Category Archives: Free Speech

Comedian Amy Schumer Caves To PC Consensus

Free Speech, Left-Liberalism, Political Correctness

In case you’re getting tired of the one public persona who won’t embark on an apology tour for politically incorrect utterances and ideas—here’s comedian Amy Schumer, folding and feeding the quest for consensus:

Comedienne Amy Schumer was wrapped into the recent national discussions on political correctness after making several jokes about race on her Comedy Central show. Though Schumer previously pushed back at critics in the past who accused her of having a “blind spot” for race jokes, but in an exchange with a fan on Twitter, she said that she wants to “take responsibility” for what she said.

The incident began when an article for The Guardian commented about some of Schumer’s off-color jokes. Monica Heisey initially praised Schumer as “funny, feminist, mainstream entertainment, ” but was less enthused about several “tactless” jokes from the Trainwreck star, such as “I used to date Latino guys. Now I prefer consensual.”

Schumer initially defended the comments, tweeting a lengthy post on June 28 about how she refuses to do “safe” material and that race jokes are part of her act as “an irreverent idiot:”

I enjoy playing the girl who time to time says the dumbest thing possible and playing with race is a thing we are not supposed to do, which is what makes it so fun for comics. You can call it a “blind spot for racism” or “lazy” but you are wrong. It is a joke and it is funny. I know that because people laugh at it.

After being asked on Twitter whether she has a sort of public responsibility as a storyteller, Schumer took a different tone …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Mindless, Mirthless Millennial

Celebrity, Free Speech, Intellectualism, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

Millennials likely don’t know what mirthless means. Most of them are pig-ignorant even when “educated” or “well-traveled.” As I continue to discover in my own interactions, Millennials are diversity hating, unless “diversity” is defined as skin color or some other overt, exotic, cultural, culinary or sexual display. Minds that are different Millenials cannot and will not abide. Conformity is their thing.

Similar findings are being reported by some of our smarter, and certainly iconic, comedians—satirists, really.

As was noted in “Race And The American Millennial’s Brain Rot,” “comedian Chris Rock recently confessed that he avoids doing his stand-up routine in front of millennial audiences. ‘You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.”

Now Jerry Seinfeld says he “avoids doing shows on college campuses. … College kids today are too politically correct.” His own daughter has been brainwashed into drone-like sanctimony. Via Entertainment Weekly:

“I hear that all the time,” Seinfeld said on The Herd with Colin Cowherd. “I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’”

Seinfeld says teens and college-aged kids don’t understand what it means to throw around certain politically-correct terms. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,’” he said. “They don’t know what the f­—k they’re talking about.”

The funnyman went on to recount a conversation he and his wife had with their 14-year-old daughter, which he believes proved his point.

“My wife says to her, ‘Well, you know, in the next couple years, I think maybe you’re going to want to be hanging around the city more on the weekends, so you can see boys,’” Seinfeld recalled. “You know what my daughter says? She says, ‘That’s sexist.’”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE III: Liberty Vs. Conspiracy: The #Left Hates #PamelaGeller, But Why Do Some #Libertarians?

Conspiracy, Free Speech, Islam, libertarianism, Liberty, Neoconservatism

“The Charlie Hebdo Hypocrites” floated the idea that “the double standard toward what is perceived as rightist speech (Pam Geller’s) and left-wing freedom of expression (Charlie Hebdo’s) is a holdover construct of communism,” during which right-wingers were demonized and targeted for destruction. There is no other difference “between Charlie Hebdo’s defiance of Islamic blasphemy laws and Geller’s defiance of the same laws.”

For his part, Jack Kerwick also pinpointed leftist favoritism as the reason “legions of people from around the Western world were clamoring to ‘stand with Charlie,’ while Geller and her organization have been condemned …”

Look, Pamela Geller is a consummate neoconservative; Israel über alles. These things can annoy libertarians; myself included. (About her person, moreover, I can say only this: She has dabbled briefly in writing about South Africa. In the process, Geller made sweeping errors, but has never cited my work on the topic. And when I asked her to reciprocate a “Follow” on Twitter, and tweet out my “Charlie Hebdo Hypocrites,” written in her defense, she failed to reply. She continues to send me fundraisers.)

In any case, what, pray tell, is the reason behind the long-standing, obsequious and convoluted stand, adopted by some libertarian leaders against what is a quintessential part of living freely and unafraid? About one of the defining libertarian issue of our times—speaking and publishing under the threat of injury or death—some of my libertarian friends are acting weirdly, have been for some time. (Geller’s event was on private property.)

As Jack put it, “You don’t need to agree with her, or even like her, in order to recoil at the utter hypocrisy of Pamela Geller’s [leftist] critics.”

What about her libertarian detractors?

What do I mean? See “Those Cartoons: A Reply To Walter Block” and Lew Rockwell’s May 4 Facebook post.


Lew Rockwell
May 4 at 10:50am

Just because ISIS is a propaganda dream come true for the US empire and its Middle Eastern satraps does not mean it was funded, like other convenient Arab groups, by the CIA, Al Mukahbarat, Mossad, MI6, or DGSE. And now ISIS–after the shootings in Texas–will be used to promote further not only US world dominion, but a full-scale federal police state.

Were the shooters patsies in classic agent provocateur fashion? I’m only sure of one thing: it is not a good idea to seek to offend someone’s religion. Apparently the Texas cartoon show was not, like Charlie Hebdo, mainly aimed at Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, but it’s still a vile notion. Nor, note, would free speech be used to defend a show of anti-Semitic, anti-black, or anti-gay cartoons. But if haters are promoting the state’s foreign and domestic tyranny, why anything is OK.

UPDATE I: As I’ve often stated, some libertarians are social reductionists. All problems they reduce to “The State Made Me Do It.” More accurately, the US State made me do it. It’s of a piece with the Left’s denial of individual responsibility. Thus, the acting out by Muslims is not the fault of the individual and his muse, the Islamic faith, to these libertarians; rather, it’s due to US imperial overreach.

I prefer to say that American aggression is likely a necessary condition for the hatred of America, but it is insufficient a condition. As for a person like Pam or Wielders who wants to depict the truth about Mo: We’re Americans! We speak our minds. Pam’s eff you attitude is 100% fabulous. It’s actually very Israeli/Jewish. We call it Dufka in Hebrew: In other words, tell me I can’t do something benign and righteous, and by golly, I’ll do it. Way to roll! If libertarains persist in being such effetes, they won’t get dates and will go extinct.


Libertarianism is predicated on the non-aggression axiom. It’s quite clear which party is the bully and aggressor here, and which party wishes to force the other to live within its own byzantine boundaries. Geller is right.

UPDATE III (5/19):

Jack Kerwick writes: “From what I’ve been able to gather, the only evil many of these libertarians recognize is that of “the State,” more specifically, the US government. PG is to be despised b/c she is a prop of the State, a neocon, Israeli-Firster, etc. Muslims, however, like all people of color, are simply responding to American imperial aggression, and so forth. There is an air of unreality about it all, the shade of the same PC fantasy for which the left is known.”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Pamela Geller Offends Shariah Media

Constitution, Europe, Free Speech, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism, Media, Political Correctness, Propaganda

There’s a “FRENCH CONNECTION” and a “RED CONNECTION”—both bad—in “Pamela Geller Goes Against Sharia Media,” the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Sandhya SomethingOrAnother is a “social change” reporter for The Washington Post. (Yes, the WaPo has such a beat.) Ms. Somashekhar (her surname copied and pasted) implied that WND columnist Pamela Geller ought to repent for staging a Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, an event that was briefly attended by two, uninvited ISIS-Americans. Sandhya must have been angry because she called Geller, in error, “a housewife from Long Island.” Progressives don’t much like housewives.

Like most Geller haters, Somashekhar (her name copied and pasted) cited the Southern Poverty Law Center as her “scholarly” source for Geller’s hatefulness. The SPLC is a “leftist vigilante group,” explained Paul Gottfried, a real scholar. It is “unmistakably totalitarian in the drive to suppress and destroy deviationists from the party line on race, gender, and ‘discrimination.’” The “$PLC” is as dodgy in its financial dealings as it is in its strong-arming tactics. (Read “Is The Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC) The Next Financial Bubble?”)

“Stupid,” ruled a less obscure enforcer of political correctness, Bill O’Reilly, on Geller’s event. Also at Fox News, host Martha MacCallum suggested Geller ought to have explored kinder, gentler ways of protesting Islam-imposed restrictions on expression.

Pantomime, perhaps?

The left-liberal Jon Stewart took the safe route. The idiotic urge to kill over any annoyance was the object of the satirist’s spoof. Stewart’s Thou Shall Not Kill skit was hardly cutting-edge comedy. So he livened up the tired shtick with a curtsy in the direction of the Prophet’s avengers. Geller’s group, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, was about hate speech, warned Stewart.

The biggest clown in the media circus, however, was TV anchor Chris Cuomo. While Geller staged her vital challenge in private; Cuomo, a lawyer, flaunted his “smarts” in public. He tweeted that “hate speech” was unprotected by the Constitution. Not everyone was speechless. Another of CNN’s cretins, Alisyn Camerota, stood squarely in the corner of the victims: those poor ISIS-Americans whose descent into hell was hastened by a guard at Geller’s Garland cartoon contest.

It was difficult to tell what it was about Pamela Geller’s position on impolite and impolitic speech—echoed in the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights—that so puzzled Camerota …

… Read the complete column, “Pamela Geller Goes Against Sharia Media,” on WND.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

CNN Cretin #ChrisCuomo ‘Thinks’ Constitution Doesn’t Protect Hate Speech

Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights

CNN Cretin Chris Cuomo, a lawyer, it would appear, has confused the US Constitution (intended as a charter of mostly negative liberties) with the South African Constitution, an obese and obscene charter of positive liberties. Check out the thread.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

#RobertSpencer Savages #PamelaGeller Attacker

Free Speech, Islam

“Don’t be fooled by Haroon Moghul,” cautions Robert Spencer, in his rebuttal of CNN’s unknown entity’s assault on Pamela Geller, whose sin was to prove that ISIS-Americans intend to decide what Americans may say about Islam’s murderous muse, The Prophet Mohammad.

The clearest indication that Haroon Moghul is a jihad terror-enabling charlatan is the fact that after jihadis attempt to commit mass murder at a free speech event, he doesn’t write a piece defending free speech and explaining why Muslims must accept it, or a piece condemning the Islamic jihadis and explaining why Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy must not be carried out in the modern age, or a piece calling for reform of the teachings and doctrines that Islamic jihadis use to justify violence and supremacism.

Oh, no. You will never see such from his august pen. What Haroon Moghul, fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, Fellow at the New America Foundation, perennial Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, and an energetic purveyor of the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” (a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into fearing to resist jihad terror), serves up instead is yet another in today’s ever-growing pile of condemnations of Pamela Geller for daring to stand for the freedom of speech.

Moghul is desperately afraid that other Americans might realize that standing up for free speech against violent intimidation is a great idea, in the finest American tradition. That would interfere with the mainstream media’s push to get us all to silence ourselves and conform to Sharia blasphemy laws in order to save our skins. And so Moghul pens this vicious little screed in order to convince his easy marks at CNN that Pamela Geller is not really a defender of the freedom of speech but really a very bad person, and to stay on the reservation, not question the elites, and continue to allow for restrictions on the freedom of speech. …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint