CNN Reacts to the Supreme Court's Ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop (VIDEO)

Poppy Harlow does a good job at maintaining objectivity, but it's not until 8:30 minutes into this video where she brings up the issue of the Colorado commission authorities' extreme hostility to religion. I mean, from the case we see intense animus to Christianity:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

I tweeted:

Leftists like Nina Totenberg are downplaying the Court's ruling, claiming it was decided on the most "narrow grounds," but reading it we see a major statement denouncing the radical left's monstrous religious bigotry and anti-Christian animus. #MasterpieceCakeshop #SCOTUS 🙏 https://t.co/YmJo3xUskj

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 4, 2018

#MasterpieceCakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: #SCOTUS https://t.co/N53SQ3Mif4

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 4, 2018

But watch, at CNN:

Big Win for Religious Freedom in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Actually, it's apparently a very narrow ruling touching on the nature of religious bias in Colorado's anti-discrimination legislation, but either way, conservative proponents of freedom of expression and religious belief are going to be jumping for the moon today.

At the Washington Post, "Supreme Court rules in favor of baker who would not make wedding cake for gay couple":

Supreme Court narrowly rules for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple https://t.co/ovz7BwsqGG

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 4, 2018

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that leaves many questions unanswered, the court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not adequately taken into account the religious beliefs of baker Jack Phillips.

In fact, Kennedy said, the commission had been hostile to Baker’s faith, denying him the neutral consideration he deserved. While the justices split in their reasoning, only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

Phillips contended that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — for free speech and for the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

Scattered across the country, florists, bakers, photographers and others have claimed that being forced to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples violates their rights. Courts have routinely turned down the business owners, as the Colorado Court of Appeals did in the Phillips case, saying that state anti-discrimination laws require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

There’s no dispute about what triggered the court case in 2012, when same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado. Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece bakery...

Also at Memeorandum.

NRA Darling Sensation 'Alpha Addy'

At the Los Angeles Times, "She's a YouTube sensation and NRA darling: Meet 9-year-old sharpshooter 'Alpha Addy'":

Nine-year-old Addysson "Addy" Soltau became a YouTube sensation after learning to shoot three years ago. Now she's the darling of the NRA https://t.co/C46BKEDEm5 pic.twitter.com/sW3pFPTgch

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 6, 2018

The gap-toothed 9-year-old girl walked the floor of her first National Rifle Assn. convention, her blond ponytail bobbing above earrings fashioned from bullet casings.

When Addysson "Addy" Soltau arrived at the Smith & Wesson booth, she gravitated to a sleek silver .22 semiautomatic Victory pistol, a James Bond-style gun with a silencer attached. It was just out of reach. So her godfather lifted it from the wall and handed it to the girl, who gripped and sighted along the gun like a pro. She already shoots an M&P 15-22 rifle hanging nearby.

"That's actually your next gun," her godfather, Johnny Campos, said of the pistol. Addy gaped, overjoyed.

"Alpha Addy" became a YouTube sensation and NRA darling after she started shooting three years ago, one of many competitive girl shooters who buck not only gun culture stereotypes, but the youth-driven gun control movement that sprung up after the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., this year.

The NRA doesn't track the number of young female shooters, a spokesman said, but as the number of women with guns has grown, they are inspiring their daughters. The National Shooting Sports Foundation says there's been a 77% increase in female gun ownership since 2005, with 5.4 million women participating in target shooting.

All of the youth celebrities at this weekend's annual NRA convention in Dallas, which was expected to draw more than 80,000 people, were female. Keystone Sporting Arms, which sold the Crickett and Chipmunk starter rifles at the convention under the banner "Never too young to understand freedom," sells as many pink and turquoise guns as the traditional colors, staff said. On Sunday, families with children flocked to the Dallas convention center for NRA Youth Day.

Many who stopped at the JM4 Tactical booth where Addy was greeting fans Sunday were parents and girl shooters who recognized her from her videos. A video of her rapidly reloading at home has more than 30 million views; she has 14,000 Facebook followers, 5,600 on Instagram and nearly 300 subscribers on YouTube, where the lead video shows her target shooting to the tune of Miley Cyrus' "Wrecking Ball."

Addy was inspired by 17-year-old Katelyn Francis, a female competitive shooter she saw featured on NRATV while her godfather was babysitting her in San Antonio. Then she found the YouTube channel of Faith and Jenna Collier, sisters in nearby Austin who were about her age, and asked if she could shoot too.

Campos, 28, a retired Marine, agreed to coach her.

"She had never been around firearms. I didn't own any. Her parents didn't. This all started because she showed an interest," he said.

Addy's parents, who work at an education company, had their doubts.

Keep reading.

Australia Senator Wears Full Burka in Parliament

At Disneyland last week I saw a woman going around the park in a full burka, specifically with the niqab, the facial veil the covers everything except the eyes. And I'm thinking, did she have to take that off to get her picture taken? You see, when you buy your park ticket now, they scan the barcode on the ticket and take your picture. So, when you leave the park or come back in, or cross over from California Adventures to the old Disneyland, they scan the barcode and your picture pops up on the handheld device. It's really awesome technology. I noticed some of the staff don't even look at the picture, but then another (older gentleman) scanned our tickets and was very carefully looking at the mug shots.

I think it's great!

But, then there's the question? Did the lady have to take off her niqab? My wife said they just probably took the photo with the niqab on, but then anyone could put on that niqab and use her ticket to get into the park, which defeats the purpose of the technology.

In any case, this piece, at NYT, got me thinking:

A senator shocked Australia’s Parliament after appearing in a full-body burqa and advocating for its ban https://t.co/abbZ99WRZA

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) August 17, 2017

Thomas E. Ricks, Churchill and Orwell

At Amazon, Thomas E. Ricks, Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom.

James Poulos, The Art of Being Free

At Amazon, James Poulos, The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves.

'The fact that two different speeches triggered violence at two different campuses within the space of a month suggests that we may be entering into a new and more dangerous phase of the anti-free-speech movement...'

Well, you think?

It's Megan McArdle, via Instapundit, "MEGAN MCARDLE OFFERS ADVICE TO STUDENT PROTESTERS: Use Your Words."

Who Was Paul Revere?

Seems like such a central historical figure, but hey, our culture's messed up, starting with the public education system.

Here's Eric Metaxas, for Prager University:



And ICYMI, buy his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America

*BUMPED.*

I just pulled out my old copy in the original hardback.

But it's still available in paper.

At Amazon, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (Revised and Enlarged Edition).

One of the added sections at the revised edition is "Schlesinger’s Syllabus," an essay on "the thirteen books you must read to understand America."

How awesome. If only more professors steeped their students in these classics.

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday

I love President Lincoln. He's my favorite president. I just wish I could transport back in time and meet him.

He was born 208 years ago today.

In any case, here's Scott Johnson, at Power Line, "REMEMBERING MR. LINCOLN," and "THINKIN’ ABOUT 'LINCOLN' AGAIN."

While only 272 words, the #GettysburgAddress is still one of the most powerful speeches ever given. #PresidentLincoln #LoveLincoln pic.twitter.com/pGELhijcxW

— The National Mall (@TheNationalMall) February 11, 2017

FedEx Driver Shuts Down Flag Burning Protest in Iowa City (VIDEO)

Barstool Sports is loving it, "Protestors Try to Burn The American Flag in Iowa City, Hero FedEx Dude Saves the Day":

What a goddamn hero! FedEx guy! Do work buddy! A bunch of punk ass protestors doing punk ass protestor things like trying to burn the Amrican flag and the FedEx dude was having NONE OF IT. They picked the wrong day to protest in Iowa City. FedEx guy stopped delivering packages and saved the damn day. I wanna kiss that FedEx dude on the mouth...

More.

Flag burning sets off clash at pedestrian mall in Iowa. https://t.co/s3wHt7Rovd

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 27, 2017

This FedEx guy is my hero. Merica.pic.twitter.com/WEcS268m75

— Cloyd Rivers (@CloydRivers) January 27, 2017

Geert Wilders Convicted of 'Hate Speech'

Well, perhaps Mr. Wilders might move here, after the new Trump regime comes to power. He'll have a nice welcome compared to "old Europe," the hateful Europe of far-left political correctness and oppression.

At the Guardian U.K., "Geert Wilders found guilty of inciting discrimination" (via Memeorandum).

And at Pamela's, "Islam in Europe: Freedom party’s Dutch MP Geert Wilders CONVICTED of heresy, WILDERS’ STATEMENT":

Freedom party leader Geert Wilders has been convicted of hate speech today in the Netherlands.

I have long known, admired and worked with Geert Wilders. I brought him to CPAC back in 2009. He spoke at our Ground Zero Mosque protests in 2010. He is one of the world’s foremost fighters in defense of liberty, a modern-day Churchill. He is a towering figure, iconic of the fight in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. We oppose jihad and sharia.

The unending persecution of Wilders is the byproduct of Islam in Europe. Today he was found guilty of discrimination — hate speech — in other words, violating the speech laws under the sharia (Islamic law).

I predict this will backfire and Geert Wilders will go on to be elected Prime Minister in the next election.

Here is Geert Wilders’ response to his conviction:

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

There's video at the link.

PHOTO: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

BONUS: "Geert Wilders' Right to Speak."

Well, Shoot, I Was Waiting for Trump's Purge Anarchy

Scott Eric Kaufman has died.

The hand of God swept to smite that asshole from the earth.

When I think of the one person I'd purge if purge anarchy was a possibility (in our times of troubles), it'd be SEK.

Sorry not sorry.

This was an evil person, a perfect representation of the evil the left produces. There is no redeeming quality. There's nothing redeeming I could even think of in his case. He was an all-around despicable person and I'm cheering his exit from this mortal existence.

Good riddance.

In any case, long time readers will get it. If you're a newbie around these parts, see "The Lies of Scott Eric Kaufman — Leftist Hate-Blogger Sought to Silence Criticism With Libelous Campaign of Workplace Harassment."

Supreme Court's Docket Likely to Change

One of the most importantly impacts of Trump's election will be its effect on the Supreme Court. We'll have a new member sometime early next year, and it's likely to be a conservative, which will preserve the 5-4 balance existing at the time of Antonin Scalia's death.

And Ruth Bader Ginsberg is frail. She's pledged to hang on, but how long is unknown. (Rumors swirled last year that Clarence Thomas was thinking about retirement, and so now's a good time, since he can rest assured Trump will appoint a conservative to replace him.)

At any rate, at WSJ, "Republican Victories Likely to Alter Supreme Court’s Docket":

WASHINGTON—Republican victories in Tuesday’s election are nearly certain to alter the Supreme Court’s docket, reviving conservative ambitions and dashing liberal hopes, even before President-elect Donald Trump nominates a successor next year for the court’s open seat.

Legal observers are discussing which cases already in the court’s pipeline are likely to disappear as the Trump administration reverses policies advanced under Democratic President Barack Obama.

The docket shift should accelerate as the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia nears, likely reviving cases challenging public-sector unions and campaign-finance regulations.

Without clarity about the court’s future direction since Justice Scalia died in February, the justices ducked cases that otherwise might have been accepted. That will change once a ninth justice joins a court now split evenly between conservatives and liberals.

Before the court’s docket gets more interesting, however, it is likely to get less so if some of the most prominent cases are removed, such as a dispute over which restrooms in public schools transgender students can use.

In April, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., relied on legal guidance from the U.S. Education Department in ruling for Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who contended the Gloucester County, Va., school board violated federal sex-equity laws by requiring students to use facilities corresponding to their biological sex. If the Trump administration rescinds that guidance or takes the opposite position, the justices might throw out the lower court opinion without requiring oral argument.

Other cases involving Obama administration policies could meet similar fates.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court sent back to lower courts challenges to Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which requires cuts in carbon emissions to reduce climate change; the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which would allow illegal immigrants with children who are U.S. citizens to work; and Affordable Care Act regulations attempting to ensure that women who work for religion-affiliated organizations can obtain prescription birth control through employer-provided health insurance.

With the Trump administration expected to consider canceling such policies, the cases could vanish. The incoming president could also ensure the government doesn’t appeal a lower court decision last month that reduced the independence of another Obama-era legacy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Another high-profile case, challenging a Missouri law limiting public subsidies for religious schools, is almost sure to leave the docket as a result of Tuesday’s election. The newly elected Republican attorney general, Josh Hawley, had while in private practice filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the state on behalf of the Assemblies of God denomination. After taking office in January, he could settle with the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Mo., which is seeking a state grant to resurface its preschool playground.

Progressive legal activists had imagined a Hillary Clinton presidential victory that, by filling the Scalia vacancy, could create the first liberal majority on the Supreme Court since 1969. Now, however, they can expect to return to the role they have played for nearly half a century: defense against a conservative legal offensive.

The nature of environmental litigation before the high court also is almost certain to shift. During the Obama years, industries, developers and their allies have challenged administration regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws...

Still more.

I love that all these Obama-era clusterfuck policies and regulations are going to be flushed. I love it to the high heavens. I love it!

Elections have consequences.

Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion

Following-up, "Donald Trump and American Populism."

At Amazon, Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History.

Gary Gerstle, Liberty and Coercion

Hmm.

I missed this book somehow and just came across a citation of it.

It looks good. Right up my alley even.

At Amazon, Gary Gerstle, Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government from the Founding to the Present.

Supreme Court Justices Return to Face Volatile Docket

I was just thinking about the Court's new term this week, since I'm doing civil liberties in my classes and I thought I might show my students an article or two or the coming term, which starts (each year) at the beginning of October.

So, what do you know?

See the New York Times, "Supreme Court Faces Volatile, Even if Not Blockbuster, Docket":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, awaiting the outcome of a presidential election that will determine its future, returns to the bench this week to face a volatile docket studded with timely cases on race, religion and immigration.

The justices have been shorthanded since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, and say they are determined to avoid deadlocks. That will require resolve and creativity.

“This term promises to be the most unpredictable one in many, many years,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general in the Obama administration now with Hogan Lovells.

There is no case yet on the docket that rivals the blockbusters of recent terms addressing health care, abortion or same-sex marriage. But such cases are rare, whether there are eight justices or nine.

“This term’s cases are not snoozers,” said Elizabeth B. Wydra, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group. “This term features important cases about racial bias in the criminal justice system, voting rights and redistricting, immigration and detention, and accountability for big banks that engaged in racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices.”

There are, moreover, major cases on the horizon, including ones on whether a transgender boy may use the boys’ restroom in a Virginia high school and on whether a Colorado baker may refuse to serve a same-sex couple.

“If either of these cases is taken, it will almost immediately become the highest profile case on the court’s docket,” said Steven Shapiro, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

There is also the possibility that a dispute over the outcome of the presidential election could end up at the Supreme Court, as it did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

“That is the doomsday scenario in some respects of having an eight-member court,” said Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer with Sidley Austin. A deadlocked Supreme Court would leave in place the lower court ruling and oust the justices from their role as the final arbiters of federal law.

Race figures in many of the new term’s most important cases, including two to be heard in October, and that seems to be part of a new trend. “The court hasn’t had a lot of cases recently dealing with race in the criminal justice system,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford.

In June, a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought a new perspective to the issue. Citing James Baldwin’s “The Fire Next Time” and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” she insisted that the brutal history and contemporary reality of racism in the United States must play a role in the court’s analysis.

That dissent may prove influential, said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “One item to keep an eye on this term,” he said, “is the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement makes its presence felt on the court’s docket.”

On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments in Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049. It arose from an extraordinary assertion by an expert witness in the death penalty trial of Duane Buck, who was convicted of the 1995 murders of a former girlfriend and one of her friends while her young children watched. The expert, presented by the defense, said that black men are more likely to present a risk of future danger.

The justices will decide whether Mr. Buck, who is black, may challenge his death sentence based on the ineffectiveness of the trial lawyer who presented that testimony.

“The Buck case raises questions that could not be more relevant to ongoing conversations sparked by police shootings about implicit bias and stereotyping of African-American men as violent and dangerous,” Ms. Wydra said. “The Roberts court, and particularly the chief justice himself, has often been reluctant to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in this country, but the egregious facts of the Buck case make it impossible to avoid.”

On Oct. 11, the court will consider another biased statement, this one ascribed to a juror during deliberations in a sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the juror said of the defendant, according to a sworn statement from a second juror.

The question in the case, Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606, is how to balance the interest in keeping jury deliberations secret against the importance of ridding the criminal justice system of racial and ethnic bias.

Race also figures in cases on redistricting, fair housing and malicious prosecution...

Well, that's a lot of stuff on race and criminal justice, but I can't wait to see the Court take up the transgender restroom issue, to say nothing of the homosexual wedding cakes. You gotta ask how far is the culture war going to succeed in rending our country into that which is totally unrecognizable.

But keep reading. We'll certainly know in due time.

Statement from Dean Melanie Wilson About Professor Glenn Reynolds's tweet

I saw this at Memeorandum yesterday, "Statement from Dean Melanie Wilson about Professor’s Tweet."

And at Instapundit, "THE UNIVERSITY ENDS ITS INVESTIGATION: “In short, no disciplinary action will be taken against Professor Reynolds. The tweet was an exercise of his First Amendment rights.” Though perhaps not the most brilliant such."

Heh, it goes with the territory these days. If you're a conservative online, and a public intellectual college professor, expect the attack mobs to come after you with 20 divisions.

More here.

Glenn Reynolds 'Planning on Quitting Twitter'

I just saw this, at Politico, "USA Today suspends columnist Glenn Reynolds for one month."

Instapundit's got the best column over at the newspaper. That'd be lame of he got canned, so obviously posting on Twitter's not going to be worth it.

Frankly, I quit for a week after Robert Stacy McCain's @RSMcCain got banned. I didn't miss it that much.

In any case, here's the Professor, "TWITTER HAS UNBLOCKED MY ACCOUNT ON CONDITION OF DELETING THE OFFENDING TWEET."

Also, "OPENED UP TWITTER TO SEE THIS..." Click through to see the offending tweet.

Frankly, it wasn't what he said. It's who he is. Leftists hate Glenn Reynolds and they want his scalp. The Internet's one big lynch mob and demonic fever-swamp progs seized a chance to destroy the Instapundit.

More at Zilla of the Resistance, "The Long Knives Are Out for @Instapundit – The Mob Demands He Lose His Job":

Leftists can use violent rhetoric and actual acts of violence against people with impunity, but a politically incorrect statement by a non-leftist MUST be punished, according to our self proclaimed moral superiors, so the “offended” will scream and howl until the target of their rage is utterly ruined.

USA Today published an apology from Reynolds along with a statement from the paper that his column has been suspended for a month, but in the comments section, predictably, there is screeching that he should also lose his job at the university where he works.

The University of Tennessee is now investigating the good professor.

The PC mob will not be satisfied until they have utterly destroyed a good man’s reputation and ability to make a living.

It's true. And all of that over a throwaway snarky tweet.

.@Instapundit Considering anarchy in #Charlotte last night, to "run them down" would be purely defensive. Screw the leftist speech police.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) September 22, 2016

Glenn Reynolds, @instapundit, has been reinstated. Deets at https://t.co/AUY3qZQGJc pic.twitter.com/lQ3xgCZx2g

— reason (@reason) September 22, 2016

(Longtime readers know that I've dealt with these lynch mobs myself and they're demonstrably evil. It's chilling too, but you can't back down. Fight these fuckers, even if you have to hire a lawyer. They'd murder you if they could get away with it, so watch your back. I do.)

Equality, Liberty, Justice

Heh.

It's the formula for a better world, and a richer one, from Deirdre McCloskey, at NYT, "The Formula for a Richer World? Equality, Liberty, Justice":

We can improve the conditions of the working class. Raising low productivity by enabling human creativity is what has mainly worked. By contrast, taking from the rich and giving to the poor helps only a little — and anyway expropriation is a one-time trick. Enrichment from market-tested betterment will go on and on and, over the next century or so, will bring comfort in essentials to virtually everyone on the planet, and more to an expanding middle class.

Look at the astonishing improvements in China since 1978 and in India since 1991. Between them, the countries are home to about four out of every 10 humans. Even in the United States, real wages have continued to grow — if slowly — in recent decades, contrary to what you might have heard. Donald Boudreaux, an economist at George Mason University, and others who have looked beyond the superficial have shown that real wages are continuing to rise, thanks largely to major improvements in the quality of goods and services, and to nonwage benefits. Real purchasing power is double what it was in the fondly remembered 1950s — when many American children went to bed hungry.

What, then, caused this Great Enrichment?

Not exploitation of the poor, not investment, not existing institutions, but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative and energetic...

RTWT.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.