Resisting the New Blacklist

Resisting the New Blacklist April 4, 2014


There’s a new blacklist.

Its members are anyone who dares to oppose gay marriage, or gay behavior of any sort. The punishment, even for icons of the tech industry, is to have their careers deep-sixed; all in the name of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance.”

We have reached the point that these very fine words, inclusiveness and tolerance, have become the tools of a new totalitarianism that strikes at freedom of expression, freedom of political action and freedom of religion for every American.

This blacklist is the opposite of freedom. It is absolute intolerance. It is the apogee of exclusiveness.

It is bigoted, biased, hate-filled, discriminatory and totalitarian.

It is the ghost of Jim Crow, the shade of McCarthy, walking alive again among us today.

It has no place in a free society.

I’ve written numerous blog posts decrying it, including this one yesterday. Elizabeth Scalia wrote a post yesterday, calling on the gay community to speak out in support of freedom. Hopefully, at least a few people in that community will have the courage to break ranks and do so.

I deleted Mozilla Firefox from my computer.

I am going to get a lot more active in working for the First Amendment rights of Christians, but I need to pray and think before I decide exactly how. I will do this after session adjourns this year. It will almost certainly mean that I take a few days off from blogging.

I made a small donation to the National Organization for Marriage. It’s the first of a recurring donation.

I urge you to consider how you can take a stand against the blacklisting of people for their religious beliefs and completely legal, private and peaceful political activities. At the very least, take Firefox off your computers and donate a few dollars to the National Organization for Marriage. Even a $10 donation helps, especially if you give it every month.

Thank you copy




Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

74 responses to “Resisting the New Blacklist”

  1. Nice post. The other side will of course claim that you are bigoted and discriminatory. They will not be happy unless you agree with them or be silent. Too bad for them.

  2. Thank you for your blog post. I was saddened by Mr. Eich’s departure from Mozilla, and as a fellow Catholic and U.S. citizen I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in your blog post.

    All the same, I don’t agree with the part about deleting Firefox from computers. The reason being that, despite recent unpleasant developments, Mozilla is still one of the few independent and driving forces behind the “open web”, and that’s something that all of us should be concerned about. Using Firefox on a daily basis and submitting bug reports and usage stats is thus a great way to support forward momentum of open source technology, international web standards and the open web in general.

    As much as I like Google’s Chrome browser, for those who can make an informed choice, Firefox is the way to go when it comes to supporting the open web.

  3. This amounts to a declarattion of war by the gay lobby. I’m sick of these neo-nazis shoving their perversity down our throats. I’m sick of being kind and inoffensive. Homosexuality is not normal. That is the truth.

  4. I have said in other blog posts that a new Inquisition is here, or maybe an Anti-Inquisition. It may seem far fetched to some, but I predict that very soon, those who are not actively, publicly declaring their complete devotion to the LGBT tsunami will pay. I do not think that rejection for job applicants, bank loan applicants, housing, public office is out of the question. It may not be acknowledged, but tacitly it will be in force.

  5. The homosexual activists are “theophobes”. They are bigoted against God, His laws and people who want to live according to God’s Laws.

  6. Gleichschaltung – the act, process, or policy of achieving rigid and total coordination and uniformity (as in politics, culture, communication) by forcibly repressing or eliminating independence and freedom of thought, action, or expression : forced reduction to a common level : forced standardization or assimilation. Gleichschaltung is an example from the early days of the Nazi dictatorship of this use of language to manipulate and confuse. As a
    totalitarian regime the Third Reich developed its own language, a perversion of
    the German language. The control of hearts and minds, to which totalitarian
    political systems aspire, necessitates such a perversion of the normal use of
    language. Meaning is twisted and distorted in such a way that the citizens of a
    totalitarian state can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood. It became, in 1933, the word for the process by which all organisations and
    associations existing in society were nazified and some, such as the political
    parties and the trade unions, were simply suppressed. The word was meant to hide
    the fact that what was going on was in flagrant breach of all previous notions
    of freedom, civil rights and self-government. It was a way of glossing over the
    threat of terror and violence that compelled individuals and organisations to
    come to heel. People could say that their organisations had been
    gleichgeschaltet (aligned, co-ordinated), when what had really happened
    was that former colleagues, who had become politically or racially inconvenient,
    had been brutally thrown out and often subjected to physical violence.

  7. A ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoronic phrase. In short–there is no such thing. Yes, it may be legal but it is not good. All that is legal is not necessarily good. gh

  8. What kind of an atmosphere will there be once the Supreme Court imposes re-definition on all 50 states? I am not sure, maybe it will actually have a cooling effect but maybe it will only cause people to re-trench even more. In this sense i hope that if it has to happen, it happens quickly and it writes in strong personal conscience protections and everyone moves on.

  9. The First Amendment also contains the right to petition the government. The Supreme Court just ruled a couple of days ago, (in a ruling that I didn’t like, btw) that campaign contributions are a form of petition of the government that is protected by the First Amendment.

    However, I don’t see a court case in this, as least not on that basis. What I do see, regardless of court rulings is a deliberate use of intimidation in order to force people to forego their First Amendment right to petition the government.

    That is a very serious matter.

    Also, since this involved an election, it comes close to interfering with the electoral process by use of intimidation.

  10. That’s not true, Mike. I personally just had a conversation with a homosexual person yesterday about their prayer life. It was a sincere and unguarded conversation with someone who genuinely believes in the Lord Jesus and goes to Him for help and support, the same and everyone else.

  11. The First Amendment only protects against actions by the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the First Amendment protections against state government agencies. Mozilla Firefox is neither, so there is clearly no constitutional issue. The issue is not what the CEO did, but rather what the private company did. The only legal possibility in theory would seem to be if the state had an anti-religious discrimination employment law, and it considered his campaign donation to be a religious act within the meaning of the law, and the act of causation to the firing can be proven. A lot of ifs even for a non-politicized environment. In this day and age, forget it.

  12. Yep. I got ‘downsized’ some years ago and although I can’t prove it I believe the beginning of my end started when I didn’t put on a rainbow ribbon for an employer sponsored GLBT Celebration Day and my gay boss noticed it. Prior to that we got along great, then after that things changed, he was cold and I could do nothing right anymore.

  13. And how long will the free internet last once the gay mafia norms are imposed over business at large? Besides, trusting a part of your freedom to people who behave like this seems to me to betray a very excessive optimism.

  14. There is a HUGE difference between those who have same-sex attraction (active or not) and those who are ACTIVISTS for the gay movement (who may even be hetero). It is the militant activists who are the problem.

  15. I understand that the First Amendment deal with government intrusion. However is plenty of precedent for the government acting against private attempts to stop people from exercising their First Amendment rights. Some of these are statutory and others are case law.

    Be that as it may, this is a clear attempt to use intimidation for force people for forfeit their First Amendment right to petition the government.

    I was answering a question explaining how this was an American freedom under the First Amendment, and that’s how. Participation in the electoral process with force, coercion, intimidation or threat is an American right and an essential component of our republic.

  16. All I ever do is this: 🙂

    If somebody knows how to convert it to one of these little smiley face thingies, feel free to chime in. 🙂

  17. Google is every bit as rabidly anti-Christian as Mozilla.
    As Christians, we need to develop our own technology companies so we stop enriching evil secularists.

  18. I was constantly downgraded and ignored for my Christian beliefs at UCSB. (I wish I would have seen how the school reacted to pro-life demonstrators before I was foolish enough to attend that school.)

  19. Yes, I agree. The cultural wars have been going on for a while. The gay mafia has been particulaly aggressive.

  20. “He who sows the wind will reap the whirliwind” – homofascists ought to remember this.

  21. No more than the boycott-Israel crowd are aware that every computer would collapse without Israel-registered patents. But then ignorance is a weapon.

  22. There is no constitutional issue about intimidation and threats? I would call it a RICO issue if nothing else.

  23. I think Disqus has severe limitations in this area. With other programs, if you do that it should convert itself into a smiley. I think it’s the same problem whereby I can’t open a video or picture on these answer threads, only put in links.

  24. I deleted my Firefox. I don’t want them being insulted or offended that a pro-family person was using their site.

  25. google does nothing unless it helps them spying on you. That’s why the Chrome browser was developed, it reports on what you do. The Iron browser was developed to take the spying out of Chrome:

    google put up their “Rainbow” banner during the Winter Olympics to protest the Russian law that forbids homosexuals from propagandizing to children.

    google is and has always been run by liberal bigots, and wouldn’t employ anyone else.

  26. Yes, they now feel that they have the right, and the power, to be out for revenge.

  27. The Mozilla Foundation doesn’t have anything to do with this blacklisting (see Under their guidelines (see bullet point i.) Mozilla employees and community members should have treated Eich’s views as his own and not treated them as an issue affecting the Mozilla community as a whole. Indeed, only a few Mozillians ignored these guidelines (see the blog post again), almost all the pressure was from the outside.

    Eich resigned voluntarily after being hounded by gay rights activists and silly people who wanted to jump on the bandwagon to look cool, or just as a publicity stunt as in the case of OkCupid. They were calling to boycott Firefox; he presumably resigned to take the pressure off, recognizing how important Mozilla and Firefox are to the future of the Web. Mozilla is one of the very few real supporters of freedom and privacy left in today’s world, particularly the technology area. If you’re worried about being on an anti-gay blacklist, Mozilla is approximately the last technology company you want to boycott. If they weren’t around in the 90’s, Microsoft would essentially own the Web today; if they aren’t around tomorrow, Google will.

  28. That’s a good way to show support for gay marriage, seeing as Google is proud to fly the rainbow flag. [] []

  29. Gay terrorism has been at work here in Ma. for quite a while now. But no one listened when people from our state tried to send out warnings when they drove the Catholic Church from the adoption ministry and even got a parent arrested for objecting to the gay propaganda in his child’s school textbooks. The only thing that will halt this descent into a huge pit is for parents and others to get politically active and throw he the gay enablers out of office.

  30. I hear you. But there’s a difference between supporting something and firing someone who holds a contrary opinion. This was a step too far. It was an outrage.

  31. Yes, I agree with you and I am outraged at what Mozilla did. I intend to drop FF and maybe go with Opera.

  32. The choice is either to fragment or to go along with the establishment’s liberal bigotry. It’s nearly impossible to change anything when nearly the entire media has appointed itself to be the propaganda machine for the bad guys.

  33. On Eich’s blog ( ), he brags about “Ascend Project” ( )

    “…specifically target participants who come from underemployed, LGBTQ, Latin@, and African American population”.

    Translation: no straight whites allowed. Notice that every comment is favorable. That’s because Mozilla has such as diverse culture, of course. The head of that is Lukas Blakk, who describes herself as “Mozilla Release Manager, queer/feminist activist” at

    That’s close to Bill Gates’ Millenium Scholarship, where the #1 rule is: no whites allowed:

    “Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they meet all of the following criteria:

    – Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native*, Asian & Pacific Islander American** or Hispanic American”

  34. I think I remember about the parent arrested. The governor who led the state when that abomination took place was Mitt Romney, which tells you how far things are gone.

  35. Untrue. David Parker got himself arrested. He refused to leave the elementary school until his demands to chnage the curriculum were met. It was 6pm. Nice. Teachers and staff had families to go home to. The guy wouldnt leave. He said that he knew he was engaging in “civil disobedience” and was willing to accept the consequences. He said, “If I’m not under arrest then I’m not leaving.” Then he declined to pay a $40 bail so that the police would have no choice but to hold him overnight for arraignment.

    As to forcing the RCC out of the adoption business, also untrue. They CHOSE to close their businesses rather than comply with equality laws. Were those “whites only” lunch counters in the South also “forced” out of business, or did they choose to close, rather than comply with equality laws?

    For shame. And right before Holy Week.

  36. I’m going to put in my 2 cents then go away. Your analogy of the situation with the Church closing its adoption agencies is a little bit like a thief claiming that he didn’t rob the convenience store clerk, she decided to give him the money. The fact that he held a gun to her head was incidental.

  37. I respectfully disagree. If our country’s adoption equality laws are comparable to a thief holding a gun to the head of adoption agencies, then so too are our integration laws comparable to a thief holding a gun to the head of lunch counter owners..

  38. You are creating a false dichotomy by equating a 2,000-year-old Church and its long-standing teachings with a lunch counter.

    You are also creating a false dichotomy by equating slavery and segregation with sexual preference.

  39. How so? I’m drawing analogies. And with respect, merely saying these are poor analogies doesn’t make them poor analogies.

  40. But Rebecca! Do you want to take away from the poor gays their everlasting and universal self-comparison with the condition of American blacks before 1956? What argument would they have left if that one went?

  41. Interesting that you only notice the sacred calendar when you can use it (in your mind, because we don’t respond) as a stick to beat your opponents with.

  42. One of the boldest and most outspoken opponents of the new inquisition I know is Gerald Wemyss (his internet nom de plume), who delights in being known as a Friend of Dorothy, a flaming queen and a number of similar descriptives. He is certainly as out as out gets, but he happens to value rational discourse and freedom of thought. Is it so hard?

  43. Their best argument is that they are human beings and American citizens and they deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. However, the truth is no one else has or should have the right to force religious institutions to violate their teaching. Neither should they.

    Now, you two stop being so nasty to one another.

  44. I said they were a false dichotomy. I don’t think the things are analogous at all. Now, I really am bowing out of this discussion.

  45. My understanding is that a false dichotomy is establishing an “either A or B” argument, when in fact, there is an option C that should be presented.

    Example: “Either you are with us or against us.” (Option C, neutrality, should have been presented. Therefore, the dichotomy is false.)

    Example: “Either you tax landowners, or the schools suffer.” (Option C, taxing based on income, should have been presented. Therefore, the dichotomy is false.)

    Example (known as Morton’s Fork): “Either the nobles appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and have savings, which can be taxed.” (Option C, that a noble person could actually be poor (or Option D, that the appearance of wealth merely disguises actual poverty), should have been presented. Therefore the dichotomy is false.)

    But my analogies have no “either A or B” component, and so they are not false dichotomies or even dichotomies. The more I reason it through, the more parallel they seem. It is comparing like to like: (A) service provider (adoption) in Mass. — service provider (lunch counter) in Alabama. (B) Mass. service provider does not want to provide its service to a particular part of the citizenry — Alabama service provider does not want to provide its service to a particular part of the citizenry. (C) New equality laws in Alabama. demanding that to continue to provide the service you must comply, — new equality laws in Mass. demanding that to continue to provide the service you must comply. (D) service providers in Alabama closing down rather than comply with new laws — service provider in Mass, also closing down rather than comply with new laws.

  46. It doesn’t appear to meet the letter of the definition of extortion from 108 USC § 1951 b(2); neither of the other two are in the list of predicate offenses.

    So, while you might call it a RICO issue, US Federal law would seem to disagree on such appellation.

  47. Actually the Supreme Court ruled against using RICO in situations that are at least somewhat like this. It was when abortion advocates tried to apply RICO to people who pray at abortion clinics.

  48. Round II (2002 or so) of Scheidler v NOW, particularly — again, no property obtained, therefore not extortion but merely coercion, which though potentially a crime isn’t a RICO predicate crime, therefore no RICO on that basis. (Round III circa 2006 dealt with violence-related offenses, which also failed to serve as a RICO basis.)

  49. All right. Call it that. Are you telling me that intimidation and extortion for political advantage are legal in the USA?

  50. All right. If there is no severe federal law against political coercion and bullying, that is a grave lack in American law and an encouragement to blackshirt politics.

  51. The most extreme violation of logic is refusing to acknowledge an obvious term. You refuse to acknowledge the difference between male and female. That makes the rest of your claim pure verbiage. I do, however, acknowledge that you have finally got around to producing an argument instead of attempted gags.

  52. “Mozilla is one of the very few real supporters of freedom and privacy left in today’s world…”
    Some defender. Sorry, I am not willing to trust people who act like this with my freedom, and I don’t think they would defend it anyway.

  53. abb3w: Thanks for posting actual facts. Always helpful to know what the law actually is, as opposed to what we may wish it to be.

  54. On the other hand, it seems almost certainly to be part and parcel from the United State’s tradition under the First Amendment of protecting freedom of speech and of expression more generally, especially political expression. (For example, the burden for plaintiffs in libel lawsuits is much heavier if the plaintiff is a public figure, which running for office guarantees.) It’s difficult to draw a line against political coercion sharp enough cover Eich’s case without risking it being twisted to cut painfully (and I would argue dangerously) elsewhere in the political process.

    The blackshirts did not limit themselves merely to conduct considered expressive, but also used violence — which is one border where the US draws the line of conduct as leaving out of mere public “expression”. This would allow cracking down on a group that too closely imitated the blackshirts here.

  55. In 1919, freedom in Italy seemed under threat by a wave of Socialist (at the time this meant Communist) riots and strikes. In order to stop red violence, people began to support a political organization of war veterans headed by a former Socialist leader. To imagine that people who behave like Moxilla are defenders of freedom only because they are enemies of Google is like imagining that Benito Mussolini and his Fascists were defenders of freedom only because they were enemies of the Socialists. Sometimes both parties are equally bad, and I say that this is one of those times.

  56. The best way to handle any wrongdoers is to publicize their names and the events associated with them. Nothing gets up the nose of wrongdoers more than having everyone know who they are.

Close Ad