‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 9.34.25 AM
Screen shot of a tweet by ABC’s Good Morning America. Interestingly enough, this video clip has been removed from the link above. Do they not want to promote, or even admit to, male heroism? Is that just too far removed from the dominant narrative, in today’s media?

Source: ‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

As “Mister Rogers” used to say, “look for the helpers.”

“Toxic masculinity” – or the protest against it – is all the rage these days, in the Left-wing media and academic world. America, so the currently-dominant narrative (a la #metoo) goes, is a land of misogyny, a “rape culture” in which sexual exploitation, assault, and violence against women women is commonplace.

I will not here discuss the incredible twisting of any rational definition of “assault” required to get to this number (and even then, it may well be a fantasy). Nor will I dwell on the fact that some of those same Leftists are willing to welcome with open arms a genuine rape culture, that of Islam (see “grooming gangs” in Britain, and the incredible spike in rapes in Germany and Scandinavia, linked to Moslem migrants).

I will, instead, point out that the horrible tragedy of the Thousand Oaks shootings in California showed positive masculinity at its best. The Daily Signal reports,

“While we were all dog-piled at the side, there were multiple men that got on their knees and pretty much blocked all of us with their backs towards the shooter, ready to take a bullet for any single one of us,” Teylor Whittler, a woman who had been in the club during the shooting, said Thursday morning, reported ABC News.

“And just the amount of people who made sure everyone got out OK or if they were out … they made sure, they went around to every single person around them and asked them if they were OK and if they needed a phone to call their family … just in general any way they could help. It was awesome,” she continued.

And these were just the anonymous heroes; ordinary, decent men doing what ordinary, decent men do, when others are in danger.  There were others, too, as I have elsewhere noted; known, individual examples of courage and heroism:

Sheriff’s Sgt. Ron Helus, 29-year veteran of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, who was gunned down responding to the incident; 23-year-old Cal Lutheran alumnus Justin Meek, who died shielding his sister and others from the gunman with his own body; Sean Adler, a 48-year-old married father of two, who apparently died attempting to disarm the gunman; former Marine Daniel Manrique, who “ran in to help people escape the violence and ultimately gave his life protecting others.”

This is what men – real men, not either über-macho @$$holes or testosterone-deprived nu-malesdo. It is what all men are supposed to do: to protect, to care for, to defend, and to give help and succor to those in need, and especially to those who may not be able to care for and protect themselves, in a given situation. And if necessary, to lay down their lives for those they are protecting: following the example of Christ Himself, dying that others may live. That is what true manhood, true masculinity, is all about. God bless them!

Advertisements

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, gender, and justice

Image result for brett kavanaugh hearing

A female friend of mine – and one who has posted some things pretty critical of Judge Kavanaugh in the past – posted this on her Facebook timeline today:

“Here is my story, and here is my opinion.

“In this day where media makes sure everyone’s business is publicly aired, where police forces use lethal force in uncalled-for situations, we have lost sight of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

“Then we have situations where men I revered in my youth have been revealed to be less-than-perfect (Paterno, who I feel must’ve known something despite having the best interest of most players at heart, and ‘America’s dad’ Bill Cosby), and it breaks my heart to admit that no one is wholly evil or wholly saintly.

“But we have been on a bit of a ‘witch hunt,’ haven’t we?

“I mean, if a young lady is going to a man’s hotel room, there is some understanding of what could happen, even if she says no. (I am thinking back to the show-business ‘auditions’ that led to many accusations a couple of years ago.) In the case of Cosby, indeed, she did not consent to having her drink drugged, although during the ’70s quaaludes were quite the norm. All incidents must be viewed in the historical context of the times in which they occurred.

“Women should be believed.

Shame on any woman who is less than honest when revealing her story. False accusers should be prosecuted, and they open themselves to financial loss due to slander.

“When I was a freshman in high school I put myself in a compromised situation. I entered into it willingly, and it got out of hand. I did not know to stop the situation until it had progressed too far.

“Did he know he had pushed beyond my comfortable limit? No. Should he have been prosecuted? Surely not.

“Four years later, as a freshman in college, I received counseling. I had never felt myself a victim before then, and I surely could have bought into the victim persona … but I chose to recognize that my identification and labeling of the situation as an ‘assault’ afforded me the ability to address the negative emotions around the event, get the counseling I needed, and acknowledge that he had no intention of violating me. I forgave.

“Nearly every woman I know has been touched in a way that was an ‘assault,’ and they should get counseling as needed. Many of the men who have committed these assaults sincerely did not know they were violating the women. We must consider the context of the situation.

“If you have been assaulted, in any way … if you feel bad about a situation, even if you put yourself in it … get the counseling you need. And I encourage you to forgive, for carrying the anger will ultimately do you more harm than it ever will the person who assaulted you.

“I am here for you if I can help.

“And men, if you think, in light of the ‘redefinition’ of assault, that you may have violated a woman, consider reaching out to apologize. I am pretty sure she hasn’t ‘forgotten.’

“We are all in this together.”

Amen.

The only thing I would add is this:

If we get to the point – and we are heading there at warp speed – where an as-yet-unsubstantiated allegation (I am not ruling out the possibility that it may be substantiated, at some point in the future, but that has not happened yet) can not only potentially derail a nomination, but ruin a person’s personal and professional reputation and put his family through the ringer, we as a society are heading for a very bad place.

Yes, we must believe women. We must believe them no less, but also no more, than we would believe a man.

As Alan Dershowtiz – certainly no member of the alt-right! – has put it, “neither men nor women were born with a gene to lie or tell the truth.” Men and women alike lie; men and women alike misunderstand one other’s intentions; men and women alike misremember facts and events.

Image result for believe women

Believe women? Yes, but: the idea that we should believe Christine Blasey Ford simply because she’s a woman is as absurd as it would be to suggest that we should believe Brett Kavanaugh simply because he’s a man.

One of the most basic and foundational principles of American jurisprudence is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not until accused: until proven guilty. The burden of proof, rightly, rests on the accuser, to prove guilt; not on the accused, to prove innocence. But there are many striving, in the context of the Kavanaugh hearings, to turn this principle on its head.

If this becomes the “new normal” – if an accusation becomes seen as tantamount to proof – we are all at risk. And if not us, then our fathers, sons, husbands, nephews, friends: pick your relationship. As I say, we are well along that road already. Do we really want to go down it any further?


Actually, there is one more thing I want to say. As my friend noted, “it breaks my heart to admit that no one is wholly evil or wholly saintly.” Mine, too. But that is, sadly, the human condition.

As my dear late mother used to say, “There’s so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it ill-behooves any of us to talk about the rest of us.” This does not mean that there should not be consequences for one’s actions, if indeed they are proven to have occurred. It does mean that, as the Christian faith has always understood, “there is none who is without sin; no, not one.” And that is not going to change, short of the Second Coming.

Again, that is not an excuse! It is, rather, an honest and open-eyed statement of fact. We are prone to say, in the aftermath of something we don’t like, “Shouldn’t people do (or not do) this…?” or “Shouldn’t there be (or not be) that…?” Yes, in a perfect world, they probably should, and there probably should be. But we are not perfect people, and we don’t live in a perfect world. In fact, we are so imperfect that we can’t even agree on what a perfect world would look like!

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve ourselves to the greatest extent possible. We should! (In fact, improving ourselves is probably the biggest single step any of us can take toward improving the world.) It does mean we should be cautious and realistic about the chances of improving everyone else… and cautious, also, about attempts to impose such improvement on others, according to our own vision of perfection.

Efforts to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven, or a secular version of it, by our own efforts typically – historically – end badly, from the English Civil War to the French Revolution, from Stalin’s Russia to Hitler’s Germany, from Chairman Mao to Pol Pot, and beyond.

I say again: is this a road down which we want to go?

“An Act Concerning Religion”

1200px-Large_Broadside_on_the_Maryland_Toleration_Act.jpg
A later (18th C.?) printed broadside of the Maryland Toleration Act.

“An Act Concerning Religion.” That was the original title of what is colloquially known as the “Maryland Toleration Act of 1649,” the same year in which King Charles I (known by many Anglicans of an Anglo-Catholic and Royalist bent as King Charles the Martyr, or simply The Royal Martyr) was shamefully executed in an act of regicide by the so-called “Rump Parliament,” under the despicable Oliver Cromwell.

An attempt (only partly successful) to assure protection for Catholics in the proprietary Colony of Maryland in the wake of this act of regicide and England’s subsequent interregnum under the Puritan Parliament, later Protectorate, the Act – passed by the General Assembly of the Maryland Colony – sought to provide equal protection under law for all Trinitarian Christians, and at the same time, provide legal protection for Trinitarian Christianity (*) itself.

As such, it might, in retrospect, have been a better model (with some adjustments, discussed below) for our national view on the subject than the relevant clause of the First Amendment, which has since been stretched beyond all intention of the Founders, through what I cannot help but see as a perverse and willful misconstrual of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” comment. That appeared in a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists, and was originally intended to assure religious people of their protection from the government, not the other way ’round.

The full text of the Maryland Toleration Act, in the original (rather archaic) form of English in which it was originally written, appears below. Its most salient section is reproduced here, in slightly updated language:

“That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity [to be] the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, or [who shall deny] the Godhead of any of the said Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachful speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three Persons thereof, shall be punished with death [yes, it really does say that!] and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs.”

In other words, anyone who publicly blasphemes or denies either the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (*) or any portion thereof is to suffer both the death penalty, himself, and the seizure of his property and assets! There is also a clause prohibiting, basically, “talking smack” about a) the beliefs and practices of any particular branch of Christianity, or b) insulting practitioners of any form of Christianity not one’s own.

In other words, to put it in relatively simple and modern terms, you will not publicly denigrate Christianity, Christians, or Christian doctrine, and you will – at least publicly – be nice to other Christians. It is, frankly, hard for me to argue with either of those.

[The Act also includes a section prohibiting the profanation of the Christian Sabbath (Sunday, a.k.a. the Lord’s Day) “by frequent swearing, drunkenness or by any uncivil or disorderly recreation, or by working on that day when absolute necessity doth not require it.” I am old enough to remember the days of the “Blue Laws,” as they were called, when most places of business were closed on Sundays and other restrictions on secular activities (including sales of alcohol) were in place; and although at the time, I found it frustrating, as I have gotten older – and hopefully, more mature – I have come to realize the wisdom, both spiritually and practically, of keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest.]

Now, mind you, I am not suggesting the death penalty for anyone who fails to hold to or publicly confess the Trinitarian Christian faith! Not at all. In particular, what people believe in private is precisely that: private, and it is not the business of government to be snooping behind closed doors.

But under this system, you are not allowed to publicly assert that Christianity is a crock of bull, whatever your private opinions may be, and you must accept the basically Christian character of the society of which you are a member, if you wish to remain a member of that society. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Continue reading ““An Act Concerning Religion””

Death of 7-year-old Baltimore girl weeks after shooting revives anger about “no snitching” ethos | Baltimore Sun

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, standing and outdoor

Taylor Hayes’ homicide is the latest case in which detectives believe an individual has information on who killed a child but is not cooperating.

Source: Death of 7-year-old Baltimore girl weeks after shooting revives anger about ‘no snitching’ ethos – Baltimore Sun

The link to this story came across my Facebook newsfeed. The person who posted it commented,

“You don’t know her name. You don’t want to know her name. She does not matter. Don’t worry, she wasn’t killed by a Cop or White Dude. And of course I am wrong for talking about her.

“The death Thursday of Taylor Hayes — the 7-year-old girl who had struggled to survive for two weeks after being shot — has once again elicited anger about Baltimore’s notorious ‘no-snitching’ ethos.

“Taylor’s homicide is the latest high-profile case in which detectives believe an individual has information on who killed a child — but won’t cooperate.

“What was her name?”

No whites or cops involved? No wonder we don’t know her name, or her story!

Her name, of course, is Taylor. But the reason why her name, and her story, are not as widely known as, say, that of Freddie Gray or Trayvon Martin is that her story does not fit the “national narrative,” which portrays blacks as the innocent victims of police violence. Mostly perpetrated by white officers, of course, according to this narrative; but cops in general (and to a lesser but still significant extent, whites in general) are the bad guys.

The reality is far different. It is not whites, or cops of any race, that are largely responsible for violence against African Americans; it is their fellow blacks. 8.6% of blacks killed were killed by whites in 2016 (note that 15.8% of white victims were killed by blacks, that same year: nearly twice the rate, despite blacks making up a substantially smaller percentage of the population) – but 89.3% of blacks were killed by other blacks. This, according to a US News and World Report article from September of 2016, entitled “Race and Homicide in America, by the Numbers.”

Yet you still see lunacy like this…

https://patriactionary.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/theenemy.png?w=840

Can we say, “disconnected from reality,” boys and girls…?

I couldn’t find similar percentage figures for police, but I did learn that in 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer, and that black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. In other words, police have far more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. If LEOs might sometimes be a little jumpy in such situations, it’s not without reason.

But again, that doesn’t fit the national narrative – or perhaps I ought to say the “progressive,” or more accurately Leftist (since it’s anything but authentically progressive – more like retrogressive), narrative – so we don’t hear about those figures.

We live in sad times.

One other point needs to be made, and it was raised in the NY Post essay cited above:

“Violent crime has now risen by a significant amount for two consecutive years. The total number of violent crimes rose 4.1 percent in 2016, and estimated homicides rose 8.6 percent. In 2015, violent crime rose by nearly 4 percent and estimated homicides by nearly 11 percent. The last time violence rose two years in a row was 2005-06.

“The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 a.m., many officers are instead just driving by.

“Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January 2017. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.”

This is, or should be, a concern for all Americans, regardless of race, location, or economic status. “No-go zones” in the U.S.? This, my friends, is a problem!

Students’ attitudes really… *ahem!* …take the cake.

Many or most of my readers may know that a recent Supreme Court decision held that a Christian baker was within his rights to refuse to bake a special cake for a gay wedding. For that he was roundly criticized, some would say harassed, by the party in question. They brought suit, and the case eventually made it to the SCOTUS – which, to the surprise of most observers, found in favor of the defendant.

While their ruling has been criticized by some conservatives for being too narrow, it at least went some way toward upholding the principle that merely because one offers a service to the public, one is not thereby obliged to completely chuck one’s moral standards and religious beliefs into the gutter. (To put a slightly finer point on it, service does not equate to slavery.)

The baker made it clear that he would happily have sold the couple a pre-existing cake; he is, after all, in the business of selling cakes, and has no desire to actively discriminate. However, by demanding that he make one specifically for their occasion, they were forcing him to actively participate in it, demonstrating de facto approval of their actions, and that is what he objected to. The Supreme Court, to their credit, agreed.

Now, I am a bit more extreme in my views, in that I believe a private business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, or no reason – with the understanding, of course, that this is likely to have an impact on his or her business, and if that impact is negative (people “vote with their wallet”), he or she has no right to complain. So from that perspective, yes, I agree that it was too narrow a ruling.

But, it is head-and-shoulders above the situation we have had up to this point, which is that basically anyone can be forced to do anything for anyone, if it is in line with their business, and the business owner has no choice in the matter, regardless of their moral qualms. So it is at least a significant step in the right direction!

What causes me to shake my head (in dismay though not, alas, in surprise) is the reactions of the college students interviewed, which demonstrate with all-too-crystalline clarity the extent of the socio-political indoctrination inflicted on our young people by the academic establishment – public school and higher education alike – as well as the lack of critical-thinking skills inculcated by these institutions.

They are emphatic and unanimous that the SCOTUS decision was wrong, that people’s “right” to “be who they are” trumps a business owner’s right to follow his or her own moral and religious standards – even to the point of being forced to do something that is directly against them. But they start to waffle when the parameters are shifted!

Well, what if it’s a black baker, being forced to bake a cake for a KKK rally? They backed off of that one in a hurry, although struggling (and failing) to find some sort of coherent justification for the switch: even admitting, in a couple of instances, that they had contradicted themselves.

What if it’s a Jewish baker, being asked to bake a cake for a Palestinian event (presumably of a “free Palestine” – and thus, anti-Israel – nature)? More waffling. A lot more, in this case, as they are presumably conflicted over which side is “in the right,” here!

But the point is that the argument that someone’s right / freedom to “be who they are” trumps a business owner’s right to be who he or she is, in following their religious and moral standards – even to the point of forcing that person to transgress their religious and moral beliefs – collapses completely, when it’s not some nasty reactionary Christian oppressing some poor, oppressed, “freedom”-loving progressive type.

As my mother used to say, “it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.” And as I have said more than once in various fora, irony and double-standards are endemic among today’s Leftists, and logic, coherence, and rationality appear to be in short supply!

Britain slips (further…?) into “1984” mode

“Hey, Tommy Tommy! Hey, Tommy Robinson!”

— chant from a recent Free Tommy Robinson rally in the UK

There is an old saying that goes, “I love my country, it’s the government I can’t stand.”

I love Great Britain, its history, its culture, its Queen (God save Her Majesty!), its monarchical, aristocratic, folk, and just plain quirky traditions, and yes, I believe, its potential – if it can shake off these “dark times” (in Katie Hopkins’ words) it is going through. But its government? That, I have less and less respect for all the time.

In this latest confirmation that George Orwell (author of the classic work of dystopian fiction, Nineteen Eight-Four) was not wrong, just several decades premature, social activist and citizen journalist Tommy Robinson was recently livestreaming outside the latest grooming-gang trial in the UK. As reported in, inter alia, the National Review,

“The police turned up in a van and swiftly arrested Robinson for ‘breach of the peace.’ Within hours Robinson had been put before one Judge Geoffrey Marson, who in under five minutes tried, convicted, and sentenced Robinson to 13 months. He was immediately taken to prison.”

Tommy Robinson is a controversial figure, to say the least. The founder of the English Defense League, he is definitely to the nationalist and populist right of center. For those whose social and political perspective is globalist and statist, or “progressive” and multiculturalist, that’s enough to make him persona non grata.

But he has not only been opposed to the enforced mass immigration that the now apparently dead-in-the-water Brexit was, in part, about, but he has been focusing on exposing the mostly-Pakistani Muslim “grooming gangs” – as the British press delicately phrases it – or as Hopkins more accurately puts it, “rape squads.”

This is no exaggeration. Would that it were! But as Douglas Murray points out in a National Review article that pulls no punches on either side, “every month brings news of another town in which gangs of men (almost always of Pakistani origin) have been found to have raped young, often underage, white girls.”

Since this is an issue the authorities would rather not confront, they are needless to say not inclined to look favorably on someone whose activities – as a social activist and citizen journalist – are forcing the issue into public attention. Have some of his actions been unwise, even foolish? Yes. Has the British government’s response to him been disproportionate and extreme? A thousand times, yes! Murray continues,

“The primary issue is that for years the British state allowed gangs of men to rape thousands of young girls across Britain. For years the police, politicians, Crown Prosecution Service, and every other arm of the state ostensibly dedicated to protecting these girls failed them. As a number of government inquires have concluded, they turned their face away from these girls because they were terrified of the accusations of racism that would come their way if they did address them. They decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation…

“What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.”

And now he has been sent to prison for 13 months, where – if he is in an open ward, in which are a very large proportion of Muslims – he may end up coming out in a body bag. As Tucker Carlson and Katie Hopkins point out in the video above, you don’t have to like Tommy Robinson, agree with him, or even know who he is to understand that what has happened to him is wrong. To quote Murray again,

“Tommy Robinson will be in prison for another year. And all those people happy with the status quo will breathe a sigh of relief. ‘Thank goodness that troublemaker has gone away.’ Yet their real problem has not gone away. There is no chance of their real problem going away. Because they have no plan for making it go away.

“They have a vague hope, of course, which is that at some point soon in the coming generations this will all simmer down and the incoming communities will develop similar views about the status of women as the rest of society. And perhaps we will get there someday. But it is telling that the apparently tolerable roadkill en route includes one young man from Luton — and thousands of raped girls.”

School “walkout” – grassroots or astroturf?

So, yesterday (Wednesday, March 14th), many schools around the country had a “walk-out” in which students – many with the support and encouragement, and even in some cases the mandate – of their administrations protested violence in schools (which is a legitimate concern) and in most cases also called for additional gun control measures.

It is the latter that (as will not surprise regular readers of this blog) I have issues with.

The sad reality is that it is actually much more likely that kids will be killed at home by a relative than that they will be shot in school by a lunatic. Well, anybody who shoots anyone who isn’t threatening them is a lunatic, but you know what I mean…

Point is, this should have been a “teachable moment” to help kids understand a) where the real threats are, and are not, and b) the point and purpose of our God-given and inalienable rights and liberties, as enumerated in – not granted by – the Constitution. Instead, we see this.

It is very frustrating to me to witness schools, which should be fonts of knowledge, promulgating misinformation and disinformation and even encouraging it. Civil disobedience is also a right (as long as it does not involve violence or mayhem), of course – but we need to be very careful, imho, what examples and precedents we set!

It’s also interesting to see which rights schools deny students, and which they do not – and why. In many school districts (including, now, my home district of Carroll County, Maryland), it is not permitted for students to wear or carry Confederate images or memorabilia: a prohibition which is a clear infringement on their First Amendment right to free expression. But, goes the argument, schools have the authority to limit the rights of their students while they are in school.

However, now students apparently have the right to walk out of class in protest… as long as it’s for an approved cause. Wonder what would happen if they walked out for gun rights, or to protest bans on Confederate iconography, or in support of the white farmers in South Africa being brutally attacked, and who are now in danger of having their lands seized without compensation?

I’ll bet the administration wouldn’t be so eager to have them walk out for those causes!

Also telling: some students have been disciplined for refusing to join the walkout, and others for carrying signs that disagreed with the premises of the protest. While I do not deny that many students are concerned – nor that they have a right to be – their teachers and administrators are not, in many cases, serving them well by supporting and encouraging emotional reactions not justified by the facts.

Update: it’s not just students:

A California high school teacher says she was “aghast” to learn she was placed on leave over comments she made about National School Walkout Day.

Julianne Benzel, a Rocklin High School teacher, said that administrators’ decision Wednesday followed a debate she held in her history class about the nationwide school protest supporting gun control reform…

“I just kind of used the example, which I know it’s really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time — a group of students nationwide, or even locally, decided ‘I want to walk out of school for 17 minutes’ and go in the quad area and protest abortion, would that be allowed by our administration?”

That is a darned good question, actually, and it ties in directly with my comment above: that civil disobedience is being selectively allowed – and even encouraged – by schools, so long and only so long as it’s in support of a cause they favor.

“I didn’t get any backlash from my students,” Benzel said. “All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard.”

On National Walkout Day, she received a letter from the human resources department notifying her that she was being put on paid administrative leave.

Benzel, who has since retained legal counsel, said the school’s decision has raised questions about First Amendment rights.

Indeed it has! And her point about a double standard is square on. But as I have commented before, double standards and unintended irony are all too characteristic of the contemporary American Left.

In a related move, the City of Baltimore (struggling against rampant crime and an opioid epidemic, among other challenges) apparently plans to spend $100,000 to bus students to an anti-gun protest in Washington, DC, and even provide t-shirts for them!

Indeed, far from being the “grassroots” movement that is claimed, this whole thing shows definite signs of being astroturf, instead.

While I do not doubt that there is legitimate concern on the part of many students, which is entirely understandable under the circumstances, teachers and administrators – rather than engaging students in a genuine dialog on the costs of freedom, the limitations of attempting to legislate safety in the absence of a moral climate which encourages self-control and respect for life, and the importance of balancing rights and freedoms with safety and security (or vice versa) – appear to be encouraging and even manipulating them in some very concerning and authoritarian directions.

I am once again boggled by the prospect of people who self-identify as “liberals” loudly and aggressively insisting that their rights be taken away!