Progressive Free Speech

Here’s an example of Progressive free speech.  Todd Starnes, of Fox News, reported last week that two public school teachers are being investigated for posting messages critical of President Barack Obama on social networking sites.

A Rock Hill, SC, junior high math teacher is now on forced-leave because she disparaged, on her personal Facebook page, Obama and his food stamps:

Congrats Obama.  As one of my students sang down the hallway, “We get to keep our food stamps….”  [W]hich I pay for because they can’t budget their money…and really, neither can you.

School officials said that some folks had had their feelings hurt by this personal speech, so the school forced her onto leave and to apologize.  Though, with her having done nothing wrong, I’m at a loss to understand why she apologized.  I also am mystified by the teacher’s union’s silence on the matter.

The school’s spokeswoman said,

Sometimes you just can’t speak out publicly about what you’d personally like to say, about anything….

And she said that with a straight face, too.

A Columbus, OH, high school teacher is in similar hot water.  His evil message:

Congrats to those dependent on government, homosexuals, potheads, JAY-Z fans, non-Christians, non-taxpayers, illegals, communists, Muslims, planned murder clinics, enemies of America, Satan You WON….

Stupid, to be sure, but free speech, in some circles, means being free from having one’s thin skin pricked.

Europe and Terrorism

In preparation for the upcoming meeting between the European Union’s various foreign ministers and their Arab League counterparts, Spiegel International Online interviewed Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn on, among other things, Israeli settlement building.  This exchange, in particular, was interesting [emphasis added]:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Violence is also escalating in the Gaza Strip.

Asselborn: No one can or should justify violence—not even if it originates with Palestinians in Gaza.

Not even if it originates with terrorists.

And this exchange:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to meet the Palestinian president immediately in Ramallah or Jerusalem for peace talks.  Why are the Palestinians rejecting this offer?

Asselborn: Because it is just lip service. The Israeli settlement policy is an affront to every Palestinian because it is a constant provocation.

But, of course, the constant rocket attacks and the steady drumbeat of suicide bombing attempts from Gaza aren’t at all provocative.

No, if it’s an Israeli move, it’s just lip service; if it’s a PLO or Hamas move, it’s entirely innocent and sincere.

Hmm….

Sovereignty

Who is sovereign in our country, government or We the People who employ that government?

Progressives like Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) seem to think that it’s government.

It’s [having referendums] probably been made a little too easy.  There was a requirement that required 50,000 actual physical signatures.  Because of the Internet that has been so easy to do electronically, that the legislature probably needs to revisit that.

Maryland radio station WBAL chimes in, reporting that:

Critics of the process say that a group of opponents can use the referendum process to overturn legislation they don’t like[.]

Yeah—it’s terrible that a questionable government act should be put to the government’s employer for approval or rejection.  Remember, while it may take a small minority to force the government to submit to the will of its employer, it still takes a majority of that employer to overrule their employee.  And if that majority does so, it’s an entirely appropriate exercise of the People’s sovereign authority.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer Than This

Ustad Ahmad Farooq, al Qaeda’s spokesman for Pakistan, has issued a statement, addressed to his “beloved Pakistani brothers and sisters.”  That statement says, in part,

Nobody spoke up for thousands of such Malalas who became victims of military operations, and nobody protested for them on the roads.  But these circles made so much noise when we targeted this girl who made of fun of jihad, the veil and other Islamic values on behest of the British Broadcasting Corporation. … I may ask why? Why is Malala’s blood more important than those killed by the army?  The attack on Malala has been termed a national tragedy, but no one pays any attention when…the army targets gems of the Ummah who come to Khorasan to wage jihad from Arab lands and other places of world.  Why these double standards?

I’ll ignore the…inaccuracy…of the BBC’s role in Malala Yousufzai’s push for educating herself and educating other girls, and women, generally.

Threat Matrix (the above link) also cites SITE Intelligence Group‘s translation of Farooq’s statement as including Farooq’s “puzzlement” over why “these circles” ignore women who die due to poverty and those women (and children) killed during military operations.

In civilized nations, though (and here I include Pakistan), the people and their governments work hard to alleviate that poverty so that all—women, children, men—can lead safer, more confortable lives.  In civilized nations, the people, their military, and their governments work very hard to minimize deaths from collateral damage, as well as work very hard to minimize collateral damage to real estate and other facilities when battles are fought.  They mourn the deaths, they hold accountable those responsible for the collateral damage and deaths that could have been avoided with more careful targeting.

These are accidental, and they are generally within our power to minimize, if not to avoid altogether.  They are not the result of deliberate acts.

But al Qaeda (in Pakistan, and everywhere else) insists, through Farooq, that the deliberate murder of a particular child, on the one hand, is of a piece with these accidents and conditions that civilized peoples work tirelessly to alleviate, and on the other hand is entirely justifiable as a deliberate act.  Al Qaeda insists, through Farooq, that those who “come to Khorasan to wage jihad”—that is who go to Khorasan for training in the techniques of murdering the Mulalas and any other innocents they can reach, for training in the mass murder of Americans, Spanish, British, Pakistanis, Afghanis, of anyone—are not legitimate targets: we are not to defend ourselves.

Can any civilized person have any doubt left that al Qaeda—that terrorist gangs everywhere—must be destroyed?