Supreme Court's "Whatcott" ruling "a terrible decision"

Ezra Levant:

Supreme Court distributes anti-gay literature world-wide

Bill Whatcott personally distributed printed copies of his anti-homosexual flyers.  Distribution of his supposed "hatred" was, therefore, extremely limited.

The Supreme Court expanded that distribution enormously by publishing its Whatcott decision, including  Whatcott's flyers (see below), on the internet.

A Supremely contemptible decision

In its cowardly, politically correct "Whatcott" decision today, the Supreme Court has delivered a blow against free speech.  Ezra Levant predicts a surge in "hate" speech complaints to "human rights" commissions and tribunals:



Right now I'm feeling hatred and contempt for our Supreme Court justices.  In other words ...

Crony environmentalism by fraudulent collusion

EPA, Greens play a hazy “sue and settle” game

“Sue and Settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want….

... taxpayers, including those impacted regulatory victims, are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback: Earthjustice, $4,655,425 (30%); the Sierra Club, $966,687; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, $252,004. Most of this was paid to environmental attorneys in connection to lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, followed next by the Clean Water Act.

In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010. This didn’t include money spent by EPA for their legal costs in connection with those rip-offs, since EPA doesn’t keep track of their attorney’s time on a case-by-case basis. ...

This is crony environmentalism involving fraudulent collusion.  Perps on both sides of these transactions should be prosecuted and jailed.

[Via]

Where's the gratitude?

Dennis Prager: "Gratitude is not a distinguishing left-wing trait."

Earls caves to BC "Human Rights" Kangaroo Tribunal

Earls Restaurant decided to drop its Albino Rhino labelled beer in response to a "human rights" complaint from a thin-skinned albino immigrant from Nigeria.  Sadly, according to this report, Earls, rather than fight, caved in with a whimper:

Communications Manager Cate Simpson said it was never their intention to offend anyone, but agreed Earls had come to appreciate people with the rare genetic condition struggle with discrimination.

"We did give thought to the fact we were offending a group of people and to that end we decided to move forward and remove the word albino from our beer branding."

I can understand Earls dropping the label rather than waste time and money fighting this ridiculous nonsense, but did they didn't have to buy into the idiot complainer's bullcrap.

Here's Ezra Levant:

Columbine survivor to Obama: "Whose side are you on?"

Open letter to Barack Obama:

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
 

... a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose.

... The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004.
 

... There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all. ... Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
...

...

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd