THE COMMITTEE BY MARIO MURILLO

Director Rob Reiner denounced Robert De Niro and other celebrities for their remarks against President Trump, saying it only helps the president.
During an exclusive interview with The Hill’s new TV show “Rising,” which aired on Wednesday, Reiner addressed the controversy surrounding actor Robert De Niro’s “F—Trump” speech during the Tony Awards on Sunday.
De Niro called the president a “f—ing idiot” and a “f—ing fool,” which was met with a standing ovation.
“You’re helping Trump by saying ‘F— Trump,’ because he can say ‘look at these people, these elitists,’ ” Reiner told “Rising” co-hosts Krystal Ball and Buck Sexton.
Reiner said he thinks celebrities are ultimately hurting Democrats when they go on expletive-ridden rants against Trump.
“There’s a very fine line between energizing the base and energizing the other side,” Reiner said.
In this blog I want to highlight how the outrageous and wacky behavior of Robert De Niro, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters will win so many votes for Trump and Republicans in the midterms that I am formally dubbing them the committee to reelect Donald Trump.
Reiner is so right.  But the left is so inebriated that it won’t matter.  They will not muzzle these campions of buffoonery who are so helpful to our cause.
Nancy Pelosi been driving independent voters to toward the Republican Party for years.  The following are some of her greatest hits ending with the zinger that will sway the midterms.
-In 2009, while pushing a stimulus bill to counter the recession, Pelosi said, “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” At the time, the U.S. had just over 300 million residents.
-In April 2017, Pelosi attacked Trump for proposing a border wall on the southern border, even though she voted for the Border Fence Act of 2006. She told NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “The president … is expressing a sign of weakness. He’s saying, ‘I can’t control our borders. I have to build a wall.'” So it wasn’t a sign of weakness when Pelosi voted for it in 2006?
And the quote that is sure to haunt Democrats in this year’s midterm election is Pelosi’s cavalier dismissal of $1,000 and $2,000 bonuses that legions of American workers are getting as a result of Trump’s tax reform: “In terms of the bonus that corporate America received versus the crumbs that they are giving to workers to kind of put the schmooze on is so pathetic … I think it’s insignificant.

Maxine Waters wants more people to harass Trump administration officials in public spaces.
“Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants,” she continued as the crowd erupted, “who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep,’” she continued.
“Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this!” she yelled.
Waters was referring to Department of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielson, who was heckled in a D.C. restaurant, and later had protesters playing loud speakers outside her home.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that she was told by the owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, Va., that she had to “leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left.” She said the episode Friday evening said far more about the owner of the restaurant than it did about her.
“I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so,” Sanders said in the tweet from her official account, which generated 22,000 replies in about an hour.
Sanders’ dilemma in Lexington is just the latest is a series of bad nights out for members of Trump’s administration.
Earlier in the week, Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, cut short a working dinner at a Mexican restaurant in Washington after protesters shouted, “Shame!” until she left. A few days earlier, Trump aide Stephen Miller, a key adviser on immigration, was accosted by someone at a different Mexican restaurant in the city, who called him “a fascist,” according to the New York Post.
While this behavior momentarily rouses the left it permanently disgusts a growing number of Americans who see this as nothing short of bigotry and hatred.
And there you have it…the committee to reelect not only Donald Trump but to totally wipe out the blue wave in midterms.  Keep it up people, we need every vote.

College tells students Christmas vacation is a microaggression

College tells students Christmas vacation is a microaggression

(DailyCaller) The Christmas vacations are a microagression, the public university pontificates, because “academic calendars and encouraged vacations” which “are organized around major religious observances” centralize “the Christian faith” and diminish “non-Christian spiritual rituals and observances.” issued a guide this week which instructs students that Christmas vacations and telling a woman “I love your shoes!” are “microagressions.”

The taxpayer-funded guide — entitled “Career corner: Understanding microaggressions” — also identifies golf outings and the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” as microagressions.

The UNC Chapel Hill guide, published on Thursday, covers a wide range of menacing microaggressions — which are everyday words that radical leftists have decided to be angry or frustrated about.

Christmas vacations are a microagression, the public university pontificates, because “academic calendars and encouraged vacations” which “are organized around major religious observances” centralize “the Christian faith” and diminish “non-Christian spiritual rituals and observances.”

Christmas vacations are a microagression, the public university pontificates, because “academic calendars and encouraged vacations” which “are organized around major religious observances” centralize “the Christian faith” and diminish “non-Christian spiritual rituals and observances.”

Interestingly, the long break between semesters at UNC Chapel Hill for the 2016-2017 academic year will last from December 17 to January 10 — thus covering Christmas as well as the New Year’s Day of the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar is named for Pope Gregory XIII. The Roman Catholic Church introduced the calendar in 1582.

charade

The microagression of liking shoes occurs when someone says “I love your shoes!” “to a woman in leadership during a Q & A after a speech.” So it’s a very specific microagression. The problem, the University of North Carolina document declares, is that the shoe admirer values appearances “more than” “intellectual contributions.”

Similarly, the public school pronounces, interrupting any woman who is speaking is a microagression.

Golf outings are also a microagression, the University of North Carolina says, because suggesting a “staff retreat at the country club” or even just “a round of golf” “assumes employees have the financial resources” to participate in the “fairly expensive and inaccessible sport.”

(As an aside, daily greens fees at the gorgeous UNC Finley Golf Club range from $30 — for students — to $40 for professors and administrators.)

The words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” — as well as “husband” and “wife” — are microaggressions, the University of North Carolina admonishes, because these words set “the expectation that people do not identify as LGBTQ until they say otherwise or disclose their sexual orientation.” The correct terms are now “partner” and “spouse,” UNC Chapel Hill demands.

In this same vein, bureaucratic forms only containing the options “male” and “female” are microagressions, the taxpayer-funded flagship school says. It’s also a microagression to refer to men who dress up as women with the pronouns “he” or “him,” UNC Chapel Hill scolds.

Still more microagressions cited by UNC Chapel Hill include complimenting a foreign-born person’s English skills, saying “I get ADHD sometimes” and telling a person you don’t judge them by the color of their skin

The two lady authors of the UNC Chapel Hill microagressions guide are Sharbari Dey, an assistant director of multicultural affairs, and Krista Prince, a dorm life coordinator.

In order to counter the multitude of microagressions listed in their document, Dey and Prince advise students to respond by interrupting and aggressively asking, “What did you mean by that?”

Several public colleges and universities have published similar guides to microagressions in recent years.

UNC Chapel Hill is home to a “cultural competency workshop” which instructs that white people are privileged because they can buy Band-Aids “in ‘flesh’ color and have them more or less match” their vaguely beige-hued skin. At least some students have apparently been required to participate in the workshop.

The University of North Carolina is most famous, of course, because it perpetuated a sickening scam which involved 18 years of rampant academic fraud. The shocking con allowed dozens of athletes to deliberately enroll in fake classes for which they were awarded passing grades to keep them eligible for UNC’s sports teams.

Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters

Mainstream Media: Defeat Trump by Attacking His Supporters

First they come after you, then they target your family and business relationships

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump enters the stage as he takes part in a town hall event moderated by Anderson Cooper March 29, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump enters the stage as he takes part in a town hall event moderated by Anderson Cooper March 29, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisc. (Photo: Darren Hauck/Getty Images)

It is no secret that the mainstream media has decided that the threat presented by a possible Donald Trump presidency is so grave that it has suspended even the illusion of objectivity. Writing in The New York Times, media columnist Jim Rutenberg granted permission to his fellow journalists “to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.”

The Observer and others have detailed the ways in which traditional media companies and even tech companies have colluded to maximize negative coverage of Trump and minimize negative coverage of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. But it doesn’t end there. As Rutenberg described, many journalists feel the need to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

That opposition has extended into new and uncharted territory. In the coordinated effort to stop a dangerous candidate from obtaining, to use Rutenberg’s breathless description of the stakes, “control of the United States nuclear codes,” the mainstream media has taken not just to bashing Trump but to extracting a price even from those who support him.

There are a hundred examples, but here are just a few headlines that tell the story:

  • Daily Beast: “Trump’s Doctor ‘Overmedicated’ Patients Who Died in His Care”
  • Washington Post: “The contractor that designs Ivanka Trump’s clothes does not offer a single day of paid maternity leave”
  • New York Times: “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming”

Let’s look at each of these. While I don’t doubt that self-identified right-wing sites would look into the record of Hillary Clinton’s doctors, it’s much harder to imagine a site like Daily Beast, which fancies itself a centrist outlet (and is even edited by my old Rudy Giuliani speechwriting buddy, John Avlon), expending that kind of investigative energy on Hillary’s non-political professionals. The message is clear: If you associate with Trump, we will rummage through your past.

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters.

As for The Washington Post story, the message was equally clear. While children of presidential candidates have long been considered off limits by the mainstream media, the Post clearly smelled danger in the crossover appeal of a successful, presentable working mother. Ivanka Trump (who, for the thousandth time, is married to the Observer’s publisher) runs a company that is not only among the 10 percent to provide paid maternity leave, but also offers unlimited vacation and sick days and flexible work schedules. So the Post attacked a company that Ivanka’s company does business with, only they implied that Ivanka was responsible for that company’s business practices. The Post later attached an editor’s note and clarified the story to “indicate that Ivanka Trump has no direct managerial role in G-III Apparel Group,” but the damage had been done and the misleading headline remains to this day. Plus, there’s the original URL of the story—which is important in search engine optimization. It has not been corrected and still gives the false implication that Ivanka herself is not providing paid maternity leave.

Then there’s the Peter Thiel story. His actions in supporting Trump supposedly have his industry peers “squirming,” according to The New York Times. Yet Clinton supporters who represent industries in which she is unpopular are portrayed as principled and loyal Democrats. Consider that Politico reported “Clinton haunted by coal country comment.” Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Local officials sent a letter to Sen. Joe Manchin saying ““Bill and Hillary Clinton are simply not welcome in our town.” So how come not a single supporter of hers, including Sen. Manchin and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, is said to be making West Virginia “squirm”?

Where are the mainstream investigations of Hillary’s doctors? Or the business practices of Chelsea Clinton? How is it that none of Hillary’s supporters has any industry “squirming”?

The attacks on Trump supporters extend even beyond Trump relatives to include, bizarrely, the relatives of supporters. Buzzfeed did a whole story on whether Josh Kushner’s business would be hurt by the fact that — can you follow this? — his brother’s wife’s father is the presidential candidate. Is that the standard? Has there been a single article anywhere about the business prospects of Marc Mezvinsky’s siblings? The writer of the Buzzfeed story – the talented reporter Nitasha Tiku, who worked at the Observer and was happy to cash checks signed by Jared Kushner when she did—contacted several colleagues of Josh Kushner to determine whether they’d still be comfortable doing business with Josh’s investment firm, Thrive Capital. The Trump-opposing tech investor Chris Sacca is characterized by Tiku as saying, “The Trump connection might have affected Thrive directly.” The message from the MSM is clear: Support Donald Trump, and you—and maybe even your family—will be ridiculed, investigated and ignored.

The Observer itself provides another good example. Our traffic and users have grown more than 5x since January 2013, from 1.3 million unique users reading 3 million pages a month to 6 million unique users reading 17 million pages a month. This information is easily available. And yet, from the time this contentious, ornery campaign took shape, our documented-to-death Trump connection has been revealed in the way the Observer itself has been covered.

Politico wrote about us, “The paper’s editorials, which had largely ceased having influence…” I showed the reporter data proving that many more people read our editorials today than read them five years ago and I asked him to explain how he reached the conclusion that they had “largely ceased having influence.” He told me, “My editor wrote that line.” He said he’d get back to me if he got an answer. He never did.

Esquire’s hit piece on Jared Kushner called the Observer “a once venerable newspaper” without even pretending to offer an explanation of what made it venerable in the past or why it’s no longer so, despite the increased revenue, readership, staff, investment in journalism or other facts I would have been happy to provide had anyone asked.

The Daily Beast wrote that, “Kushner and the paper’s editor in chief, Ken Kurson, were the object of controversy and staff protests and resignations.” Got that? Staff resignations with an s, as in plural. Actually it’s been one staff resignation, a writer who was not the “top reporter” (he was No. 2 on a three-person team) that CNN crowed about in its headline. Given the constant turnover throughout the Observer’s history, long before Trump ran for president, it’s striking that CNN would devote a headline to this boring-as-hell non-event.

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters.

Then there’s just the general anti-Observer snark. It’s been a fact of life, especially since our beloved longtime editor Peter Kaplan left the paper in 2009, but has been dialed to 11 since Trump began his unlikely ascent in American politics. A telling example involves a trifling story we ran, in which New York Times Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet said ‘F— You’ to a reporter he thought had used racist language. To me, it was the exact kind of funny and revealing little insider story that Kaplan would have loved (and I don’t claim to speak for him, despite the generous way he fed me advice even though I didn’t start here till four years after he left). Nonetheless, some media types, eager for any opportunity to celebrate the Observer’s demise, pounced. The Times’ own Willy Staley, for example, tweeted out the story and insightfully commented, “The Observer has become so f—ing weird!” Staley did not know at the time that Baquet himself praised the story, calling it “Perfectly fair.” It has been fun to watch the media simultaneously declare the Observer totally irrelevant but also responsible for electing the president of the United States.

At least Gawker, z’l, was less circumspect in its disapproval of what takes place here. In lambasting our paper’s endorsement of Trump in the Republican primary (we also endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, which understandably generated far less coverage), Hamilton Nolan wrote “The New York Observer, which was once a good newspaper, is endorsing the owner’s wife’s dad for president.” That’s at least funny, and it acknowledges by stating as a fact that the Observer was once good that the idea that Observer is no longer a “good newspaper” is Nolan’s opinion, rather than trying to hide behind factish sounding writing like “once venerable” or “largely ceased having influence.”

There’s another tactic employed by the mainstream media that’s inversely related to punishing Trump supporters—rewarding Hillary supporters. Not just any Hillary supporters, but those brave Republicans who are putting country ahead of party by supporting Clinton.

Search for “Republicans back Hillary” in Google and you get “There are now dozens of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary” (Washington Post), The Republicans Who Support Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump” (The Atlantic), “Which Republicans Are Against Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet (also The Atlantic), “At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won’t Vote for Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point.” (New York Times), “Here are the Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald” (Time), and The Biggest GOP Names Backing Hillary Clinton—So Far (The Daily Beast).

Enter “Democrats back Trump” and you get a story from The Hill from January and a Toledo Blade story.

The simple explanation would be that tons of Republicans back Hillary while few Democrats back Trump. But that narrative defies the reality of a Republican primary that drew record numbers of new GOP registrants and set a new record for votes cast, unlike the Democratic contest. And with the candidates roughly tied in the polls (the LA Times, for example, has Trump up by 3 points), there’s no way a “wave” of Republican Trump rejecters cannot be equaled by roughly the same number of Democrat Hillary rejecters. Unless the polling is drastically undercounting Hillary supporters (most think it’s more likely to be undercounting Trump voters, who have been shamed out of telling a pollster they support such a “dangerous” candidate), there have to be at least as many Trump Democrats as there are Hillary Republicans. But the media isn’t interested in finding them.

What’s even more surprising than the media suddenly cheering someone like former Bush aide Paul Wolfowitz, who was universally loathed by the MSM up until the moment he announced his support for Hillary has been the way the press issues valentines to Republicans no one has never heard of. How did Maria Comella, a press aide to Chris Christie, merit 1200 words and a “First on CNN” feature on air simply by declaring her support for Hillary?

Republican candidates have long complained about the bias in American media. Most of the time it’s nonsense. John McCain courted the favorable opinion of the New York Times so aggressively and for so long that it was almost fun to see him crying about how tough it was to run against a media darling like Barack Obama in 2008. Mitt Romney, who really did suffer from poor coverage, mostly had himself to blame –secret tapes about 47% freeloaders may have been reported by Mother Jones, but they weren’t manufactured by Mother Jones. And the alleged bias can sometimes work to a Republican’s advantage. When George W. Bush called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a “major league A—-,” probably as many people admired the future president’s authenticity as chastised him for his uncouth remarks.

What’s different here is the dropping of even the pretense of objectivity. In unilaterally determining that Donald Trump is unfit even to be covered objectively—to the point that he must be disqualified by any means necessary—the mainstream media has set a dangerous precedent.

Clemson administration Forbids man from praying outside free speech zone

 

Clemson University Administrator Stops Man From Praying on Campus “This isn’t a free speech area.” (VIDEO)

If you haven’t been following higher education news, you may not be aware that this sort of thing is happening on college campuses all over America.

Schools are designating certain areas as “free speech zones” and in some cases even restricting those areas to certain times of day.

Before you get too angry at the administrator in this video, remember that he wasn’t the one who created this policy, he’s just charged with the awful task of enforcing it.

These ridiculous policies are created by higher level administrators in closed meetings.

Red Alert Politics reported:

Clemson stops man from praying on campus: ‘Not a free speech area’ [VIDEO]

A man was stopped by a Clemson University administrator for praying on campus, telling him and a Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) activist that “this is not a designated free speech area,” and asking them to leave the area. YAF’s blog The New Guard released the video today.

The administrator, Shawn Jones who is the assistant director for client services, also called their praying “solicitation,” and demanded that they would need to fill out paperwork to continue. Clemson receives state and federal funding, and many see these restrictions as disregarding the First Amendment to the Constitution by limiting free speech to certain zones…

“I was walking across the grassy area near Fort Hill after class at about 3:15 when I saw someone sitting in a folding chair. Next to him was another folding chair with an 8×10 sign that said PRAYER. I approached him and we sat down to pray for a few minutes. When we finished, a man from the university approached us and said he could not be praying there because it was not a “designated free speech area” and presented the person who was praying with a form for the procedures for applying for “solicitation” on campus. He told him he had to leave.”

A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian.

Chris

A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian.

By GEORGE NEUMAYR on 5.1.13 @ 6:11AM

But then is told to go back into the closet.

As homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go into it. “Authenticity” is highly prized in society today, provided that what one feels falls safely within the dictates of political correctness. Sports analyst Chris Broussard stepped briefly outside of the Christian closet on Monday and paid the price for it.

“Personally I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex [lifestyle] between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin,” Broussard said on ESPN. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be. I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

ESPN, not long thereafter, apologized for permitting these remarks to disrupt Monday’s canonization: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

Naturally, a Soviet-style clarification was in order from the guilty party, and Broussard supplied it via Twitter by Monday night: “Today on [ESPN], as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today’s news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.”

This may not be sufficient. The columnist H.L. Mencken defined American puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time.” Political correctness, as the new puritanism, harbors the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is holding a Christian thought. Broussard, if he wishes to continue his career in sports journalism, will have to undergo PC-style reparative therapy and adopt a more appropriate level of enthusiasm when future canonizations of homosexual athletes occur.

Unlike his colleagues, he failed to treat the news like a moon landing. It was so important that it warranted a presidential phone call. And he failed to compare Collins to Jackie Robinson. This was “enormous” news, decreed the media.

Except it wasn’t. One detected considerable straining in the accounts as the reporters piled up the qualifiers: Collins is not the first homosexual athlete but the “first active male athlete in a major U.S. professional sports league to come out of the closet,” as theWashington Post put it. Complicating that heavily qualified distinction is that he is not active. He is a free agent who, prior to this announcement, may not have played again. “He’s towards the end of his career and not that good anymore,” said Broussard.

Perhaps Broussard will have to apologize for that judgment too. The media prides itself on the total lack of skepticism when stories like this one break, giving them a Pravda-style rollout. All the propaganda pieces fell into place perfectly, all duly reported by the media: the presidential phone call, a supportive pat on the back from the First Lady, the praise of Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, and America’s other moral giants, an adulatory Good Morning America interview.

Broussard spoiled the festivities by bringing up God, whose celebrity continues to dim. The ruminations of rappers and reality stars now count for more than passages from the Bible.

Last week the media informed those perplexed by the FBI’s lax oversight of the Boston bombers that good Americans shouldn’t care what people think, that the FBI was right not to give heightened scrutiny to people who dabble in jihadist thought. But that same media takes a great deal of interest in the thinking of Christians and monitors them very carefully. Christians, unless they change their thoughts, don’t belong in public life, according to America’s ruling class. They are “un-American,” as actor Tom Hanks once put it in an unguarded moment.

Bill O’Reilly is also concerned that “thumping the Bible” somehow lowers our public discourse. Who needs the word of God when we have the tweets of Michelle Obama? From now on, Christian Broussard will be expected to leave his Bible in the closet.

A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian and is then ordered back in the closet.

Chris

A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian.

By GEORGE NEUMAYR on 5.1.13 @ 6:11AM

But then is told to go back into the closet.

As homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go into it. “Authenticity” is highly prized in society today, provided that what one feels falls safely within the dictates of political correctness. Sports analyst Chris Broussard stepped briefly outside of the Christian closet on Monday and paid the price for it.

“Personally I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex [lifestyle] between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin,” Broussard said on ESPN. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be. I think that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

ESPN, not long thereafter, apologized for permitting these remarks to disrupt Monday’s canonization: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

Naturally, a Soviet-style clarification was in order from the guilty party, and Broussard supplied it via Twitter by Monday night: “Today on [ESPN], as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today’s news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.”

This may not be sufficient. The columnist H.L. Mencken defined American puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time.” Political correctness, as the new puritanism, harbors the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is holding a Christian thought. Broussard, if he wishes to continue his career in sports journalism, will have to undergo PC-style reparative therapy and adopt a more appropriate level of enthusiasm when future canonizations of homosexual athletes occur.

Unlike his colleagues, he failed to treat the news like a moon landing. It was so important that it warranted a presidential phone call. And he failed to compare Collins to Jackie Robinson. This was “enormous” news, decreed the media.

Except it wasn’t. One detected considerable straining in the accounts as the reporters piled up the qualifiers: Collins is not the first homosexual athlete but the “first active male athlete in a major U.S. professional sports league to come out of the closet,” as theWashington Post put it. Complicating that heavily qualified distinction is that he is not active. He is a free agent who, prior to this announcement, may not have played again. “He’s towards the end of his career and not that good anymore,” said Broussard.

Perhaps Broussard will have to apologize for that judgment too. The media prides itself on the total lack of skepticism when stories like this one break, giving them a Pravda-style rollout. All the propaganda pieces fell into place perfectly, all duly reported by the media: the presidential phone call, a supportive pat on the back from the First Lady, the praise of Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, and America’s other moral giants, an adulatory Good Morning America interview.

Broussard spoiled the festivities by bringing up God, whose celebrity continues to dim. The ruminations of rappers and reality stars now count for more than passages from the Bible.

Last week the media informed those perplexed by the FBI’s lax oversight of the Boston bombers that good Americans shouldn’t care what people think, that the FBI was right not to give heightened scrutiny to people who dabble in jihadist thought. But that same media takes a great deal of interest in the thinking of Christians and monitors them very carefully. Christians, unless they change their thoughts, don’t belong in public life, according to America’s ruling class. They are “un-American,” as actor Tom Hanks once put it in an unguarded moment.

Bill O’Reilly is also concerned that “thumping the Bible” somehow lowers our public discourse. Who needs the word of God when we have the tweets of Michelle Obama? From now on, Christian Broussard will be expected to leave his Bible in the closet.

Obama caves to Romney embraces free speech of critics of Islam.

 

Obama caves to Romney embraces free speech of critics of Islam.

Listen very carefully…until this moment on Air Force One, Obama fought against the rights of any American to criticize Islam.  Today, he conveniently discovered free speech.

Read this news item.  My comments are at the end.

President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop Wednesday, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.

 “We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.

“It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,” he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney.

The transcript was released several hours after Obama had a Rose garden statement to condemn criticism of Islam.

Carney read the transcript during an impromptu press conference aboard Air Force One as it carried Obama to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

In another concession to critics of his outreach to Islamist groups, Obama also backed away from Egypt’s Islamist government, which he has supported throughout 2012.

“I don’t think we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama said in an Sept. 12 interview with the Spanish-language channel Telemundo.

Here is my take: Up until today, Obama did not believe in free speech when it comes to Islam.  He admitted this long ago when he said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”  In other words, he would abuse his power as president to censor criticism against Islam.

This explains so much of his behavior.  Remember with the mass murderer at Fort Hood screamed “Allah, Allah Akbar” over and over again as he was shooting fellow soldiers?  Obama’s initial reaction was, and I quote, “let us not rush to judgment.”

His initial reaction to the Embassy attack was this, “The United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”  The fact is we are free as Americans to denigrate any religion. He has not only benefitted from that right but has exercised it himself.  Bill Maher who gave him a million dollars and a host of his base viciously attack Christianity all of the time!  Obama himself was a religious denigrator when he referred to, “those people who cling to their religion and guns.”

Don’t believe the media about any major firestorm against Romney.  The firestorm is against Obama’s shameful reaction to the death of American diplomats, at the hand of Radical Islam on of all days, 911.  He feels the heat and conveniently discovered free speech.