Category Archives: freedom

Redefine the Parameters of Debate


Sam White:

If we’re going to make a stand, then first we must redefine the parameters of debate. The conversation around Islam has been shaped entirely by the left, and the borders they’ve drawn are so narrow as to make effective discourse impossible. So let’s reject their pointless regulations. They can no longer be permitted to police the debate.

There were voices from the left in the aftermath of the Manchester attack who were more outraged by things being said on Twitter than by the massacre of children in a British city centre. These people are deeply confused, so let’s clear things up for them: getting angry because a brainwashed psychopath has committed mass murder is normal. Talking about the ideology that drove him is normal. Searching for solutions is normal. To have been galvanised, frustrated, and furious all at the same time was normal.

Pray? Yes. Surrender? No.


The rest of Sam’s essay is just as good. See it all here.

But the terror situation is getting worse, the attacks more frequent, and the methods more barbaric and stomach churning. After a pop concert for teenagers, what might be the next target? Do you think it likely that someone in the UK is planning an attack on a primary school, right now? How far along in their preparations might they be? Is whoever made the nail bomb in Manchester gathering materials for his next hideous device now, and how many children could it kill and maim?


My Signature Usually Looks Like…

My signature.


Above is a signature from a court document filed in the Walker v Kimberlin and Kimberlin suit.  I wrote about it in January of 2016. At the time, there was debate about why the signature of Mrs. Kimberlin differed from document to document. I found a signature which I believe was written by Mrs Kimberlin:


This signature box appeared on Hogewash!, and was filed more recently in the Hoge v Kimberlin et al.

TETY Signature

I’m very sure that there’s a simple explanation. 

You Know What Would Really Generate a Radio Audience?

Frequent references to blood and warts. Plus the word stab.



At some point, people at Hogewash!, BillySez and Thinking Man’s Zombie might start to wonder if Bill Preston-Schmalfeldt is intentionally living his life in an attempt to convince a judge that he cannot be held responsible for his own actions. 

It’s one thing to find a “Kick Me” sign on your back. It’s another thing entirely if you notice that it is in your own handwriting.





Amish Extremist, No Doubt

Or Shaker. 

LONDON — Police on Tuesday identified the man who blew himself up the previous night at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, as 22-year-old Salman Abedi. CBS News confirmed Abedi was known to British authorities prior to the attack.

In a generic statement posted online, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility for Abedi’s suicide bomb attack, which left 22 people dead, including children, at one of the entrances to the Manchester Arena.

In a generic statement posted online, blogger Dave Alexander said anyone who supports a group which deliberately targets children can go to hell. 

Saffie Rose Roussos, eight, was killed in last night’s suicide bomb attack, teachers say

Saffie Rose Roussos was eight.

The concert was packed with teens and children as young as eight

Source (The Sun)

Those Nazi Pugs Need to Be Stopped

I don’t like hate speech, don’t approve of it, all races deserve respect, don’t kill people, my God demands that I love my enemies.

Gotta say this things otherwise people will believe I actually support Nazi…dogs.

Freedom Crossroads:

A Scottish YouTuber by the name of Markus Meechan is about to go to trial on a charge of hate speech sparked by a video he created last year.

In the video, Meechan begins by saying: “So, my girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, so I’ve thought I’d turn him into the least cute thing I could think of which is a Nazi.”Nazi Pug

He then proceeds to ‘show’ the dog a clip of Hitler and teach it to do the Nazi salute and to respond to the phrase “gas the Jews.”

With about two minutes of content which has not even received 2.5 million views since it was posted, Meechan has found himself facing up to a year in prison.

The Daily Caller:

“…or part of their sanity…??

The German parliament is debating a proposal to force social media platforms to either delete hate speech quickly or risk hefty fines. [Up to 56 million dollars. — Dave]

The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may have on freedom of speech. Justice Minister Heiko Maas disagrees, arguing it will only help protect freedom of speech in Germany.

I’ve posted a lot of words about this subject…but I’m going to explain again, just in case someone thinks these cases are actually appropriate.

Hateful speech ought to be legal, as long as no violence is incited. Why? Because you really shouldn’t want others to decide what you can say. No, you shouldn’t. I’m not saying “Let’s go kill some…” is okay, because you know I don’t think that. 

These examples are from outside the U.S., but my country’s founding documents talk of inalienable rights — from a creator, and not from governments. No, Germany does not have a “First Amendment” but freedom of speech should be universal. It is an embarrassment that so-called democracies seek to mussle their citizens in the name of stamping out hate speech.  

If you are a liberal who wants to squash Nazi groups, or dogs, before they take over…or you fear hate speech because it diminishes your personhood, so you want to take speech rights away from others…or you want to stop those who would advocate discussions of taboo subjects like immigration, assimilation, gender, race and such…


If you are such a person, and you think hate speech shouldn’t be free speech, the listen closely.

Congratulations. You have become the fascist you claim to hate.


Governor, you are wrong. Also, generally the First Amendment is capitalized.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry, Chris. The phrase “except hate speech” isn’t there.


Who is in Charge of Facebook Content? Austria?

Breitbart News:

Facebook is appealing an order to impose Austria’s social media laws against hate speech on the platform worldwide.

“The court case involves comments posted to Facebook about the leader of Austria’s Green Party, which the party claims are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws,” reported Fortune. “An appeals court in Vienna agreed and ordered Facebook to take them down not just in Austria but everywhere else as well.”


According to Reuters, the court also said that “merely blocking them in Austria without deleting them for users abroad was not sufficient.”

The order would mean that citizens of other countries where “hate speech” laws are non-existent could have their free speech restricted under Austrian law to stop negative posts being made and shared.

“Should Facebook comply globally with Russia’s anti-gay laws, or Thailand’s laws against insulting the king, or Saudi Arabia’s blasphemy laws?” asked Daphne Keller, a lawyer at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University.

Should they? No. No company should be forced to edit content for all audiences just because someone is offended. Or a certain nation deems it ‘hateful,’ or even illegal.

We are moving in this direction, and it’s going to be bad. Western liberals have decided to censor ideas and opinion based upon the perception of the reader. If your writings offend someone, then poof, they are offensive. And therefore ‘hate speech.’ 

As I’ve said before, I hate hate. I’m not a spokesman for offensive writers. On the other hand, if my words offend you, I have only offended you. I have not really caused you to be hurt. 

And you have no right to impose your censorship rules in my country.

A Question for the Lawyers

…and the non-lawyers as well…

John Hoge of Hogewash! is suing Brett Kimberlin, convicted bomber, and his good friend Bill Schmalfeldt. Team Kimberlin has pestered Hoge and others for years in the court, and now the shoe is on the other foot. 

In Schmalfeldt’s case, a judge has ordered him to respond to document requests in the case.

When a judge orders you to answer document requests in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, don’t you have to produce documents?

Or is ‘no, you can’t have the documents’ a proper response? 

Stock vector of 'Grunge rubber stamp with text Last Chance,vector illustration'

 Available at 

Is there any language which Bill Schmalfeldt would understand to be an order which required him to do something?

Peace Orders don’t always work, for example. An order to adhere to a copyright agreement didn’t work. The established rules of the court, which order all participants to refrain from recording seem to have been ignored.

Should the judge have pulled out his “LAST CHANCE” stamp, and used it to decorate the order?

What, short of a night in jail or a fine, will actually get his attention?


And just in case Bill Schmalfeldt again repeats to the court that he wants nothing more than to forget John Hoge exists, and enjoy the life he is living at the beach…

Bill Schmalfeldt denied several people their privacy, comfort and peace of mind through a years long campaign of harassment. He at one time had active Peace Orders (or similar documents) in place ordering him to leave people alone. Some were not adhered to.

As soon as a judge clears this case…I suspect he will start again. If you comment here, he will try to find you.