Liberal free-speech defenders aren’t as free-speechy as they may seem

Unctuous liberals faking deep love for the First Amendment are a dime a dozen right now, what with their educational spawn on U.S. campuses turning out to be every bit as totalitarian as they taught them to be.

And, yeah, I know. Arizona Republic contributor Mike McClellan is a very minor-league example of the genre. But he wrote a classic case study this week depicting why the Left really doesn’t mean it when mumbling their “I cherish free speech” mumbo-jumbo.

So let’s yank him by the collar out from behind the “antifa” crowd he’s helped create.

If you’re going to establish your “Mr. Reasonable” bona fides and argue that even disagreeable people have a right to the public square, quit with the insufferable virtue-signalling pejoratives about what awful human beings they are.

As wicked as they are… as evil as they are… as contemptible as they are… as… Republican as they are… we simply must, for the sake of our own precious nobility, let the heathens speak!

Ann Coulter is “a publicity-seeking shill.” Charles Murray has “written about the alleged genetic inferiority of blacks.” Along with a white nationalist whose bad-guy rep until recently couldn’t raise four figures for that great, liberal fundraising machine, the Southern Poverty Law Center, McClellan says “all three stake out various degrees of putrid points of view.”

Let these intellectual empty vessels speak, he says: “Are they afraid Coulter and Co. will win the day and influence students to adopt their repulsive views?”

Be kind and gentle to these “objectionable folks,” he says: “”Chances are you’ll find them ridiculous, offensive and lacking substance as they present their distorted, often fact-free opinions.”

Let’s remember who McClellan’s audience here is: our darling campus snowflakes, who have learned their sense of unchallengeable  nobility from people like McClellan, a retired high-school teacher. Does he really think these charming knowledge-seekers are interested in listening to the arguments of people that even Mr. Reasonable considers “repulsive?”

Are they? How about them? Or maybe this lovely bunch?

These very illiberal children of McClellan’s corn already believe very strongly that conservative speakers are repulsive. All conservatives. They believe they’re objectionable. That their points of view are distorted and fact-free (even though, like McClellan in reference to Murray, they don’t know jack, themselves).

What do liberals like him think they’re actually telling to these kids if not to hate the haters? McClellan obviously does.

Does he really think that they make a moment’s distinction between an Ann Coulter and, say, a Heather Mac Donald, who is the country’s most eloquent, fact-based thinker on behalf of cops? Or the Vice PresidentBecause they don’t.

And don’t get me started on this guy’s insultingly disingenuous posture pretending to have just discovered this free-speech hub-bub on campuses (“There apparently is an informal speech police present” on campuses… well, freaking DUH!)

I’m sure that campus unrest dismays the land’s McClellans. It seems to have kinda, sorta dismayed this one. And I’m sure they all have a nostalgic fondness for the First Amendment.

But if you really want to call off the campus hounds, try not to justify every hate-thought they already have.

 

Another Attack on Charitable Giving by Local NBC Affiliate

In case you missed it, friend and conservative champion Sean Noble went head-to-head with Brahm Resnik in a Sunday Square Off exclusive.

Brahm continued to push the issue of “dark money” and Sean pushed back defending charitable donations as anonymous free speech protected by the First Amendment.

I would further the argument by noting that the media doesn’t go after the NAACP over donations made to that organization.

The bottom line is that there are patriots who want to engage in issue advocacy by donating to organizations who can message on an economy of scale basis while having that form of speech protected.

Here’s the interview:

Jerry Weiers — Friend of Special Interests, Enemy of Glendale Taxpayers

Note to Readers:  This post is a repost and being reposted without any knowledge or approval by Shane.  This post was originally posted a few days ago but removed after Jerry’s campaign complained to their friends on 24th Street.  Seems certain Party leadership doesn’t believe in free speech anymore. They seem to believe it is ok to attack Republicans on this or another blog run by a certain county party chair as long as the posts don’t attack their sacred cows.

Jerry Weiers, a candidate for Glendale’s mayor, tries to hold himself out as a conservative.  But after reviewing his positions and legislative history, he is misleading the voters.  In reality, Jerry is a friend of special interests and an enemy of Glendale’s taxpayers.

Jerry claims to support lower taxes but vehemently opposes Glendale’s initiative to reverse the recently passed sales tax increase.  With this 0.7% tax increase, Glendale has the highest sales tax (10.2% on retail purchases; 11.2% on restaurants and bars) of any large city in the County.  Glendale currently has the third highest sales tax rate of the 107 largest cities in the country and became #1 with this increase.  Wouldn’t someone claiming to oppose tax increases be aghast and oppose this increase?

NOT Special Interest Jerry.  This $23 million sales tax increase will go towards paying Glendale’s $30+ million dollar a year subsidy to a special interest, the Phoenix Coyotes.  So Jerry thinks it’s OK for Glendale’s citizens to pay the highest sale tax in the county to subsidize professional hockey.  True fiscally conservatives oppose the sales tax increase that is being used to subsidize a pro hockey team.

While supporting a tax increase affecting Glendale’s citizenry and small businesses, Jerry does support an exception of the sales tax increase applying to two millionaire new car dealers in Glendale, one of whom doesn’t even want the special tax break.  Jerry thinks it is fine to give tax breaks to two millionaire new car dealers while raising taxes on groceries bought by Glendale taxpayers.   That’s Special Interest Jerry for you!!

But these positions by Jerry should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed his legislative career.  Overall, Jerry’s legislative career is unsurprisingly unaccomplished.  Jerry’s biggest accomplishment in his eight years at the Capital is his constant and persistent shakedowns of lobbyists and others at the Capital for money for the special interests he supports.  His constant shakedown of lobbyists became so blatant and offensive that another Republican state legislator introduced a bill last session to stop Jerry’s shakedowns.

Jerry claims to be a fiscal conservative – also a lie.  Jerry was recently graded as “Needs Improvement” by Americans for Prosperity, a leading fiscally conservative taxpayer’s group.

The proclivity of this current city council to give millions of taxpayer money to special interests has taken Glendaleto the brink of bankruptcy.  Does Glendale really want a new Mayor who will continue those policies that have made Glendalethe worst run city in Arizona?  Does Glendale really need another mayor who cares more about special interests than Glendale’s taxpayers and citizens?   Glendale needs a truly fiscally conservative mayor – and that’s not Jerry Weiers.