Smug Obama speechwriter provides damning reminder of Democrats' intolerance for conservatives, vax-refusers



There is an editorial genre kept alive at liberal publications around the country that is focused on questions about what to do with conservative kin and how best to prevent family members from similarly adopting viewpoints at odds with leftist values.

The HuffPost, for instance, published a long-winded essay from a stereotypical Bluesky progressive about whether she should cut her "right-wing, Trump-loving in-laws out of [her] kids' lives."

New York magazine ran an essay last year from a mother of white boys expressing terror over their potential slide to the right and over "having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating [her] spaghetti and meatballs."

The Delaware News Journal published an open letter in December in which the former president of the Delaware teachers' union defended the decision to ditch Trump-supporting family members, claiming that "it comes from a deep sense of betrayal, a need to preserve our mental and emotional well-being, and the refusal to stay silent in the face of harm."

Obama speechwriter David Litt recently contributed to the genre with a piece in the New York Times titled "Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?"

Litt ultimately answered yes, that "keeping the door open to unlikely friendship isn't a betrayal of principles — it's an affirmation of them."

RELATED: CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

However, prior to signaling his beneficence, Litt provided Times readers with a reminder both of the elitism that has helped the Democratic Party alienate much of the electorate and of Democrats' chronic abuse of those who failed to fall in line during the pandemic.

At the outset, Obama's former speechwriter noted that he "felt a civic duty to be rude" to his wife's younger brother.

"He lifted weights to death metal; I jogged to Sondheim. I was one of President Barack Obama's speechwriters and had an Ivy League degree; he was a huge Joe Rogan fan and went on to get his electrician's license," wrote Litt.

Although the speechwriter did not dwell on these differences, they appear to fit thematically with voters' understanding reflected in a poll recently conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country — namely that the Democratic Party is "out of touch," "woke," and "weak."

According to Litt, the imagined chasm between him and his conservative brother-in-law grew during the pandemic, particularly when the in-law refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine — a decision that various studies and recent warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have vindicated, especially when it comes to healthy men.

'It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared.'

The Ivy League Democrat admitted that had the man "been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely."

Although Litt did not end up cutting off his brother-in-law, he indicated that he was for a period of time strategically unfriendly, claiming that such treatment of the unvaccinated "felt like the right thing to do" — a tactic then advocated in the pages of USA Today.

Democrats at the time were apparently willing to go far beyond unfriendliness in their efforts to bring the unvaccinated to heel.

In a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of 1,016 likely voters conducted in January 2022, pollsters asked, "Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the coronavirus by having federal or state governments require that citizens temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine?"

Whereas 71% of all voters — and 84% of Republicans — signaled opposition to throwing the unvaccinated in quarantine camps, 45% of Democrats said they strongly or somewhat favored the proposal.

According to the same poll, 48% of Democrats supported federal or state governments fining or imprisoning Americans who questioned the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines on social media, TV, radio, or in digital publications.

The same month that nearly half of polled Democrats expressed a desire to see their fellow citizens locked up for wrongthink or tossed into camps for avoiding an experimental vaccine, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece suggesting it was "not necessarily the wrong reaction" to "celebrate or exult in the deaths of vaccine opponents."

"Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation," wrote Litt. "It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared."

RELATED: Polling reveals: Whatever Democrats are doing, it ain't working

Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

While certain that conservatives will continue to be shunned over the MAGA agenda — in particular over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and over Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reform of the medical establishment — Litt questioned the efficacy of Democrat cancel culture, suggesting that "it's counterproductive."

In what might be the most telling sentence in the piece, Obama's Democratic speechwriter characterized as "radical" the notion that individuals can like each other despite disapproving of each other's political choices.

More in Common, a research outfit that studies social division, noted in a 2019 study concerning the root causes of political polarization that "Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America's 'Perception Gap.'"

According to More in Common, Democrats have a much wider perception gap, "likely because they have fewer Republican friends." The likelihood of Democrats reporting most of their friends sharing the same political beliefs increases depending on their level of educational attainment, whereas the likelihood remains flat for Republicans.

Although he claimed shunning family with opposing views wasn't worthwhile, Litt made sure to indicate that ostracizing strangers was still okay, claiming he'd avoid White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on account of his supposed "odiousness."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bishops vow defiance, DOJ launches probe over Washington state's new 'anti-Catholic' law



Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) ratified a bill on Friday requiring priests to break the seal of confession if informed of abuse.

As this law invites the government into the confessional, likely violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause, and puts priests at risk of automatic excommunication, Catholic bishops in Washington state have vowed defiance and the Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation.

Senate Bill 5375, which passed the state Senate in a 28-20 vote and the state House in a 64-31 vote, requires any person operating in an official supervisory capacity with a nonprofit or a for-profit organization — including priests, ordained ministers, and rabbis — who has "reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect" to notify law enforcement or the Department of Children, Youth and Families.

Unlike a previous version of the legislation, SB 5375 offers no carve-out for allegations learned as a result of a confession.

The final bill report actually clarifies that the Democratic law mandates no one except for members of the clergy to report abuse when that information is obtained solely as a result of a privileged communication.

'He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.'

By mandating priests to divulge information gleaned in the confessional, the Democratic law puts priests at risk of excommunication.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament.

The Code of Canon Law cited by the Washington State Catholic Conference in its oppositional statements is similarly clear on the issue: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason."

Canon Law notes further that a "confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae — automatic — excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, a prime sponsor of the bill, did not appear to be concerned about such consequences, stating, "There are some things that it doesn't matter what religion you are in; you never put somebody's conscience over the protection of a child," reported KXLY-TV.

During debate in February, Republican state Sen. Leonard Christian noted that the legislation would force "somebody who's given their entire life — raised their hand, made an oath with God almighty — to choose between God's law and man's law."

'After the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin: "We must obey God rather than men."'

Catholic bishops in the state have made clear which law takes precedence.

The Most Rev. Thomas Daly, Bishop of Spokane, reassured Catholics in his diocese Friday that their priests and bishop "are committed to keeping the seal of the confession — even to the point of going to jail.

"For those legislators who question our commitment to the safety of your children, simply speak with any mom who volunteers with a parish youth group, any Catholic school teacher, any dad who coaches a parochial school basketball team or any priest, deacon, or seminarian, and you will learn firsthand about our solid protocols and procedures," said Bishop Daly. "The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople. We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse."

Seattle Archbishop Paul Etienne underscored in a statement Sunday that while the Church "agrees with the goal of protecting children and preventing child abuse" and already has policies requiring priests to be mandatory reporters, the seal of confession will not be broken.

"This weekend at Mass, the first reading was from the Acts of the Apostles. After the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin: 'We must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29)," wrote the archbishop. "This is our stance now in the face of this new law. Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church."

'The law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges.'

"All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential, and protected by the law of the Church," added Archbishop Etienne.

The archbishop also raised the question of why privileged communications between priest and penitent were singled out but not the communications between attorney and client, doctor and patient, and spouses.

"This new law singles out religion and is clearly both government overreach and a double standard," wrote Archbishop Etienne.

The Justice Department announced a First Amendment investigation into the Washington state law on Monday, calling SB 5375 an "anti-Catholic law."

Like Archbishop Etienne, the DOJ also expressed interest in why Washington Democrats singled out members of the clergy as the only "supervisors" who may not rely on applicable legal privileges as a defense to mandatory reporting.

"SB 5375 demands that Catholic priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot [sic] stand under our constitutional system of government," Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

"Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals," continued Dhillon. "We take this matter very seriously and look forward to Washington State's cooperation with our investigation."

Gov. Ferguson, who identifies as a Catholic, said in a statement obtained by the Seattle Times, "We look forward to protecting Washington kids from sexual abuse in the face of this 'investigation' from the Trump administration."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Parents Push Back On The Rainbow Mafia’s Unmistakable Intolerance

Every time activists and educrats assure parents that the LGBT movement is about 'tolerance,' we find evidence of intolerance.

Stanford law dean apologized to Fifth Circuit judge shouted down by radicals on campus. The woke mob won't let such civility go unpunished.



Good manners and free speech are evidently no longer given any quarter on Stanford University campus.

The dean of Stanford's law school has been targeted for abuse by leftists on campus in response to her decision to apologize to a conservative judge whom censorious students tried to shut up.

What is the background?

An esteemed Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge was invited to speak to the Federalist Society at Stanford university last week about the dialogue between the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit concerning authoritarian COVID-19 restrictions and gun laws.
TheBlaze previously reported that rather than risk exposure to Judge Kyle Duncan's real-world insights, a mob of students shouted him down.

"You've invited me here and I'm being heckled nonstop," says the Trump-appointed judge in a video captured during the event.

Although there was at least one other adult in the room, Tirien Steinbach — a diversity, equity, and inclusion associate dean — she did little to help the situation.
Similarly allergic to differing worldviews, Steinbach launched into an unhinged six-minute rant denouncing Duncan, regurgitating remarks she had circulated to students prior to the event.

"In my view, this was a setup, [Tirien Steinbach] was working with students on this," Duncan later told Reuters.

Duncan later demanded an apology, noting that the anti-free-speech protesters had treated their peers like "dogs**t."

He later told the Washington Free Beacon, "If enough of these kids get into the legal profession, the rule of law will descend into barbarism."

None
— (@)

Mea culpa

Following the incident, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez penned an apology to Duncan, noting, "What happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus."

"We are very clear with our students that, given our commitment to free expression, if there are speakers they disagree with, they are welcome to exercise their right to protest but not to disrupt the proceedings," said the letter. "Staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university's commitment to free speech."

The president and dean claimed they were "taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again."

Duncan said in a statement obtained by National Review that he appreciated the apology and was "pleased to accept it."

"I particularly appreciate the apology’s important acknowledgment that 'staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech,'" wrote Duncan. "Particularly given the depth of the invective directed towards me by the protestors, the administrators’ behavior was completely at odds with the law school’s mission of training future members of the bench and bar."

Extra to suggesting that the members of Stanford's Federalist Society were most deserving of an apology, Duncan wrote, "Given the disturbing nature of what happened, clearly concrete and comprehensive steps are necessary. I look forward to learning what measures Stanford plans to take to restore a culture of intellectual freedom."

Anti-free-speech activists strike again

The apology enraged leftists on campus.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that hundreds of anti-free-speech activists crowded the hallways of the university Monday, protesting Martinez and her apology.

Martinez found that activists had plastered the whiteboard inside the classroom where she teaches constitutional law with placards denouncing Duncan along with copies of her apology.

One flier said, "We, the students in your constitutional law class, are sorry for exercising our 1st Amendment rights."

Another flier, which was mass-produced, advanced the Orwellian claim that "'COUNTER-SPEECH' IS FREE SPEECH."

This claim — that censorship constitutes free speech — was reportedly scrawled across the masks of the anti-speech extremists haunting Martinez's classroom, dressed all in black.

Martinez's faceless critics were joined by the majority of her pupils. Nearly 50 out of the 60 students enrolled in the first-year class got involved in the anti-free-speech protest, reported the Free Beacon.

Those who refused to participate were stigmatized.

"They gave us weird looks if we didn’t wear black," first-year law student Luke Schumacher told the Free Beacon. "It didn’t feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating."

Students writing on behalf of the Stanford chapter of the American Constitution Society condemned the apology, telling Marinez that Duncan was not a victim, but had "himself made civil dialogue impossible."

The juvenile chapter of the ACS further implored the administration to "clarify that Judge Duncan's behavior does not meet the standards this university expects of invited speakers," suggesting that he had "walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak."

None
— (@)

According to Schumacher, when Martinez left the building, the anti-free-speech activists began to cheer and weep.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US Circuit judge denounces 'cancel culture,' vows not to hire Yale law clerks: 'Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it'



A federal appeals judge has decided to take action against so-called "cancel culture" by denying clerkships to those educated by a place he considers to be a major cancel culture supply line: Yale Law School.

Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, recently spoke to the Kentucky Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society and openly castigated the intolerant practices promulgated by Yale Law and its graduates.

"Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it," he said.

To illustrate his point, Ho cited several recent examples that have affected the legal community. Back in late January, a would-be Georgetown Law senior lecturer, Ilya Shapiro, was placed on administrative leave after he tweeted criticism of President Joe Biden for selecting a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court based on the immutable characteristics of race and sex. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a black woman, was sworn in to the Court last week, but Shapiro ultimately resigned his position at Georgetown back in June because he said that he could not abide a "place that excludes dissenting voices." Shapiro did not work one official day on the job.

For more evidence of the intolerance propagated at Yale Law, Ho also pointed to an event held at Yale itself. Back in March, more than 100 Yale Law students loudly disrupted a free speech presentation headlined by Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association. The activist students caused such a disturbance that nearby classes complained, and police had to escort the speakers safely out of the building and into a police vehicle after it was over.

Ellen Cosgrove, an associate dean at Yale Law, attended the entire event, Ho noted, but "did nothing" to punish the petulant protestors for their behavior.

"It turns out that, when elite law schools like Yale teach their students that there are no consequences to their intolerance and illiberalism," Ho said, "the message sticks with them."

However, in addition to referencing numerous examples of intolerant bullying perpetrated by Yale Law students, Ho also suggested that judges have in their control one possible solution to the problem: Refuse to hire these same students as law clerks.

"We’re not just citizens," Ho reminded his audience. "We’re also customers. Customers can boycott entities that practice cancel culture. ... I wonder how a law school would feel, if my fellow federal judges and I stopped being its customers."

He added that his intention is not to participate in cancel culture per se, but to give cancel culture participants a taste of their own medicine.

"I don't want to cancel Yale," Ho insisted. "I want Yale to stop canceling people like me."

Even a Mother Jones writer agreed with the premise of Ho's new policy, if not with Ho's reasons. "The highest levels of the federal judiciary have for too long been dominated by graduates of the same handful of select law schools," wrote senior reporter Tim Murphy, "and it’d be a mistake to say we’re better for it."

Former President Donald Trump nominated Ho, who graduated from the University of Chicago School of Law, to the federal bench in 2018. According to Reuters, Yale declined to comment on this story.

Star of movie Sam Elliott ripped for 'allusions of homosexuality' says Elliott's take was 'very odd,' speaks of 'toxic masculinity' in defending film



After actor Sam Elliott made headlines last week by blasting "allusions of homosexuality" in "piece of s**t" movie "The Power of the Dog," Benedict Cumberbatch — the star of the movie in question — called Elliott's take "very odd" and spoke of "toxic masculinity" and "intolerance" in defending the Oscar-nominated film.

What's the background?

Elliott — known for his Western roles in "Tombstone" and his present project "1883" — let loose with pointed, profane criticisms of "The Power of the Dog" during an interview on Marc Maron’s "WTF" podcast.

Consequence Film characterized director Jane Campion's effort as a "deconstructed Western" and Cumberbatch's character, Phil Burbank, as a "self-styled macho man whose insistence on presenting himself in the most manly way possible hides deep insecurities about his sexual identity."

After Maron asked Elliott his opinion of "The Power of the Dog," he replied, “You wanna talk about that piece of s**t?”

The 77-year-old brought up a Los Angeles Times ad for the movie containing a blurb that “talked about ‘the evisceration of the American myth.’ And I thought, What the f***? What the f***?"

Elliott then said the "f***ing cowboys" in the movie looked like Chippendales dancers: "They’re all running around in chaps and no shirts. There’s all these allusions of homosexuality throughout the f***ing movie.”

What did Cumberbatch have to say?

During BAFTA's Film Sessions on Friday, Cumberbatch discussed his repressed gay character in "The Power of the Dog" — and also addressed Elliott's statements, Digital Spy said.

"I'm trying very hard not to say anything about a very odd reaction that happened the other day on a radio podcast over here," he said, according to the outlet. "Without meaning to stir over the ashes of that ... someone really took offense to — I haven't heard it, so it's unfair for me to comment in detail on it — to the West being portrayed in this way."

Cumberbatch continued: "These people ... still exist in our world. Whether it's on our doorstep, or whether it's down the road, or whether it's someone we meet in a bar or pub or ... on the sports field, there is aggression and anger and frustration and an inability to control or know who you are in that moment that causes damage to that person and, as we know ... damage to others around them."

He also said "there's no harm in looking at a character to get to the root causes of that. This is a very specific case of repression, but also due to an intolerance for that true identity that Phil is that he can't fully be. The more we look under the hood of toxic masculinity and try to discover the root causes of it, the bigger chances we have of dealing with it when it arises with our children," Digital Spy added.

Here are some of Elliott's words and Cumberbatch's reaction. Content warning: Language:

Benedict Cumberbatch Responds To Sam Elliott's Critique Of 'The Power Of The Dog'youtu.be

Anything else?

Leftists ripped into Elliott for his comments about "The Power of the Dog," with some remarking that similar themes were explored in the 2005 film "Brokeback Mountain" and how Elliott could not know that.

Except he did. In fact, Elliott said in regard to gay themes in "Brokeback Mountain" that the "whole homosexual thing was interesting — they stepped over the line — but [my wife] Katharine and I both looked at it and thought, ‘What’s the big deal?’”