Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Free Mark Steyn

Raw Story chronicles the falling out between Mark Steyn and National Review. It started to go wrong when Steyn took a bold stance in the Phil Robertson/gay mafia imbroglio in December. Steyn’s editor at the conservative monthly did not appreciate his incisive cultural thuggishness, airing criticisms that amounted to “do take a knife to a gun fight.”

Then the judge in the Michael Mann v. National Review defamation suit gave the government cheese addict Mann a break. The defendant, represented with Steyn, is getting skittish. They are probably thinking of ways to avoid further embarassment and legal fees. They don’t think they can win a libel case in which the supposed libel is neither malicious nor deliberately false. Mann is not a Nobel laureate. His famous hockey stick graph is a fraud. Mann and his colleagues routinely fudge data. And Mann silences dissenting scientists to keep the money train flowing.

Steyn, however, has retained his own counsel. He loves the mud. In 2008, he went the distance against the “human rights” regime in Canada, getting a complaint filed against him by the Canadian Islamic Congress dismissed. He forced his persecutors to reveal their totalitarian colors, and the backlash was glorious. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, officating “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet,” was subsequently repealed.

In the grand scheme of things, Steyn is a nuclear-powered chihuahua nipping at the heels of Leviathan. His aggression, florid writing style, and relative unknownness make him an easy target for the well-funded inquisitors of politically correct dogma. The shariah lobby, courted by Canada’s multiculturalist ruling class, tried to silence his criticism of Islam and failed. Now the global warming/clean energy lobby, spearheaded by Mann, funded by big government to conduct studies and reach conclusions to justify bigger government, is getting its shot in.

For a relatively small fish like Steyn, the “prudent” response to such a naked assertion of power is to clam up and steer your energy towards state-approved projects. That’s what the more reputable National Review has done. Not only have they dismissed Steyn from providing daily web commentary on current events, but they have ceased covering the global warming hoax altogether. They have failed to heed Barry Goldwater, who said: “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

The silence at National Review is deafening. Conservative icon William F. Buckley’s legacy entered freefall when the editors penned a 3,500-word apologetic for Republican collaborationists. Others date the decline to the sacking of John Derbyshire, still others to the soul-parlaying years of big-government Republican rule. There can be no doubt now: National Review is gone.


  1. "His famous hockey stick graph is a fraud."

    Remind me, what science (or law) degree do you have? Why aren't you right-wing fake scientists thrilled to have the trial proceed to show what a "fraud" Mann is by putting him on the stand?

    All this couldn't happen to a nicer guy than Mr. Steyn.

  2. I don't need a Ph.D to read and do math, Willard. Click the link I provided with that sentence, or simply type "hockey stick fraud" into your Google machine. Behind the right-wing "propaganda" lies the facts.

    As for defamation suit, the protracted legal process will bleed Steyn and NR dry. The intent of the suit is to silence criticism, because even if you're right the legal fees are too much for the common man to pay.

  3. You should dump National Review from your left sidebar's "Must-read blogs" listing.