What ever happened to the whole idea of hating what a person says but fighting for their freedom to express it?

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. "He was not able to practice his hate speech," said Oakley. "You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."

You either believe in free speech or you don't, Tyler. The sad fact is that this kid has set himself up as the thought police, and he's probably feeling morally superior to everyone else because of it, instead of ashamed. God save America.

David Thompson:

If someone is invited onto campus to discuss a controversial subject – say, illegal immigration – the most righteous response is not to refute that person’s arguments, which would entail some effort and minimal civility. Good lord, no, there’s no time for that. (And why run the risk of hearing new information - and worse, rethinking one’s own position?) Instead, simply ensure the guest cannot air any argument at all. Then there’s not much to refute. One can simply sloganeer triumphantly and, of course, paraphrase. Call what the speaker would have said “hate speech,” then no-one will be curious and people will stay clear.

There's a word for this, it's usually applied (erroneously) to people on the right, and supposedly it could never happen here. Again: God save America.

Remember, if you ask a question of The One, you implicitly agree that your entire personal and financial history is open to public and government scrutiny.

And the left has the balls to call us fascists.

Mark Steyn provides an example of a true gentleman of the modern liberal movement:

This abortion prohibitionist hag won’t cut it among women with brains.And BTW she is a good example of reproduction run amok. 5 kids; 1 retard. I wonder if the bitch ever heard of getting spayed.

I'll let his eloquence speak for itself.

No shit, sherlock:

Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCain’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats.

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

David Harsanyi in the Denver Post:

You may find it confounding that partisan Democrats believe that Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist Bill Ayers and convicted felon Tony Rezko are unfair "distractions," yet Palin's 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy demands front-page attention from both the Washington Post and New York Times.

Now, e-mails pour in from folks who claim to represent "women" — women, I expect, who wouldn't vote for a Republican ticket if Susan B. Anthony adorned it. They are, suddenly and wholly, offended by identity politics.

Palin is, without doubt, in part, a token pick. So what? The appeal of a candidate includes his or her policy position, but also background (that's why we are blessed with the folksy charm of Joe Biden), experience, ability, race and gender. Hillary, despite what you've heard, is not the smartest woman in America. And can anyone dispute that one element of Obama's allure is the potential of his becoming the first African-American president?

Perhaps critics believe if they keep telling the public that McCain's pick is scandalous and irresponsible, the Republican nominee will tap a more reasonable mate (you know, like Joe Lieberman) before it's too late.

Who knows? Maybe the lynch mob will bury Palin's candidacy. Maybe Palin will bury herself, proving to be incompetent and unworthy. But how can a candidate be portrayed as a failure by experts who haven't heard a word from her mouth?

Not only is this dishonest, it betrays a real political anxiety over Palin's impact.

Politically, of course. But Peggy Noonan nails it.

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to a future Obama candidacy.

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

The Wall Street Journal:

We are instructed that Mrs. Palin isn't qualified, because she lacks Washington experience. But until recently that was said to be a virtue in Mr. Obama, who is at the top of his ticket. Meanwhile, there's hardly a peep of media notice that the Obama campaign is preposterously trying to remake Joe Biden into a poor scrapper from Scranton when he's been in the Senate for 36 years. They all know Joe. But when Mr. McCain picks an authentic middle-class mother who is also a Governor, we are told she's not up to the job.

The spin du jour is that her choice reflects poorly on Candidate McCain because she wasn't properly vetted. Yet this seems to be false. Campaign vetter A.B. Culvahouse, White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, says Mrs. Palin told the campaign about her pregnant daughter and her husband's DUI at the age of 22. On Monday, Time magazine's Nathan Thornburgh wrote from Wasilla, Alaska, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy had been known by virtually everyone there, with little made of it. But what do these private family matters have to do with Mrs. Palin's credentials to be Vice President in any case?

The press in 2000 ignored marijuana use by Al Gore's son, as it should have. But now we are told a teenage pregnancy is going to raise second thoughts among evangelicals and "family values voters" about Mrs. Palin's ability to be both a mother and a public official. This is also false.

Leaving aside the embarrassing reality that the Beltway press corps barely knows any evangelicals, religious leaders this week greeted the pregnancy news with support for the Palins. Offering support for unwed pregnant women and their families is a primary activity of these churches from one end of America to the other. That might even make a good story for someone this weekend.

What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.

There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent.

What a weekend it was, and what a week this is shaping up to be. The way that Governor Palin and her family have been treated since the announcement on Friday is beyond anything I can recall in politics. The absolute hatred expressed toward her, the contempt, the ridicule - it's simply beyond belief.

As I've had a chance to dig in on Palin's political career, I've been impressed. And I think that any fair-minded person would have to look at what she's accomplished and give her some credit for it, even if they disagreed with her positions on the issues. But if it wasn't clear before, it's pretty damn clear now: the left isn't remotely fair-minded. The left is out for blood. The left has, in fact, completely lost its mind. Check this out - here are a few comments from Kos that should scare the hell out of any lover of liberty:

If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade...

This is about Power . . . How it is obtained—and how it is wielded in ways that affects all of us.
Are you telling me that you would not use character-destroying lies to ensure a war against Iran does not occur?
Are you telling me you would not spread lies about a man’s integrity, even if it defeated a candidate who take away the right to choose?
Are you telling me you would not destroy the love a family holds for one another, even if it meant letting someone who would destroy the constitution become president?

Remember that when you see Dem politicians groveling at the YearlyKos Convention. Remember that when you see Keith Olbermann blogging at Kos. Keep in mind just how rabid and insane and paranoid the audience is that they're playing to.

Governor Sarah Palin deserves better than this crap. Her daughter deserves better. Trig deserves better. These vile people are deliberately spreading the most disgusting and hateful rumors and openly trying to destroy a family in a naked and shameless grab for political power. What sensible person would entrust them - OR THE CANDIDATES THEY SUPPORT - with any power at all?

This is complete madness, and I wonder how it will end. I'll say this much - I haven't been this angry about politics in a long while, and if I was excited by McCain's choice on Friday, I'm now multiple times more angry over the way Palin has been treated by the vicious bastards on the blogs and their fellow travelers in the MSM who feign "objectivity" in their "reporting."

Governor Palin, give 'em hell tomorrow night.

Deserves better.

We all know it's a cult, but they're actually now openly pirating Christian terms to advance their candidate. I gotta find a transcript.

Here's what I heard: Commence the deliberate mixing of religious and civic language...

For Barack Obama, for Joe Biden, for me, for all of us, the principles of faith call us to service.

With faith in the American dream, we strive for better schools, economic justice, and smarter foreign policies because we believe in the God-given principles of equality, freedom, and opportunity. With faith in each other, we work for a common-sense approach to politics that focuses on results, not partisan division, because we recognize that we're all in this together.

Aren't we all tired of a Washington that doesn't have any faith in us? Fellow delegates, fellow Democrats, and fellow Americans, now is the time to let our faith guide us to action once again.

It would seem to me that a Washington that had faith in us as citizens would be willing to allow us to live our lives as unencumbered by the government as possible, as truly free individuals with rights and responsibilities to care for ourselves. More expansive government is referred to as a "nanny state," Tim. That's what you're arguing for, right? A nanny isn't there to trust her wards; she's there to watch over them, to limit them, to make sure that they don't do anything that might harm themselves. That's not what our founders intended.

We need to put our faith into action -- to elect a president who will put middle-class Americans first again and reward companies who create jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas.

Hmm. What about foreign companies that build factories here? Do we shut them down because they're not American owned? Or does this policy only work in one direction?

We need to put our faith into action -- to elect a president who will end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and invest in green-collar, clean- energy jobs right here at home.

Obama will be a president who can - by the sheer force of his will, it seems - call into existence the technology that will allow us to end our dependence on oil and switch over entirely to an economy powered by... good feelings? What exactly? BTW, one fine way to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil would be to drill domestically. Just a tip.

We need to put our faith into action -- to elect a president who will invest in our students, teachers and schools, and make college affordable once again for every American family.

Oh good lord. As if education budgets won't grow every year by remarkable amounts under either McCain or Obama. FAIL.

We need to put our faith into action -- to elect a president who will responsibly end the war in Iraq, give our veterans and their families the support they need, and reinvigorate our military to face the challenges ahead.

John McCain is the only person running that I know of who has always advocated responsibly ending the war in Iraq. He's always wanted to win it. The jack-ass you're talking about was forced to acknowledge the success of the surge that he opposed and then stated that even if he knew then what he knows now, he'd still have voted against it.

Now, let's really just lay into the religious language, shall we?

If we put our faith into action, we can move mountains.
We can move the mountains of negativity and division and gridlock.
We can move the mountains of special interests and business as usual.
We can move the mountains of hopelessness that surround too many of our people and communities.
Does anybody here have a little faith tonight? Is anybody here ready to move those mountains?
Starting right here in the Mile High City, we will put our faith into action; we will reject the failed policies of George Bush and John McCain; we will elect Barack Obama our next president.
In the words of the gospel hymn -- "move mountain."
Say it with me -- "move mountain."
Say it with me again -- "move mountain."
Mountain, get out of our way!

Wow. Just... Wow. Witness the founding of Obamianity, the newest political religion. Jonah Goldberg was right.

Scalia writes for the majority. Meanwhile, John Paul Stevens demonstrates that he has absolutely no clue:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Really? There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution "made a choice to limit the tools available" to government to intrude into the lives of citizens?

Really?

Justice Stevens: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. To LIMIT the power of government. That's why we have the government we have: divided into different branches on multiple levels, so that too much power can't accumulate in any one area. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Perhaps you've heard that phrase before, somewhere, back in the mists of history.

It'd be really cool if the more left-leaning members of the Court (and Congress, and various state offices, etc) could at least make some sort of effort to be informed of basic facts and principles of American governance and history.

We head north once again to Canada, land of human-rights trampling "human rights commissions," to examine the case of the York University student union's effort to ban pro-life groups from campus, citing their inherently "sexist" nature:

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

The school's administration condemned the decision as contrary to its academic mission.

I realize that Canada doesn't have the First Amendment, and as such the freedom of speech isn't as protected there as it is here in the US. But come on. To simply preempt any discussion of the issue of abortion unless it comes from a "choice" perspective? These people can't be serious.

And yet, there it is in black and white. The horror of being exposed to a contrary view - one that views abortion as morally wrong to boot (imagine that!) - is just too much for these tender souls to bear. So rather than expose the student body to the dangers of persuasion, the student union is going to preemptively ban the offending speech.

Do these people have no clue how clueless this makes them look? How dictatorial? How fascist? Ah well, this can at least serve as yet another example of the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.

Uncalibrated Irony Meter Alert: It turns out that Ms. Massa, the spokesperson for the York Federation of Students, has a pretty selective idea of what constitutes "free speech":

Gilary Massa, the vice-president, external, of the York Federation of Students and the driving force behind the proposed ban on anti-abortion groups, earlier this year defended free speech as she called for the lifting of a ban on the phrase "Israeli Apartheid."

In a letter to McMaster's provost and the Students Union Executive, Ms. Massa said she was shocked and dismayed to hear that the administration and McMaster Students Union had banned the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" on campus.

The letter called for the ban on the phrase to be rescinded "in accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in the democratic context of the public university."

The letter added, "This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students' right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA [Graduate Students] that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase 'Israeli Apartheid' cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing intellectual exchange."

Here's some free speech for you: Massa is DUMBER THAN A SACK OF HAMMERS.

"Science, simply put... cannot account for human equality, and does not offer reasons to believe we are all equal. Science measures our material and animal qualities, and it finds them to be patently unequal."

Via the Corner:

Obama was born with his sun in Leo, and his story exemplifies the quest of the Solar Hero. His father, who joins with his mother on an island, conceives a child, and soon thereafter leaves the child and mother to continue his own journeying. Obama, a 'special 'child, left to create his own internal image of 'father', and related meanings of strength, protection, leadership, etc.

The Holmes comet appears just as the presidential race is kicking into high gear, illuminating the concept of the hero vanquishing the monster, a monster that turns people into stone if they gaze upon her. Does it not seem as if our country today is all locked up, constricted, restricted, with ever shrinking mobility and freedom of movement?

Perseus had help from the gods. Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?

The instructions to not directly look at her, but to look at her reflection in his shield. What is Obama's shield, in essence? I propose it is his belief in hope, redemption, and his ability to channel the essential goodness of the American people. The Perseus myth clearly indicates he should not confront his opponent by face-to-face, tit-for-tat combat.

Of especial significance for me is the star Mirfak, the elbow of Perseus's sword arm. At some point, he does need to utilize his elbows, and when the moment comes, cut strongly and swiftly.

And lastly, let us not forget that the comet is BLUE.

So let us have hope, the gods are on our side, and the Hero will prevail.

Great. Now they're actually wrapping the guy in pagan mythology. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's better or worse than pretending Obama is Jesus.

The whole post is great, but Stephen Bainbridge really nails this paragraph:

When I think about Obama, I am reminded of Richard Epstein’s observation that in order to remain politically viable modern socialists no longer advocate direct government ownership of production. Instead, modern socialism operates on two different levels: “At a personal level, it speaks to the alienation of the individual, stressing the need for caring and sharing and the politics of meaning. At a regulatory level, it seeks to identify specific sectors in which there is a market failure and then to subject them to various forms of government regulation.” Sounds a lot like Obama’s stump speech to me.