We can see where this is headed. It isn't enough for the emerging 'progressives', fascists, socialists, communists (pick a name) to control our various actions, we have now entered the rhelm of policing your very thoughts. This is another sign of our approaching Tribulation, when the people of the earth will be forced to worship the antichrist.
This trend, as seen in today's news is hard to deny. Orwell's 1984 is officially here and it is here to stay:
Rumors are floating around Twitter that proof of Brendan Eich’s donation was illegally leaked by people in government sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage. Not so. I’d forgotten about it, but friends reminded me that the LA Times obtained a list of people who gave, for and against, to the fight over the Prop 8 referendum in 2008. They put the whole database online and made it searchable. Search it today and, sure enough, there’s Eich with a $1,000 donation in favor. Under California law, that disclosure is perfectly legal: The state is authorized to provide certain personal information about anyone who donates more than $100 to a ballot measure. Why the state is allowed to do that, I’m not sure.
At the very least, if you’re worried about shadowy interests pouring cash into ads to sway a public referendum, the financial threshold to trigger disclosure should be way, way higher than $100. The Prop 8 donor list now functions essentially as a blacklist, and Eich isn’t its first or only victim. Remember, people who gave to Prop 8 have been harassed and had their property vandalized; the Heritage Foundation issued a report chronicling cases of intimidation back in 2009. Either Eich didn’t know the law when he chipped in 10 times the disclosure amount or he assumed that giving to a political cause as a private citizen wouldn’t cause people he worked with for years to force him out of the company upon conviction of a thoughtcrime. Which, by the way, is what this was. Jonathan Last seizes on the significance of Mozilla chair Mitchell Baker admitting that “I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” If that’s the case, says Last, why exactly was Eich ousted?
If voting to ban gay marriage is grounds for dismissal, wonders Last, wouldn’t/shouldn’t voting against cap-and-trade be grounds? What about voting against tax hikes on the rich? Eich didn’t oppose gays working for Mozilla. He didn’t oppose them donating to pro-gay causes. He didn’t oppose gay employees from getting married. Or so I assume; if he did, his business partner Baker presumably would have mentioned it. He engaged in a private, perfectly legal act of expression, and now he’s out on his ear for it. Even Andrew Sullivan, who’s spent decades championing the cause of gay marriage, is horrified at his ouster.
[Just watch the video to see the absurdity in this story]
A Connecticut community college suspended a student after he approached Gov. Dannel Malloy and asked him several questions about gun control laws, according to the Daily Caller.
Imagine going to work one day only to be, in effect, fired -- not because of anything you did or didn’t do at your job, but because of something you did in your personal life. Something religious. Or maybe, something political.
Imagine if you were denied a promotion at work because a co-worker found out you had made a personal donation to a conservative candidate. Imagine if your environmentally-correct boss discovered that, in your free time at home, you supported an organization that exposed the fallacies of man-made global warming and asked you for your resignation. Imagine if you were the successful CEO of Widget Corp, lauded and respected for your accomplishments, but clients or customers found out you were a tea partier and demanded you be forced out.
That’s exactly what happened to Brendan Eich, a highly-respected tech guru in Silicon Valley and co-founder of Mozilla Corporation, after he was appointed CEO in late March. In less than a week, he was forced out of this position for no reason other than that he had a made a $1000 contribution to the Prop 8 initiative in 2008. His own money. On his own time. In his private capacity. Mozilla had nothing to do with it. Nor did he discuss gay marriage at work.
Eich clearly has more sense in his little pinky than the “aggrieved” have collectively. But still, this is one of the saddest days in America -- a nation founded on religious liberty, a nation that has fought to protect the civil liberties of its citizens from encroachment by the state or abuse by employers, landlords and other institutions. It now seems that anyone can be punished for his or her religious, moral or political beliefs by well-funded mobs that can exert economic pressure on one’s employer. These are the tactics of closed societies behind the Iron Curtain; not the shining city on the hill.
This isn’t new: we have seen it take place on a national level with Chick-fil-A. Many of us have seen people outed at work for their support of Prop 8. Busloads of angry mobsters have descended on the private property of CEOs. We have seen Tea Parties shaken down by the IRS. We know there is a Hollywood blacklist for conservatives. It has been a slow trickle that is fast turning into a full stream.
This is NOT about Prop 8, gay marriage and religion. That is just the context in which this latest abuse has come to be. It is about the freedom -- in your personal life -- to believe as you do, support the candidates and issues you want, and to be left in peace to do so without fear of recrimination at the place where you make your livelihood.
If competent individuals can be fired at work for their personal stances on issues that they do not bring into the workplace, then we are no longer in a free and open society, but a very tightly closed one where fear reigns and keeps us all under control--where our beliefs must yield to pre-set political and religious dogma we are force fed.
Not only is it hard to swallow that something like this could happen in our country, it is hard to fathom how anyone can be so self-righteous, so emboldened, to think it a perfectly good idea to socially engineer society with the same iron fists as history's liberty-crushing despots. All of that talk about equality, justice, liberty, tolerance and diversity, is just talk. It’s a one way street leading to oppression. And so frenzied are they with their viewpoints -- so intent on crushing any opposing ideas-- that they are blinded to their own bigotry.
So now, no longer is it just the government that can single you out, punish and persecute you for being a patriot or a tea partier. Now, your employer can as well. And then, maybe your landlord. And, why not the local hospital? And what about your kids in school? For those of you from the old USSR, you know, this was how it was done. Stick to the party line, keep quiet, support the state…and you keep your job and get assigned a small apartment. If you don’t, your kids suffer in school, your boss makes life difficult at work and don’t be surprised if your electricity doesn’t work. Take on the entire system, become a dissident or refusnik, and it’s off to Siberia. You’ll be lucky if you live.
A British-Iranian woman, Roya Saberi Negad Nobakht, has spent the last five months in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison for writing on Facebook that Iran’s government was “too Islamic.” Arrested during a visit to Iran to visit family members, she has been charged with “insulting Islamic sanctities.” British authorities are indignant about this affront to the freedom of speech – but given the prevailing eagerness to avoid insulting Islamic sanctities in the U.S. as well as Britain, it is hard to see why.
Nobakht’s husband, Daryoush Taghipoor is worried: “It’s a very bad situation. We don’t know what’s going on. Roya is not well at all. She has lost three stone and is frightened. She is scared that the government will kill her.”
Yet the odd thing about this story is that while Amnesty International and the British government are offended that Roya Saberi Negad Nobakht could be executed in Iran for “insulting Islamic sanctities,” in Britain (and America as well) it is a de facto crime to insult Islamic sanctities. It won’t get you prison (yet), but it will get you public abuse, insults, the savaging of your reputation, and ostracism from circles of the politically correct and self-styled right-thinking folk. Prison is just the next step.
After all, the British government banned me from entering the country for saying that Islam is “a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society” – a manifestly true statement that is not controversial to anyone who has studied Islam.
Just days before Pamela Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said:
“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
Al-Arefe said essentially what I said – that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. The principal difference, aside from the fact that al-Arefe put it much more graphically than I did, was that al-Arefe is for jihad violence against non-Muslims, and I am against it. The British government banned me, in other words, for insulting Islamic sanctities – for daring to oppose the Islamic supremacist project of subjugating the world under Islamic world.
A U.S. Air Force base’s decision to remove a symbolic display honoring missing troops because of its inclusion of a Bible has angered some veterans.