (Arabic link) it is only a matter of time before ISIS controls swathes of southern Philippines with its base on Mindanao, the country’s second-largest island with a population of 20 million. Several Islamist terror organizations have already pledged allegiance to ISIS, including Abu Sayyaf and Maute. Iho expects they will be ready to merge under the ISIS flag. Right now there is little to prevent these groups from operating freely in Mindanao, he said... http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/isis-sets-eyes-creating-new-%E2%80%98state%E2%80%99
.
.
Is Flag Burning Protected Speech?
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion." — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
Is flag burning protected speech? This old issue returned front and center earlier this week after President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that he found it so reprehensible, it should be criminal. He even suggested a punishment — loss of citizenship or one year in jail. Is the president-elect correct? Can the government punish acts that accompany the expression of opinions because the government, or the public generally, hates or fears the opinions?
Here is the backstory.
Last weekend, in a series of continued emotional responses to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, and prodded by the death of Fidel Castro — the long-time, brutal, profoundly anti-American dictator of Cuba — students on a few American college campuses publicly burned American flags. These acts regenerated the generation-old debate about the lawfulness of this practice, with the president-elect decidedly on the side of those who condemn it.
For the sake of this analysis, like the U.S. Supreme Court, which has addressed this twice in the past 17 years, I am addressing whether you can burn your own American flag. The short answer is: Yes. You can burn your flag and I can burn mine, so long as public safety is not impaired by the fires. But you cannot burn my flag against my will, nor can you burn a flag owned by the government.
Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations — the same statutes permitted other public fires — but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.
That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.
The Amendment was also written for two additional purposes. One was, as Justice Jackson wrote as quoted above, to keep the government out of the business of passing judgment on ideas and deciding what we may read, speak about or otherwise express in public. The corollary to this is that individuals should decide for themselves what ideas to embrace or reject, free from government interference.
In the colonial era, the Founding Fathers had endured a British system of law enforcement that punished ideas that the King thought dangerous. As much as we revere the Declaration of Independence for its elevation of personal liberty over governmental orthodoxy, we are free today to reject those ideas. The Declaration and its values were surely rejected by King George III, who would have hanged its author, Thomas Jefferson, and its signers had they lost the American Revolutionary War. Thank G0D they won.
Justice Jackson also warned that a government strong enough to suppress ideas that it hates or fears was powerful enough to suppress debate that inconveniences it, and that suppression would destroy the purposes of the First Amendment. The Jacksonian warning is directly related to the Amendment's remaining understood purpose — to encourage and protect open, wide, robust debate about any aspect of government.
All these values were addressed by the Supreme Court in 1989 and again in 1990 when it laid to rest the flag burning controversies by invalidating all statutes aimed at suppressing opinions.
Even though he personally condemned flag burning, the late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority in both cases and actively defended both decisions. At a public forum sponsored by Brooklyn Law School in 2015, I asked him how he would re-write the flag burning laws, if he could do so. He jumped at the opportunity to say that if he were the king, flag burners would go to jail. Yet, he hastened to remind his audience that he was not the king, that in America we don't have a king, that there is no political orthodoxy here, and that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, leaves freedom of expression to individual choices, not government mandates.
The American flag is revered because it is a universally recognizable symbol of the human sacrifice of some for the human freedom of many. Justice Scalia recognized that flag burning is deeply offensive to many people — this writer among them — yet he, like Justice Jackson before him, knew that banning it dilutes the very freedoms that make the flag worth revering.
Is flag burning protected speech? This old issue returned front and center earlier this week after President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that he found it so reprehensible, it should be criminal. He even suggested a punishment — loss of citizenship or one year in jail. Is the president-elect correct? Can the government punish acts that accompany the expression of opinions because the government, or the public generally, hates or fears the opinions?
Here is the backstory.
Last weekend, in a series of continued emotional responses to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, and prodded by the death of Fidel Castro — the long-time, brutal, profoundly anti-American dictator of Cuba — students on a few American college campuses publicly burned American flags. These acts regenerated the generation-old debate about the lawfulness of this practice, with the president-elect decidedly on the side of those who condemn it.
For the sake of this analysis, like the U.S. Supreme Court, which has addressed this twice in the past 17 years, I am addressing whether you can burn your own American flag. The short answer is: Yes. You can burn your flag and I can burn mine, so long as public safety is not impaired by the fires. But you cannot burn my flag against my will, nor can you burn a flag owned by the government.
Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations — the same statutes permitted other public fires — but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.
That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.
The Amendment was also written for two additional purposes. One was, as Justice Jackson wrote as quoted above, to keep the government out of the business of passing judgment on ideas and deciding what we may read, speak about or otherwise express in public. The corollary to this is that individuals should decide for themselves what ideas to embrace or reject, free from government interference.
In the colonial era, the Founding Fathers had endured a British system of law enforcement that punished ideas that the King thought dangerous. As much as we revere the Declaration of Independence for its elevation of personal liberty over governmental orthodoxy, we are free today to reject those ideas. The Declaration and its values were surely rejected by King George III, who would have hanged its author, Thomas Jefferson, and its signers had they lost the American Revolutionary War. Thank G0D they won.
Justice Jackson also warned that a government strong enough to suppress ideas that it hates or fears was powerful enough to suppress debate that inconveniences it, and that suppression would destroy the purposes of the First Amendment. The Jacksonian warning is directly related to the Amendment's remaining understood purpose — to encourage and protect open, wide, robust debate about any aspect of government.
All these values were addressed by the Supreme Court in 1989 and again in 1990 when it laid to rest the flag burning controversies by invalidating all statutes aimed at suppressing opinions.
Even though he personally condemned flag burning, the late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority in both cases and actively defended both decisions. At a public forum sponsored by Brooklyn Law School in 2015, I asked him how he would re-write the flag burning laws, if he could do so. He jumped at the opportunity to say that if he were the king, flag burners would go to jail. Yet, he hastened to remind his audience that he was not the king, that in America we don't have a king, that there is no political orthodoxy here, and that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, leaves freedom of expression to individual choices, not government mandates.
The American flag is revered because it is a universally recognizable symbol of the human sacrifice of some for the human freedom of many. Justice Scalia recognized that flag burning is deeply offensive to many people — this writer among them — yet he, like Justice Jackson before him, knew that banning it dilutes the very freedoms that make the flag worth revering.
Comments