Former Vermont Gov. Dr. Howard Dean has weighed in on the Ann Coulter/Berkeley controversy. He tweeted, “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.”

When leftists like Howard Dean say hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment then the first question we should ask is, “What does Howard think is hate speech?” We just went through an entire election cycle in which the left told us every day what hate speech was.

According to the Left, hate speech is saying that some illegal immigrants commit crimes. (By the way, the Trump administration warned nine sanctuary cities yesterday that they had to prove their compliance with federal law or risk losing federal dollars.)

According to the Left, hate speech is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Left, hate speech is saying that terrorist acts are being committed by radical Islamists.

Just like hate crimes, hate speech is a one-way street. Hate speech is any speech that offends the Left.

Little Howard Dean wannabes on university campuses say it is hate speech if you cite research proving that most police officers really are good guys. And of course, flying the Confederate flag is hate speech. But burning an American flag is not.

A mural featuring a decapitated Donald Trump is free expression. Saying the NRA is more dangerous than ISIS is free speech.

But it is hate speech to say we should limit immigration from nations that have large radical Islamic populations. It is not hate speech to say that the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.

My point is simply this: Increasingly the Left, including the left-wing media, define mainstream conservative ideas as hate speech.

So don’t dismiss the Howard Deans of the world when they tell you that hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment. They mean it and they mean to shut you up.

One of the reasons the country is so on edge is that at least half of America understands that the other side wants to make it impossible to defend our values.

Another Known Wolf Strikes

Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic are turning themselves into pretzels arguing that Karim Cheurfi, the Paris shooter, was not directed by ISIS or inspired by ISIS. (Never mind the note found on his body.)

Instead they will try to convince themselves and us that Cheurfi was “a lone wolf” who had just broken up with his girlfriend or who didn’t get a promotion at work or who just didn’t like French food. Whatever “triggered” him, it had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, which we all know is a religion of peace.

Well, once again we quickly learned that this lone wolf was in fact a known wolf. How known? Cheurfi was pulled in for questioning two months ago for … threatening to kill police.

Sadly, it gets worse. He had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for … attempting to kill police. But he was out on early release.

Just like our elites, French elites says that criticism of Islam is hate speech. Obviously French authorities should be more concerned about those publicly saying they want to kill police officers.

But for the elites of Europe, just like the politically correct elites here, threatening to murder the men and women of law enforcement has no legal consequences. It is just another occupational hazard those on the thin blue line are expected to deal with.

Clueless Media

Left-wing journalists were having a meltdown Thursday afternoon because President Trump said the Paris shooting “looks like another terrorist attack.” He didn’t even say “Islamic terrorist attack.” But many talking heads were in a frenzy that he would prejudge the situation.

Apparently, shooting three police officers blocks from the Eiffel Tower on the eve of the French election, when authorities had just broken up one plot, is not enough evidence for someone to suggest that it “looks like” another terror attack.

Listening to these commentators Thursday, I did my own rush to judgment: “Looks like another clueless media maven to me.”

Kudos to Australia

Loyal readers of this daily report know that I have been suggesting for quite some time that we should be asking some pointed questions about values to prospective immigrants and refugees. Well, I am pleased to report that our Australian allies have done it.

New immigrants to Australia will be asked questions like the following:

Does Australia’s principle of freedom of religion mean that in some situations it is permissible to force children to marry?


In Australia’s multicultural society, under which circumstances is it permissible to cut female genitals?


While it is illegal to use violence in public, under what circumstances can you strike your spouse in the privacy of your home?


Under what circumstances is it appropriate to prohibit girls from education?



Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Thursday defended the new values focus, saying, “We don’t define ourselves … by race or religion or ethnicity. We’re defined by a commitment to a common set of political values — freedom, equality of men and women, mutual respect, the rule of law, democracy."



Turnbull added, "We’re proud of them, we’re committed to them, we should celebrate them, and we should put them at the core of becoming an Australian citizen.”



I trust the Trump administration officials in charge of the new “extreme vetting” program are taking notes!