Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
Sir John, I am very concerned about Pam Bondi recently saying that limits should be put on free speech when it becomes hate speech. Whenever the left wanted to censor right wingers for saying that there are only two genders and anything else denying that is hate speech, conservatives correctly got very upset and angry about it! Now that Pam Bondi is saying it, I’m not hearing quite the same outrage from conservatives, although Ben Shapiro has condemned this, and now all of a sudden the left is concerned about hate speech being censored. So let’s be consistent here. That said, how do we put a stop to the left & the right putting limits on free speech? As long as it’s not a direct threat, then hate speech is Constitutionally protected. Also what do you think about people losing their jobs because they celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death? I thought it was stupid when people got fired because they stated that they thought George Floyd was a thug, and I think people shouldn’t be fired for celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk — any more than they should be fired for calling George Floyd a thug. That said, private companies are allowed to do what they wanna do. How do you feel about all this? —“Constitutionally Protected Hate Speech” regards from The Emperor
Hi Emperor. What you’re describing — accurately in my view — are hypocrites hypocritically calling out the other side’s hypocrisy (which sadly describes most of today’s political rhetoric). And we’ve seen more of it, over the last week and a half, with many on the right defending Brendan Carr’s jawboning of ABC over Jimmy Kimmel, while many on the left defended the Biden administration’s jawboning of social-media companies over COVID posts.
But let’s back up to how you started your question… What Bondi said was absolutely insane. Even many on the MAGA-right called her out on it… until Trump basically said the same thing a day or two later (which quieted them right down).
As for your other points, you’re correct that private companies have the right to fire employees for all kinds of reasons, including over what they say. Where to draw the line is up to the employer. If I were an employer, I think I’d draw it pretty high, but there would definitely be rhetoric I would consider a fire-able offense. For example: someone carrying on and on about how great Hitler was. I wouldn’t want such a person representing my company.
John: The part of Erika Kirk’s eulogy that moved people the most was her forgiveness of Tyler Robinson, her husband’s assassin. As Christians, we are COMMANDED by Jesus to forgive our enemies. This is non-negotiable and the reason for his dying on the cross. As humans, we are part animal and part divine. We have a moral compass and compassion that is foreign to the rest of the animal kingdom. Forgiving your enemies touches on this divinity. I also had a pastor who once said from the pulpit, “Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Forgiveness of one’s enemies is definitely in that latter category, a definite affliction since our animal nature wants revenge (a la Trump’s speech). Do you think Erika was genuine in her forgiveness, or was it more performative? Why do you think this struck such a cord, especially among the right? — Steve R.
I don’t know Erika Kirk, of course, but my assumption is that she was indeed being sincere. What she said was admirable, courageous, and — like you said — in line with Christ’s teachings. I’ve seen other individuals do this in the past (typically during the sentencing of a loved one’s killer), and it’s always impressed me. It’s an extraordinary demonstration of grace. I actually think it struck a chord with more than just the right. For example, I believe Jimmy Kimmel was being sincere when he described the impact it had on him. I was not expecting him to out himself as a Christian on the night of his return (maybe he had in the past), so that was a welcome surprise.
Did you see that House Republicans are working on a bill that would put Charlie Kirk’s face on U.S. silver coin? What do you think? — Alex D.
I did see that, and I think it’s a dumb idea. I wish members of Congress would spend their time addressing actual problems that Americans face, instead of stuff like this. As we’ve seen, there are plenty of ways of honoring Kirk without equating his historical significance to the country to that of a U.S. president or civil rights icon. With all due respect to Kirk and his memory, there is a long list of patriotic Americans who gave far more to this country, and thus are far more deserving of such an honor.
I saw you comment on Greg Gutfeld’s latest claim that people on the right never call people on the left “evil,” by pointing out that Trump himself has said it over and over again of people on the left. Does Gutfeld think his audience is stupid? — Ben G.
Yes, he does think that, and this was just another example among many. The Greg Gutfeld of ten years ago respected his audience (and not in the way Suzanne Scott means it). Yes, he was always a clown, but he was also principled, and not only called out hypocrisy, but resisted it himself. Now he just spews out stuff that is not only patently false, but known to be patently false by just about anyone who pays attention to politics. And what gets me is how smug and self-satisfied he is when he does it. I honestly think he’s turning into Tucker Carlson, and that ain’t a good thing.
Are you for or against the death penalty? — Pam R.
Now there’s a question that gets right to the point! I’m against it, Pam, and have been for a long time.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
John, do you think the latest indictment of James Comey and the renaming of the Department of Defense, and the Pentagon's new rule to only allow state sanctioned reporting is a distraction from: the Homan files,
the Epstein files,
and basically all the Trump administration corruption that is happening on a weekly basis?
John: The rise in political violence is only getting worse before it gets better. Charlie Kirk had a personal security detail of six men, and they were powerless to identify and stop a rooftop sniper. Same for any defense against people like Luigi Mangioni, who shot his victim with a handgun at close range. I recently had a former Secret Service agent tell me only the president and vice president have the kind of advance team and security detail to provide high levels of protection. It used to be political assassins were delusional heroes only in their own minds. Now these people are encouraged and valorized among wide swaths of mainstream America. What kind of policy change is going to improve this? Do you think the banning of certain weapons will decrease political violence, and is this worth the compromise to the 2nd Amendment?