HATE: Left moves on from hunting people on social media to movies about killing them.

If you are someone like Jerry Scanlan, the Sussex County GOP Chairman, you already know what the movie “The Hunt” is all about.  After Sussex County legislators demanded that the state Attorney General come to Sussex County to explain to county taxpayers why their Sheriff was being asked to comply with the Murphy administration’s illegal Sanctuary scheme, the state Democrat Party assigned a local Democrat the task of stalking Scanlan’s social media, to find something to kill his political career.

As we know from the testimony of several Democrat insiders, the Murphy administration was desperate to change the topic from its illegal Sanctuary scheme to something else.  So Scanlan was stalked by Democrats who soon found that he had been sloppy in monitoring the content of a handful of MAGA re-tweets.  After hunting for something to be offended about, the stalkers found it, promptly exclaimed that they had been “offended” and then demanded that Scanlan be fired for the offense of “Free Speech”.

The Democrats appear to forget that here – in America – in this country, we have something called the Bill of Rights.  The same Bill of Rights that allows Democrats to do some of their favorite things… like burn the American flag, or wipe their feet on it, or disrespect Disabled American Veterans (something the Left has been up to since the end of the Vietnam War), or paint a portrait of the Virgin Mother using feces, or place a Christian cross in a vat of urine… The same Bill of Rights allows someone to re-tweet something that is disrespectful of Islam or of Left wing politicians or of Caucasian politicians who claim to be “of color”. 

And even though Scanlan said that the controversial re-tweets were not intentional, that they were mistakenly re-tweeted as part of long Twitter “trains”, and that he apologized for doing it… the stalkers are on the hunt and they want their trophy.  Rather like the new movie the Left is promoting…

Comcast’s board of directors is stone silent amid widespread controversy over the media conglomerate’s “The Hunt” movie that has ruffled feathers for reportedly depicting humans hunting people with different political views for sport as the country mourns a pair of mass shootings.

NBC’s Universal Pictures falls under the Comcast cooperate umbrella, along with liberal news network MSNBC.

A Deadline report confirming the screenplay had been picked for production described the movie as “politically charged,” and The Hollywood Reporter sets up the battle as between “elite liberals” hunting “MAGA types.”

The hypocrisy of some Democrats has jumped the bounds of decency. 

The Murphy administration places gag orders against whistleblowers in a rape case, as it sends stalkers to hunt for something to be “offended” about, so it can have someone fired. 

Murphy’s media allies published the “offensive” material – that nobody would have even known existed if not for the media publishing it – and then claim that so many people have been “offended” that someone must be fired. 

Of course, the media was never “offended” when someone burned the American flag, or wiped their feet on it, or trashed Disabled American Veterans, or placed a Christian cross in a vat of urine.  They never asked that someone be fired for offending millions of Americans.  The media called those offenders “heroes”, even called some of their offensive material “art” and said it should be supported with tax dollars.

The Democrats have long supported flag burning.  Have long voted to spend taxpayer money to support “transgressive” art – so long as it transgressed against America and traditional values.  Now, when such transgression applies to Islam or far-left politicians… they call it “hate”.

Just hypocrites and corrupt politicians on the make.

Garden State Equality tries to muzzle concerns about sexualizing children

By Rubashov

Two recent events offer a contrast in different religious outlooks.  On the one hand, we have the Mayor of Hoboken.  On the other, a School Board Trustee in Hackensack.  Both made comments about the beliefs of others.

In April, the Mayor of Hoboken used the phrase “hateful rhetoric” to describe the display of a bible verse at a peaceful demonstration to protest the efforts by self-described “drag queens” to introduce children as young as three to their belief system.  Not to be outdone, the Hudson County Democratic Organization LGBTQ Caucus attacked the Roman Catholic group that organized the protest, calling their beliefs “a hateful and discriminatory ideology.”

Now you can bet that neither the Mayor or the LGBTQ Caucus would have had the guts to attack the verses from a different religious book – say, the Koran – with quite the same viciousness.  And yet, the respective books of Christians, Jews, and Muslims all lay down the same prohibitions in these matters.  They are all “People of the Book”. 

A few years ago, a very few, there was a general consensus about all those marketing categories represented by all those letters.  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama… they all opposed things like same-sex marriage.  That was until the day before yesterday, when our masters suddenly switched and embraced all that they once opposed.  We are experiencing something like the confusion Rome found itself in when, towards its end, the Emperor decided to ditch the old Roman gods and ordered his people to embrace Christianity.  The old ways were still practiced in private, but in public, it became more and more necessary to conform to the “new” religion.   

Some call this “progress” but others, with a longer historical perspective, can draw parallels that mark it a new paganism.  Whatever it is, it is certainly faith-based, resistant to science and debate. 

Whether this is our new “public” religion, or simply a pseudo-religious cult, all the elements are there.  Proselytizing to children is a part of all religious groups who make the oppression of the cult central to their ideology.  This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others.  Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”?   

Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.  So they come for the children.  Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”.  Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term?  School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis.  All watched by their male classmates.  Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever. 

This is all part of our “new” public religion.  So a new law, signed by Democrat Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters in the marketing code of our “new” public religion.  It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand? 

Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion.  In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter. 

An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her:  “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.”  Each and every.  There is no place for religious dissent. 

This is the new “public” religion and it allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform.  Such “conformity” rubs those of us, like your humble scribe Rubashov, the wrong way.  They can stick their conformity. 

If you are interested in standing up for the American Bill of Rights, Free Speech, Religious Liberty… or if you just want to tell our new masters to shove their conformity, you can do so TOMORROW.

GSE has called for an all-out jihad.  On Tuesday, June 25th, at 7:30pm, you can show up to the Hackensack City Council Meeting at Hackensack City Hall, 65 Central Avenue, on the 3rd floor.  Perhaps there will be an honest and open discussion on free speech and the new conformity?  Instead of dishonest conformity – the child of oppression – maybe GSE will embrace the diversity that is not confined by a mere handful of letters?  Will they embrace the common humanity that they share even with those who do not “celebrate” their beliefs?

Maybe… but it will be a snapshot of at what stage we are in the hegemony of our new public religion.  It should make for an interesting spectacle. 

If you want to contact the Hackensack City Council, you can do so by following the links on this page…


A Democrat asks: "Where does free speech end?"

A Democrat activist wrote:  "Where does free speech end?  Certainly at the grill of a Dodge Challenger.  KKK and confederate flags have always been around in my lifetime, protected as free speech, but nazi (sic) flags?  With a war in living memory that killed millions and a movement that killed millions more, I thought swastikas were a red line.  Are nazi (sic) flags free speech?  I know/hope that republicans (sic) don't support this but will they speak up, or are they entirely spineless?"

Purposefully running down somebody with an automobile isn't free speech.  It is murder.  Because it happened in Virginia, with its Republican Legislature (the GOP controls the Senate 21 to 19 and the House of Delegates 66 to 34), if convicted the perpetrator will get the death penalty and will be executed for his crime. 

This wouldn't happen in New Jersey, with its Democrat-controlled Legislature.  Here the perpetrator would be coddled at taxpayer expense and would, perhaps, sue the state because he wasn't receiving enough benefits.  It wasn't long ago that a convicted rapist sued the state so that he could have a sex-change operation and serve the remainder of his sentence as a "woman".  Of course, James Randall Smith, who was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 17-year-old girl, expected the state's taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation.

As for Nazi flags, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that a Nazi flag is as much an element of free speech as is burning the American flag.  On its website, the ACLU explains why it defended Nazis:

"In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause."

The ACLU makes its arguments for all to read, on its website, and we encourage everyone to visit the website (www.aclu.org):

"Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is 'the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.'

Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die. 

But in spite of its 'preferred position' in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish 'seditious'  and 'subversive' speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were 'fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.'  Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith...

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish 'any false, scandalous and malicious writing' against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who 'by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves'  was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as 'radical' by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.

...The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are 'indivisible.'

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is 'the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.'"

Everyone should ask themselves the question, "Where does free speech end?"  And then follow that question with another:  "When do you want it to end?"