Category Archives: Liberal Intolerance

Top Democrat: ‘We Need a New Constitution’

The kind of rhetoric emanating from the left has become simply unbelievable. While there has always been an ideological difference between the right and the left, we currently find ourselves at a spot in our nation’s history where Democrats are actually pushing for altering the First Amendment – a fundamental liberty that protects our freedom of speech.

Now, as if it weren’t bad enough that Senate Democrats have waged war on the First Amendment, Donna Brazile, Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has called for us to actually throw away the Constitution and form a new one- one that would made conservatism extinct in politics.

This is not a new idea; most despots have pushed this very same concept in the years that immediately preceded brutal regimes dedicated to tyranny and/or genocide of ethnic or political minorities.

Andrew Burstein, a columnist for the leftist rag, Salon, recently wrote an absurd piece calling for a new Constitution. It’s entitled, “We need a new Constitution: Here’s how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent.”

Yes – those dreaded one percent… The left always hate financial donors unless they’re Democrat donors; then they are agents of progress and political virtue.

Brazile joined the discussion and tweeted:

We need a new constitution: Here’s how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 28, 2014

This is absolutely revolting. The same people who pretend that Republicans simply block any legislation with which they disagree are the very same people who are calling for a radical redefinition of freedom of speech to suit their political ends and they even pretend to assume some sort of ethical highground!

Our political system is imperfect. Sometimes, good ideas fail and bad ideas win out. However, the solution should be to try and return to tried-and-true principles of freedom, not to crackdown on those who speak out.

The left’s crusade for campaign finance restrictions is an effort to silence conservatives who want to give money to offset the extreme liberal agenda. These restrictions are carefully crafted to negatively affect conservative donors and leave the money from leftist flowing.

If we bend on this issue, our republic ceases to exist as a true republic. Period. We cannot rewrite the First Amendment and we certainly cannot throw-out the Constitution because it is inconvenient and incompatible with Democrats’ political agenda.


Democrats Launch Campaign to Get ‘Rush Limbaugh Off the Air’

During the Bush administration, national Democrat leaders threatened to kill the ABC network’s broadcast license if a miniseries unfavorable to the Clinton administration wasn’t censored to satisfy Democrats. ABC complied. Earlier this year, Democrats started a push for a Constitutional Amendment to gut (literally) the First Amendment. Over the weekend, Democrats launched a campaign to get — in their own words — “Rush Limbaugh off the air.”

The petition to get Limbaugh off the air comes straight from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in the form of a fundraising/petition email. The idea is to use the muscle of the petition to in turn muscle Limbaugh’s advertisers to drop him. The phony outrage is manifested from a toxic stew of lies crafted by the DCCC and (naturally) Sandra Fluke that take Limbaugh’s recent comments about sexual assault way, way, way out of context.

Using the subject header, “PETITION: Rush Limbaugh off the air,” the hysterical email reads:

3OO,OOO Signatures Needed: Demand Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors pull their ads after his sexual assault comments >>

Sandra Fluke has been the target of disgusting, sexist comments from Rush Limbaugh before. So his latest abhorrent rant is no surprise to her.

Stand with Sandra and help us hit 300,00 signatures today to put real pressure on Rush’s advertisers to drop him once and for all:

Yes, the very same Democrats who joined President Bill Clinton’s crusade to personally destroy every woman who accused him of harassment, assault, and rape (Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones [who Clinton settled out of court with], Juanita Broderick), are accusing Limbaugh of being a rape apologist.

The truth is that Limbaugh was talking about a proposed policy at Ohio State that would require explicit permission between students before engaging in any kind of sexual activity. Here’s what Limbaugh said in full. He starts by quoting the proposal:

“Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes.'”

How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that “no” means “yes” if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren’t even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See, that’s what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out “why”… are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?

The campaigns the Left and their allies in the media have waged to so silence conservatives like the Koch brothers and Limbaugh have been both big and small. Earlier this year the Left pushed to remove Limbaugh from consideration in a children’s book contest that he went on to win. There is also the organized “shadow campaign” against Limbaugh that involves a small group of leftists pretending to look vast as they intimidate Limbaugh’s advertisers.

Late last year, within the context of the Senate Democrats’ decision to weaken the filibuster, Limbaugh illustrated the importance of minority rights using the crime of rape. The phony outrage machines at the Huffington Post and Media Matter immediately hit warp ten: How dare Limbaugh use “rape” to make a political point!

Today Democrats and Sandra Fluke are using rape, not only to fund raise and make a political point, but as a fascist weapon to silence political speech.

[H/T Breitbart]

Here’s How The Feds Are “Chilling” Your Free Speech Rights

What has the Obama administration done to stifle, or chill, the words of its detractors?

“Chilling” is the word lawyers use to describe governmental behavior that does not directly interfere with constitutionally protected freedoms, but rather tends to deter folks from exercising them. Classic examples of “chilling” occurred in the 1970s, when FBI agents and U.S. Army soldiers, in business suits with badges displayed or in full uniform, showed up at anti-war rallies and proceeded to photograph and tape record protesters. When an umbrella group of protesters sued the government, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the protesters lacked standing — meaning, because they could not show that they were actually harmed, they could not invoke the federal courts for redress.

Yet, they were harmed, and the government knew it. Years after he died, longtime FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover was quoted boasting of the success of this program. The harm existed in the pause or second thoughts that protesters gave to their contemplated behavior because they knew the feds would be in their faces — figuratively and literally. The government’s goal, and its limited success, was to deter dissent without actually interfering with it. Even the government recognized that physical interference with and legal prosecutions of pure speech are prohibited by the First Amendment. Eventually, when this was exposed as part of a huge government plot to stifle dissent, known as COINTELPRO, the government stopped doing it.

Until now.

Now, the government fears the verbal slings and arrows of dissenters, even as the means for promulgating one’s criticisms of the government in general and of President Obama in particular have been refined and enhanced far beyond those available to the critics of the government in the 1970s.

So, what has the Obama administration done to stifle, or chill, the words of its detractors? For starters, it has subpoenaed the emails and home telephone records of journalists who have either challenged it or exposed its dark secrets. Among those journalists are James Risen of The New York Times and my colleague and friend James Rosen of Fox News. This is more personal than the NSA spying on everyone because a subpoena is an announcement that a specific person’s words or effects have been targeted by the government, and that person continues to remain in the government’s crosshairs until it decides to let go.

This necessitates hiring legal counsel and paying legal fees. Yet, the targeting of Risen and Rosen was not because the feds alleged that they broke the law — there were no such allegations. Rather, the feds wanted to see their sources and their means of acquiring information. What journalist could perform his work with the feds watching? The reason we have a First Amendment is to assure that no journalist would need to endure that.

Two weeks ago, a notorious pot stirrer in Norfolk, Neb. built a mock outhouse, put it on a truck, and drove the truck with permission in a local Fourth of July parade. In front of the outhouse, he placed a mannequin that he claimed looked like himself; and on the outhouse, he posted a sign that stated: “Obama Presidential Library.”

Some thought this was crude, and some thought it was funny; yet it is fully protected speech. It is protected because satire and opinion about public figures are absolutely protected, as well as is all criticism of the government. Yet, the Department of Justice has sent a team to investigate this event because a local official called it racist. Such an allegation by a public official and such a federal investigation are chilling. The reason we have a First Amendment is to ensure that the government stays out of investigating speech.

And just last week, Attorney General Eric Holder, while in London, opined that much of the criticism of Obama is based on race — meaning that if Obama were fully white, his critics would be silent. This is highly inflammatory, grossly misleading, patently without evidential support, and, yet again, chilling. Tagging someone as a racist is the political equivalent of applying paint that won’t come off. Were the Democrats who criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice racists? Is it appropriate for government officials to frighten people into silence by giving them pause before they speak, during which they basically ask themselves whether the criticism they are about to hurl is worth the pain the government will soon inflict in retaliation?

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to permit, encourage, and even foment open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. That amendment presumes that individuals — not the government — will decide what language to read and hear. Because of that amendment, the marketplace of ideas — not the government — will determine which criticisms will sink in and sting and which will fall by the wayside and be forgotten.

Surely, government officials can use words to defend themselves; in fact, one would hope they would. Yet, when the people fear exercising their expressive liberties because of how the governmental targets they criticize might use the power of the government to stifle them, we are no longer free.

Expressing ideas, no matter how bold or brazen, is the personal exercise of a natural right that the government in a free society is powerless to touch, directly or indirectly. Yet, when the government succeeds in diminishing public discourse so that it only contains words and ideas of which the government approves, it will have succeeded in establishing tyranny. This tyranny — if it comes — will not come about overnight. It will begin in baby steps and triumph before we know it.

Yet we do know that it already has begun.

[H/T Western Journalism]

DOJ Investigates Nebraska Parade Float Critical of Obama

The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.

A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”

The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”

The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.

Also at the meeting were the NAACP, Norfolk mayor Sue Fuchtman and the Norfolk Odd Fellows, which coordinated the parade.

The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department, the World-Herald reported.

“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said NAACP chapter president Betty C. Andrews.

[H/T Washington Times]

What Major Retailer Just Stripped Dinesh D’Souza’s Latest Book From Its Shelves?

“I look forward to getting to the bottom of this…”

Just days after his most recent film, America, opened in theaters nationwide, WorldNetDaily reported that Costco sent word to all of its stores to remove conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book.

The book, which has the same title as the film, is meant to give audiences a different perspective of the same topic, D’Souza said in a recent interview with Western Journalism. Both projects call into question the motivation of leftists who contend that America is an inherently evil force in the world.

In a statement to WND, D’Souza expressed alarm at the reports of Costco’s decision to stop selling his book, which reached the top spot in Amazon’s list of political commentaries.

“If true, this would be very odd,” he said, asserting that he is “in the process of finding out what’s happening.”

Less than a month after its release, the retail giant issued an order that all copies of the book be removed from shelves by July 15. When contacted by WND, most locations had already complied.

“I look forward to getting to the bottom of this,” D’Souza said, “and continuing the strong relationship my publisher and I have always had with Costco and their millions of shoppers.”

Costco’s friendly association with Barack Obama – a frequent target of D’Souza’s work – is common knowledge. Then-CEO James Sinegal addressed the Democratic National Convention in 2012, and the company donated a total of $200,000 to Obama’s campaign and an affiliated political action committee.

Obama held a fundraiser at Sinegal’s home and suggested that Costco’s story “is representative of what America is all about.”

This report comes on the heels of a Washington Examiner report criticizing the New York Times for artificially keeping D’Souza’s book off of its venerable bestsellers’ list during the month of June. Judging by sales, the book would have reportedly achieved a ranking as high as number 8 that week.

D’Souza explained that a position on the list is a big boost to sales.

He concluded that while the Times has the prerogative “to rig their list anyway they like,” he said that “if they are doing it, people should know.”

[H/T Western Journalism]

Big Bank’s Employee Survey Gives an LGBT Loyalty Test

Professor Robert George of Princeton University, the head of the International Commission on Religious Freedom, claims that a major U.S. bank has asked all of its employees to reveal their support — or lack therefore — for the LGBT cause.

In a blog post at the legal site Mirror of Justice, George writes, “Brendan Eich was only the beginning. Anyone interested in understanding the most effective techniques for policing people’s thinking and enforcing improved beliefs might learn a thing or two from the experience of a friend of mine who works at one of the nation’s largest banks.”

He went on to share his friend’s recent message to him:

I’ve worked at Chase for the past 11 years. Yearly (sometimes skipping a year though) the bank will send out an Employee Survey to gauge how the employees feel about the bank and the management team they report up to. Every year that’s all the questions ever related to: the bank in general and management. But this year there was a question that had many of us scratching our heads. This is a company wide survey. All lines of business have the same survey. There was a question where it said to check the boxes that were applicable to you. You could select one, more than one, or none. Here it is: Are you: 1) A person with disabilities; 2) A person with children with disabilities; 3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities; 4) A member of the LGBT community.I thought 4 was a little oddly placed, but oh well. It was the next option that pulled the needle off the record: 5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

What?! What kind of question was that? An “ally” of that community? What’s the alternative if you don’t select that option? You’re not a [sic] ally of the LGBT community?

The worried senior executive told George that the survey was not anonymous — that he was required to include his employee number with his responses.

He said, “The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first’ list.” He compared it to being outed as “not an ally of civil rights” and a “bigot” back in the ’60s.

Some years ago, a top executive at Time Warner revealed that its human resources department allowed an LGBT committee to ask each executive to display a rainbow sticker in his or her office. The threat was the same: being revealed for not being an ally of the LGBT cause, thus facing consequences. The executive said many reluctantly and fearfully allowed the sticker, just as many of these bank employees were likely forced to check the box that they are an “ally of the LGBT community,” even if they conscientiously object.

[H/T Breitbart]

What’s the Real Reason the Left is Preoccupied With the Redskins?

Given how much evil there is in the world; given how many signs of moral, intellectual and economic decline there are here in America; and given the increasing irrelevance of America to world events, it is fair to ask why the American Left is preoccupied with the name Washington “Redskins.”

The Washington Redskins have been in existence for 82 years. For about 80 of those years, virtually no one, including the vast majority of American Indians, was troubled by the name.

Yet, it is now of such importance to the American left that the majority leader of the United States Senate has repeatedly demanded, from the floor of the United States Senate, that the team drop its name; 50 United States senators, all of them Democrats, have signed an open letter demanding the same; Sports Illustrated’s Peter King no longer uses the name; other leading sportswriters have adopted the same practice; and the president of the United States has weighed in on the issue.

The pressure is relentless. There is more concern in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times — not to mention the rest of the left — with the Redskins than with Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for investigation, one of its division heads pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress, and the Agency’s losing all relevant emails and hard drives.

The angry will tell you that the name “Redskins” is profoundly offensive to American Indians and that they — the angry — are simply more sensitive to racial slurs than others.

This explanation is self-serving, but insufficient.

The great majority of American Indians understandably just don’t care. Like heterosexual AIDS and so many other crises, this has been entirely manufactured by the left.

Since 1947, there has been a movie theater, the Redskins Theatre (with the same logo as the football team), in Anadarko, Oklahoma, a city whose population is divided evenly between Indians and whites, and which calls itself the “Indian Capital of the Nation.” Why, in 67 years, have the Indian populations of Anadarko and Oklahoma not changed this theater’s name?

Because the left hadn’t made it an issue. It’s not an Indian issue; it’s a left-wing issue.

And why is the left so preoccupied?

It isn’t because they are more morally sensitive to injustice. That is what the left believes about itself. But there are other reasons for the manufactured hysteria about the Redskins name.

Here are some:

First, there is a rule in life: Those who do not confront the greatest evils will confront much lesser evils or simply manufacture alleged evils that they then confront.

This has been a dominant characteristic of the Left for at least half a century.

The greatest evils since World War II have been Communism and, since the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union and most other Communist countries, violent Islam — or, as it often called, Islamism. Islamism is the belief that Sharia (Islamic law) must be imposed wherever possible on a society, beginning, of course, with Muslim-majority countries. These Islamists are, as the British historian Andrew Roberts has noted, the fourth incarnation of fascism — first there was fascism, then Nazism, then communism, and now Islamism.

For many years, most of the Western left was supportive of communism, and after the 1960s, it was simply hostile to anti-communists. The left was far more concerned with attacking America than with attacking the Soviet Union. So, too, today, the left is far more concerned with attacking America — its alleged racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and economic inequality — than with fighting Islamism.

Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do. The left hated American anti-communists much more than it hated communists. The left today hates traditional America much more than it hates traditional Islamists. The Redskins name is a symbol of that hated America.

Third, the left has huge nostalgia for the sixties. In the left’s eyes, virtually every one of its causes is as morally urgent as the civil rights battles on behalf of blacks (for which it falsely claims exclusive credit). Therefore getting the Redskins to change their name is a contemporary expression of working to give blacks full voting rights.

Fourth, aside from tearing down another American tradition, and showing how awful America was and remains, the motivating issue here is left-wing self-esteem. Remember it was the left that developed the self-esteem movement. And nobody feels as good about themselves as the left does when it finds another American moral flaw, especially when that flaw is another example of “intolerance,” and racism.

Fifth, and finally, the left is totalitarian at heart. Whenever possible, they seek control of others; and they love to throw their considerable weight around. The left-wing president does it so often that the Supreme Court has unanimously shot down his attempts on a dozen occasions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under huge pressure from leftists, just dropped conservative Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist George Will. Under pressure from left-wing professors and students, Brandeis and other universities dropped the few conservative speakers they had invited to this year’s commencement exercises. Forcing the Redskins to do their will is just the left’s latest attempt to force its views on the vast majority of its fellow citizens. That’s why it’s worth fighting for the Redskins. Today it’s the Redskins, tomorrow it’s you.

[H/T Real Clear Politics]

MUST WATCH: Oregon Republican calls out Liberal reporter, gets THROWN OUT of candidate meeting

(The Right Scoop) – This has to be the best thing I’ve seen since Newt Gingrich was calling out the liberal media in 2012.

Republican Mark Callahan, who is running for US Senate in Oregon, was in a candidate review meeting with other colleagues in order for Willamette Week, a publication in Portland, to decide who they would endorse in the upcoming primary. An opponent of his, Republican Joe Rae Perkins, was on speaker phone. There were others in the room but I’m not sure who they were specifically.

The clip starts with Perkins answering a question on speaker phone. While she was answering it, one of WW’s reporters, Nigel Jaquiss, wrote ‘blah blah blah blah’ on his paper as she was answering. Callahan noticed it and called Jaquiss out for it, saying:

You want to talk about disrespect? I see what you’re writing down there. You just wrote down ‘blah blah blah blah blah’ for everything that Joe Rae said. Joe Rae is a respectable woman. Why are you not respecting her by writing ‘blah blah blah blah blah’ on your notepad?

Whoever was leading the meeting wanted to move on and ask Callahan a question, telling him that if he answers respectfully that they might consider endorsing him. Callahan fired back:

You have to give respect in order to get respect. Right now on that side of the table, you’re not giving very much respect to the five of us and our time here.

After a little more back and forth, the meeting leader asked Callahan if he believes Climate Change is a myth or reality. Callahan answered:


The reporter who wrote ‘blah blah blah blah blah’ followed up asking Callahan condescendingly “where are you on the easter bunny?”

Callahan was indignant:

Are these really the questions I was called here to answer? I called you out for putting ‘blah blah blah blah blah’ on your notepad and now you’re asking me questions like this? Really? Are we talking about this now?

Okay how about you ask a ver serious and respectful question instead of asking a little childish question.

The meeting leader told Callahan he just asked him about Climate Change and that he wanted to move on to someone else. He scolded Callahan “if you’re not going to let me I’m going ask you to leave. That’s two strikes.

At this point Callahan chuckled to himself and responded:

Who do you think you are?”

The leader then told Callahan he had to leave. “You’re done here. This is neither a fair or balanced meeting. This is a meeting for us to decide…

Callahan interrupted:

“I know it’s a meeting being asked by disrespectful thin-skinned liberals like yourself.”

Someone else in the room said “There’s the door.”

Callahan walked out, noting he had better things to do with his time. The meeting leader snarked “You clearly do.”

[H/T TheRightScoop]

Democrats compare black Republicans to Jewish Nazi collaborators

(Allen B. West) – According to the Washington Free Beacon, Illinois Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn is in some hot water with the Jewish community after his campaign tweeted—and then quietly deleted—several messages urging backers to read an article comparing black Republican voters to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.

The original article, written in the Chicago Sun-Times by Neil Steinberg, compared black supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis against their brethren. “As a general rule, individuals will sell out the interests of their groups in return for personal benefit,” Steinberg wrote in his column, which claimed that Rauner is buying off the black community and its leaders. “It isn’t just a black thing. Jews collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, helping them to round up their own people in the hopes they’d be the last to go.”

Quinn’s camp praised the piece and tweeted it out to supporters several times. The tweets were deleted after local Jewish community officials quietly communicated their outrage to the governor.

And exactly what “personal benefit” do I receive as a black conservative Republican? Oh yeah, the freedom to escape the white liberal progressive economic plantation, work hard, and do well for my family.

So now, along with being called an Uncle Tom, Sellout, Oreo, House Negro, and White Man’s Porch Monkey, I am also just like Jews who were Nazi collaborators.

Hmm, funny thing — that would put black conservative Republicans like me in the same category as George Soros – a Hungarian Jew who posed as a Christian and helped confiscate property from Jews being shipping out to concentration camps. And now he funds the liberal progressive socialist movement we call the Democrat party.

I don’t expect DNC Chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who happens to be Jewish, to express any outrage – do you? And will Eric Holder go running to Al Sharpton and the National Action Network to whine about how blacks are treated?

During my Congressional tenure a reporter came up to me in the Speakers Lobby and asked me for comments about an opinion poll that showed a majority of Americans believed the Republicans controlled Capitol Hill. I looked with amazement and responded that, “The Democrats have a propaganda machine that would make Goebbels proud.” Another reporter — liberal progressive of course — was standing by and asked me if I was comparing Democrats to Nazis. Of course not, I told him. I was simply addressing the use of propaganda as a means to deceive the public. But I also told him I know what you want is something sensational and you’ll no doubt inaccurately report my statement — which is of course exactly what happened.

Folks demanded an apology and even Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Maryland) brought a resolution to the House floor to condemn me for saying something I did not say.

Of course, never mind that liberals referred to President George W. Bush as Hitler. And more recently black Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn compared rightwing bloggers to Nazi propagandists.

What this latest episode shows is a sense of desperation by Gov. Quinn. What it also shows, once again, is the utter disrespect white liberal progressives have for any black people who want to decide what is best for themselves and the black community.

Liberal progressive socialist policies have failed and destroyed the black community and the inner cities. White liberal progressives demand blind allegiance from the black community and they demean, disparage, discredit, and will attempt to personally destroy anyone who refuses to pay them homage.

So don’t expect a single liberal progressive media outlet to cover this story. They’re the real racists and enablers of the utter destruction of what was once a successful proud community — all for votes.

Hey, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus — cat got your tongue?

[H/T AllenBWest]

Mozilla CEO ousted because he donated money to a traditional marriage campaign

(Breitbart) – Gay advocacy groups have been attacking tech company Mozilla for appointing a new CEO who once donated $1,000 to a 2008 campaign for traditional marriage in California. In only a week that new CEO has stepped down, prompting some to wonder if supporting traditional marriage is now a “boardroom crime” and if gay advocates have “overstepped.”

At the end of March, Mozilla, maker of the popular web browser Firefox, appointed Brendan Eich as its newest CEO. Eich is the inventor of Javascript – a code that most web browsers need to operate – and a co-founder of Mozilla. However, as soon as he was chosen gay activists began to attack Mozilla because it had been revealed that he donated $1,000 to California’s Prop 8, a measure to secure special status for traditional marriage.

Only a week later, gay fanatics won their battle, with Eich now announcing that he will step down and refuse the role of CEO.

This state of affairs prompted Andrew Sullivan, a gay author and columnist, to essentially accuse gay activists of quashing Eich’s First Amendment rights: “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society,” he wrote. “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

Michael Barbaro, a reporter for The New York Times, tweeted that Sullivan was calling this “the moment the gay rights movement overstepped,” and himself was moved to tweet this: “This is giant news, and makes me wonder, is opposition to gay marriage now a boardroom crime?”

For its part, Mozilla fell all over itself to apologize to gay activists and apparently didn’t see the hypocrisy in its own statements.

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote. “Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

It seems that the only “freedom of speech” valued by Mozilla is that of gay activists. Religious people need not apply.

This whole situation serves as an important lesson in the level of so-called “transparency” that liberals want in politics. For years, now, the donor lists for Prop 8 have been used by gay activists as a weapon to destroy people who supported the traditional marriage measure.

This is the same sort of “transparency” that liberals want for all political donors. They say they want to allow Americans to know who supports what issues, but in truth all they want is a way to find out who they may want to target for destruction.

At the height of Jim Crow, the U.S. Supreme Court already spoke to these sorts of assassination lists by ruling that the NAACP did not have to inform the State of Alabama who its donors and members were. It was clear, the Court held, that the State was only trying to find out whom to target to destroy the African American advocacy group.

In its unanimous 1957 decision, the SCOTUS held that forcing the NAACP to reveal its donors and members would have had the effect of suppressing legal association.

So, the question remains, should a man like Eich, who is eminently qualified to serve as the CEO of a tech company he helped start, be publicly pilloried and have his career destroyed merely because he donated to a political cause the left doesn’t like? This is precisely why liberals want donors and membership lists revealed to the public.

[H/T Breitbart: