Why we call them Freedom-Haters - today's edition

You know the phenomenon: the ever-tightening circle that FHers are trying to draw around what constitutes acceptable polemical discourse, with everything outside it being beyond the pale.  There's a good chance you've been involved in comment-thread snits on Facebook or elsewhere in which your expression of a fact-substantiated viewpoint is met with feigned gasps of horror and calls for ostracizing.

Now a major probable presidential contender starts conflating viewpoint-expressing with the preferred means of warfare of our jihadist enemy:

Cue Hillary, who describes the opinions of those who oppose her thusly:

We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a live CNN town hall.

“We,” said the aspiring head of the federal government,
“cannot let”—As in, “allow.” What remedy, pray tell, does she have in mind for this outrageous epidemic in free thought?
“a minority of people”—The minority, the protection of whose rights Thomas Jefferson called a “sacred principle” in his First Inaugural Address and whose endangerment at the hands of a tyrannical majority James Madison called the Republic’s “great danger?”
“and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people”— Regardless of the truth of this dubious assertion, she seems to repeat it to justify her advocacy for the prohibition of the minority’s dissent, which makes it sound like someone never glanced at a Founding document. “Screw ‘em, majority rules,” the working draft of the Constitution proclaimed.
“hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority.”— Let me see if I can rephrase the idea of a “viewpoint that terrorizes the majority” in such a way that a longtime Democratic politician might understand it. There’s an old adage originally used to describe journalism and oft repeated by the activist Left to give itself airs— “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

Hillary Clinton and liberal activists are the comfortable. They require a “safe place” where the presence of others who deign to disagree cannot “trigger” them. Your mere opposition to an asinine limit on mag capacity, which was a demonstrable disaster in incompetent governance in her home state of New York, rises to the level of “terrorizing” for a woman who famously couldn’t figure out if that term applied to anyone involved in Benghazi. But for you, law-abiding citizen, not a problem.

When we're talking opposing views on gun policy, you're a terrorist. When the subject is the climate, you're ignorant about science.  When it's human sexuality, you're a bigot.

It's long past time to worry about no longer getting invited to the cool parties.  There's nothing cool about Freedom-Haters' parties.

Speak.  Act.  Defend.