‘The Kelly File’: Heated free speech debate over ‘Duck Dynasty’ star’s suspension

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly hosted the debate Wednesday night the A&E network refused to consider – “because it’s politically incorrect!” – when they indefinitely suspended “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson for his controversial comments, but personally held opinions and religious beliefs, on homosexuality.

[poll id="155"]

A&E suspends ‘Duck Dynasty’ star for ‘unacceptable’ views on gays; conservatives rally

‘Duck Dynasty’ star’s gasp-worthy, blunt comments on gay sex

“The Kelly File” guest Arthur Aidala bounced around in his seat in frustration insisting Robertson simply exercised his First Amendment right, but now faces suspension:  “It’s the United States of America” where everyone is entitled to certain protections like free speech, he said.

Guest Bernard Whitman, who said he applauded A&E for removing Robertson for his “disgusting, reprehensible, hateful” comments absolutely disagreed with Aidala saying that Robertson isn’t entitled to be on TV “spewing hate.”

Watch the heated debate via Fox News here:

Read: Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Janeen Capizola

"And though she be but little, she is fierce." And fun! This conservative-minded political junkie, mom of three, dancer and one-time NFL cheerleader holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science. Janeen@BizPacReview.com. Twitter: @JaneenBPR

  • gespinb3549

    Whitman is a buffoon. Since when is truth and concern for salvation “spewing hatred?”

    • Zoltanne

      Whitman forgets about Ed Shultz, Chris “Tingles” Matthews, and all the other far-left fanatics who hate anyone for anything that isn’t aligned with the far-left.

      If A&E were serious about “convictions” instead of temporarily appeasing the gaytard society, they would have truly fired the Duck Dynasty star. But as long as money can be made for their pockets, they’re going to take the PC-route to shut the tiny gaytard crowd while they keep the money flowing in.

      Last laugh means A&E and the Duck Dynasty star get loads of free advertising.

      Merry Christmas, let’s sing: “Don we now our gay apparrel, fa la la la!”

    • Eric

      I dont think he evolved. I swear, he looks just like a chimp.

      • Joe Mosley

        You must be talking about Obama.

        • Tony Marcus

          Oh no, Joe Mosley’s no racist, not at ALL. So, here we are. Mr. Mosley expressing his idiotic and racist views, now that IS protected by the first amendment. A commercial enterprise such as A&E exercising its rights to hire or fire an employee…that has nothing to do with the first amendment or anything else in the constitution. If, in fact, you believe that an entertainer’s views on matters political, social or religious are totally his or her own business and should have no effect on employment, I look forward to your standing up for those with whose views you DISAGREE with the same fervor you’re currently expressing for this lunkhead “reality” tv actor. Entertainers who professed left wing views were routinely blacklisted in the late 1940s and 1950s. Oddly enough, I didn’t see a groundswell of conservatives deploring this action. If you restrict your support for free speech for those whose views you share…well, that’s not exactly free speech is it?

  • buck

    This once free to speak your mind nation is
    collapsing in on it’s self with all of this “PC”
    Nonsense.
    It’s ok for some groups to state their opinion
    but not ok for some others to state theirs!

    Just because I don’t like or care for the color
    of your truck is an opinion I’m entitled to have.
    I shouldn’t be suspended from my job, my em-
    ployer shouldn’t be boycotted, I shouldn’t be
    retaliated against for opposing anyone elses view(s).
    Period

    • Rabelrouser

      I agree with the “PC” comment you made; but equating Gods Word and Law with the color of a “truck” somehow looses significance in the subject of moral behavior as guided by Gods Law, and inanimate objects.
      As for Boycotting, it send a message of peoples desires not to be “told” what to watch because of Political Correctness run amok, and being used, to promote an ideaology their beliefs are counter too.

      • buck

        You missed the point of my post.
        Sorry

      • Martin

        Then don’t watch. Don’t scream boycott fire him remove reality show for being real.

      • George Hilman

        Comparing, contrasting is not the same thing as equating.

      • linreis

        the analogy is for those who have succumbed to the dumbing down of America…take it in its simplified version and try to understand buck is on the same side as you are.

        • Rabelrouser

          Buck’s anology was understood, my commnet was more directed to the direct nature of this PC battle; that of intolerant “tolerance” to God’s Word. Which was the real basis of A&E’s actions, not anything that was preceived, or claimed by them as “hate speech”
          Phil, in his statement actually quoted scripture, although he prefaced it with some direct personal reflection.
          It is a shame that there are those who can not accept anaology, but Ido.
          My appologies to Buck for any misunderstanding.

      • Martin

        No the paint reference is to show how absurdly their argument is I think the person making the paint reference was just giving and example of firing boycotting etc. because some believes or likes the color of his truck. It is therefore just as absurd to subject someone to harsh treatment for what they think whether it’s their religious beliefs or to be as absurd as they and carry it forward kill people for what ever you don’t agree with. If they would read Sharia Law it does go that far. It explains the three proper and excepted ways of killing homosexuals. 1 to stone them to death but you must use small stones so that they suffer more before death 2 throw them from a pale high enough to cause death that way they will be in fear for the entire fall an ultimate death 3 burn them alive. Muslim law also teaches and accepts the men marriage of men to brides as young as nine. Now under Sharia Law which is being used in some U S Courts already a man was charged with beating his wife the Judge ruled that under Sharia Law a man’s wife is considered property an he may do to his property as he wishes, case dismissed guilty of nothing except maybe he could be charged with damaging his own property. Based on this the brides age would make no difference a nine year old bride or a minty year old suffer a beating from their husband in some situation he could be beating a child as severally as he wanted.
        No outcry from anyone except to call someone a hater for pointing out facts or an Islam a phoebe racist the self denial is so strong that it has to be blamed on any one other than the person who believes he’s right every one against him is wrong. Phil was not against anyone he just has his set of beliefs that he is firm in because they saved him from an early death of debauchery

        • Martin

          Will this ideology be sufficient. I hope so I am tired of kicking a fart out of dead horse.

        • Jody Hurt

          YET, ALOT OF MUSLIMS ARE CLOSET HOMOSEXUALS!!

        • Tony Marcus

          Please provide evidence of “Sharia Law being used in some U S Courts”. If this WERE true, it would be an outrage, just as bad as using Biblical scripture to determine a person’s punishment. It would also be unconstitutional. I’m pretty certain that it’s also TOTALLY BOGUS. You presumably saw this “fact” on some hate site that condemns all Muslims. There have been plenty of outrages committed in the name of Christ over our history. Does this mean that Christians are evil???

    • Tony Marcus

      A commercial enterprise such as A&E exercising its rights to hire
      or fire an employee…that has nothing to do with the first amendment or
      anything else in the constitution. If, in fact, you believe that an
      entertainer’s views on matters political, social or religious are
      totally his or her own business and should have no effect on employment,
      I look forward to your standing up for those with whose views you
      DISAGREE with the same fervor you’re currently expressing for this
      lunkhead “reality” tv actor. Entertainers who professed left wing views
      were routinely blacklisted in the late 1940s and 1950s. Oddly enough, I
      didn’t see a groundswell of conservatives deploring this action. If you
      restrict your support for free speech for those whose views you
      share…well, that’s not exactly free speech is it?

  • pete602

    As a private network, of course A&E has the right to fire whomever it wants, just as Robertson has the right to free speech. But suspending Robertson for expressing his religious beliefs in response to the interviewer’s question was a bad judgement, as it exhibits A&E’s religious intolerance and intolerance for intellectual diversity. Tolerance works both ways, and I stand against bigotry.

    • pbob67

      That is true a private concern can fire and hire who they want to, as long as constitutional rights are not violated. just try to hire or fire a gay and see how fast civil rights and the ACLU has you in a court for it.

      • pete602

        Their aim is to equate Christian belief with ‘hate speech’, and thus to drum Christians out of public life.

        • Martin

          Just one of many on their overloaded agenda plate. Now that it is proven that if married couples divorce they save thousands of dollars in Obamacare premiums. I wonder if recently married gat couples will scream that Obamacare is racist. Then have them read the Koran on the three approved methods of killing gays. Compare that with what the bible says about being gay. Big Big difference. Yet no outcry against the Koran?

          • Brian Davids

            Yeah, but the Koran & Sahih Hadiths approve of their wishes to rape 9 year old children, so of course they won’t say a single word against it.

          • Martin

            I tried to reply but this site keeps sending me to a game site for kids to play. It erases my comments before I can get back to complete the point. It must be so biz e promoting ads it doesn’t have time for serious remarks especially when the replies are to people that share the same thoughts and just want to express a counter point they would both agree on. This might go through but I won’t be back to try again.

          • Tony Marcus

            Okay, let’s consider the Bible…God’s holy word, apparently? It tells one what size stick to use to beat your wife, and the appropriate punishment for your slaves’ misdeeds. Do we therefore say that Christians are wife beaters and slave holders? Get real.

        • Darrell McDowell

          That is exactly correct.

        • Tony Marcus

          I happen to know plenty of Christians who would never engage in hate speech. Why, one of them’s even the Pope. If Mr. Robertson were Muslim, and was saying that Christians were infidels and barred from heaven, I’d bet that many of those who descry his suspension would be calling for his scalp.

    • Ed Richardson

      These people claim to preach tolerance,when they actually mean acceptance.I totally agree with Phil.

  • Rabelrouser

    Well, its time for a “Duck Dynasty” appreciation drive!!
    Buy their merchandise because they benifit from the sales.
    Write A&E and refuse to watch their shows and boycott their sponsors, who also should be written.
    I know there will be alot of negative comments to my comment, so be it.
    God’s Word is Law, weither you believe it or not; and speaking God’s Word is not “hate speech”; it is merely expousing on His Word. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God personally and argue with Him, I wont respond.

    • http://www.arizonaedit.com/ Kristine

      Actually, the law is the Law.

      • NoCrud

        Or, is it the interpretation of the law that is the law?

      • Detfan1

        Um, really?

        Webster’s contribution to American constitutionalism

        In the decade following America’s independence, Noah Webster sought to produce a strong union among the newly independent American states. He saw that education was a key means of accomplishing this and wrote three textbooks — Speller (1783), Grammar (1784), and Reader (1785) — that provided a content that was uniquely American, and also principles that were necessary to support the nation. His textbooks and educational reforms were intended to strengthen the unity among the American people, which would strengthen their external union. Webster saw his work to bring a standardization to the American English language as a means to unify the American people because he felt the union would be strong as the people spoke the same language. In his Sketches of American Policy (1785) he was one of the first (if not the first) to put in print a plan for a new national government. Webster believed his proposals contained “the first distinct proposal, made through the medium of the press, for a new constitution of the United States.” Webster promoted his ideas as he traveled throughout the colonies. He visited George Washington and left a copy of his booklet with him, who in turn showed it to James Madison. These men carried Webster’s ideas for a new form of national government with them when they participated in forming the United States Constitution during the summer of 1787. Webster had seen the weakness of the national government under the Articles of

        Confederation when he attempted to secure copyright legislation to protect his textbooks. Though agreeing with Webster’s policy, the Congress was unable to enact copyright legislation under the provisions of the Articles and so Webster had to travel to all the states to promote copyright legislation laws.

        Copyright legislation was just one of many of Webster’s ideas there were incorporated into the United States Constitution. Not only had Washington and Madison read his Sketches, but virtually every man who participated in the convention read it as well. Most of the principles Webster presented for creating a new government were put into the Constitution by the framers. His provisions included a surrender of a degree of state sovereignty to a stronger Congress, “a supreme power at the head of the union,” “all power is vested in the people,” equal representation of the states in Congress, and congressional power to regulate and impose duties on interstate commerce. Webster also proposed the abolition of slavery. Most of his ideas were not original. He was simply drawing from the best available sources and included many of the documents examined above, including the Declaration of Independence and various state constitutions (especially Connecticut’s). Washington, Hamilton and others had presented various ideas for a new government, yet Webster was the first to give an overall framework. Madison and others acknowledged Webster’s key role. New York State Chief Justice James Kent said Webster was “the first man who proposed the present government” of the United States.

        The document that was approved by the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and sent to the states for ratification had both a Christian power and form— a Christian power because the source of the Founders ideas primarily came from the Bible. The brief summary of the development of ideas of liberty given above reveal this to be the case, plus this is affirmed by a direct examination of the source of their political ideas. A study was published in The American Political Science Review that listed the citations from about 15,000 political documents written by the Founders between 1760 and 1805. By far the most quoted source in these political documents was the Bible—34% of all citations. The great majority of the remaining sources were from writers with biblical ideas. In addition, almost ever one of the Founders were Christians who had a biblical worldview. Even the 2 or 3 non-professing Christians at the Convention had a biblical view of life. (Franklin is the most famous of these. His call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention reveals his belief in God’s active involvement in His creation.) The form of the Constitution is Christian as well; that is, the framework of the document reflects a Christian view of man and government. These general ideas include representative government, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the unique concept of federalism. The Preamble to the Constitution contains a good summary of the biblical purpose of civil government. The document directly acknowledges God in the requirement of an oath of office (Article 6), in recognizing the Christian Sabbath (Article 1, section 7, paragraph 2), and in dating itself “in the year of our Lord” (Article 7). The first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791. The individual liberties secured in this Bill of Rights were developed out of Christian civilization and were derived from the Bible and a biblical understanding of unalienable rights. These ideas were not new, but, as we have seen, were developed over many centuries. To our Founders, the primary purpose of civil government is to protect the citizens’ God-given rights. Lack of a listing of these rights in the original Constitution caused many to oppose ratifying it. Many of those who voted to ratify it in various states did so only after being assured a Bill of Rights would be added.

        During the summer of the Constitutional Convention Webster was living in Philadelphia and he had numerous discussions with many of the delegates. Near the close of the convention, Webster was asked by one of the delegates to write a paper in support of the new constitution as a means of encouraging ratification by the states. His 55 page essay — An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia — was completed in about a month, and then was printed and distributed widely. It played an important part in assuring the ratification of the new constitution. In Examination Webster compares the Constitution to “the promulgation of the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai.” He wrote the “the origin of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC is distinguished by peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by fear and necessity. . . . In the formation of our constitution the wisdom of all ages is collected—the legislators of antiquity are consulted, as well as the opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In short, it is an empire of reason.”

        As we have examined the development of ideas of liberty and constitutional principles, we have seen that the greatest “wisdom of the ages” affecting civil documents of liberty has arisen from the Christian religion and the precepts of the Bible. This is the primary source of American constitutionalism, and consequently, civil liberty throughout the world. Such an understanding must be transferred to all Americans in this and future generations if liberty is to be maintained. Noah Webster had a vision for educating all Americans, and posterity, in principles of liberty. His entire life was devoted to fulfilling this end. His Speller of 1794 had a Federal catechism and was the first text to educate Americans in the form of our government. His History of the United States taught fundamental governmental principles. His textbooks also contained writings of the best of American literature which he intended to inspire youth with “a love of virtue, patriotism, and religion.” His An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) gave American Christian constitutional definitions. Webster not only sought to educate Americans in the source of our liberties, in constitutional principles, and in a knowledge of how our form of government works, but he, most importantly, sought to infuse into Americans the power or spirit necessary to support liberty. Both the power and form of free nations is rooted in Christianity. Webster wrote: “Men may devise and adopt new forms of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be, no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law.” As we obey God’s law and act upon the principles of Christianity, we shall see mankind advance, for, according to Webster, the gospel of the Savior contains “the genuine principles of civil life—the only principles which can perfect the work of civilization.”

        • Utahlady

          Excellent ! Very, very well written. If one cannot see that God guided the formation of this country as it became one of the best forms of governance ever developed by mankind then you have a real problem. Free speech is one of the cornerstones as it was one of the first rights protected in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Forget rather you support gays or not,, that is NOT the big issue here. Freedom of speech IS.

          • Tony Marcus

            As far as I can tell, no one is trying to abridge Mr. Robertson’s freedom of speech. His employer has decided that promulgating views that are antithetical to those of a large portion of society is likely to affect their business. This is totally their right, whether you approve of it or not. Many many people who held left wing political views were blacklisted from jobs in the entertainment industry in the decades following world war II. I’ve not heard you defenders of free speech come out against the way they were treated. When you do, I’ll take your defense of freedom here more seriously.

        • Martin

          Excellent I wish every news station journalist reporter and their respective bosses from corporate news giants to smal town American even national and international press would make this knowledge available to all people in the world.

      • jyrine

        How do you apply the law in this situation?

      • pbob67

        Actually, the law, and the Constitution are only to be obeyed by liberal ideologists when it works for them, and ignored when it works against them, and thus political correctness trumps the law and constitution. it is not justice and the idea of the means justifies the end, and the liberal ideology of the end always justifies the means.

    • RUSerious

      Your ‘God’s law’ is not American Constitutional Law.

      • NoCrud

        Right. The ACLU and others who misinterpret the Constitution said so. And now we have a couple more Obamaroid appointees on the Supreme Court that will care more about words and not intent.

      • Rabelrouser

        I would suggest you visit Wallbuilders.com, and review over thirty + years of historical research that they have done concerning just that. Many of our original Constitutional Laws, and the Constitution itself, were based upon laws found in the Bible. You will also find innumerious amounts of documentation about those founders who used the Bible as their guide in crafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I might also suggest you watch the movie Monumental, which also will give you documented historical evidence to the basis of the Founders ideals and their outlook on the direction for this nation.
        I wont down vote you, but I will try to educate you, and lead you too avenues of that education, after that, its up to you to seek the truth.

        • ocarol500

          And the Bible brought to America and used to write the Founding documents was the Geneva Bible (see GenevaBible dot com & receive a free Kirk Cameron DVD) with anti-monarchy footnotes (worth the price of the Book just to read them). King James didn’t like the independent spirit of the translation and had the “objectionable” words re-translated aka he “fundamentally changed” the translation of the original texts so that he could proclaim the “divine right of kings.” [I am not in any way connected to the above referenced website.]

          • Rabelrouser

            Any time a “human” king has placed himself above the King of Kings, he has fallen, and king james was no different, even though he commissioned the Bible to be translated for everyone into english from latin, so that the common man could understand that God’s Word is for eveyone, and not for a “church” to use for control.

          • ocarol500

            The Geneva Bible was translated from the Greek and Hebrew available at the time — not the Latin.

        • Martin

          Lead a horse to water. But…

      • Detfan1

        Please be truthful the next time you post . . .

        Webster’s contribution to American constitutionalism

        In the decade following America’s independence, Noah Webster sought to produce a strong union among the newly independent American states. He saw that education was a key means of accomplishing this and wrote three textbooks — Speller (1783), Grammar (1784), and Reader (1785) — that provided a content that was uniquely American, and also principles that were necessary to support the nation. His textbooks and educational reforms were intended to strengthen the unity among the American people, which would strengthen their external union. Webster saw his work to bring a standardization to the American English language as a means to unify the American people because he felt the union would be strong as the people spoke the same language. In his Sketches of American Policy (1785) he was one of the first (if not the first) to put in print a plan for a new national government. Webster believed his proposals contained “the first distinct proposal, made through the medium of the press, for a new constitution of the United States.” Webster promoted his ideas as he traveled throughout the colonies. He visited George Washington and left a copy of his booklet with him, who in turn showed it to James Madison. These men carried Webster’s ideas for a new form of national government with them when they participated in forming the United States Constitution during the summer of 1787. Webster had seen the weakness of the national government under the Articles of

        Confederation when he attempted to secure copyright legislation to protect his textbooks. Though agreeing with Webster’s policy, the Congress was unable to enact copyright legislation under the provisions of the Articles and so Webster had to travel to all the states to promote copyright legislation laws.

        Copyright legislation was just one of many of Webster’s ideas there were incorporated into the United States Constitution. Not only had Washington and Madison read his Sketches, but virtually every man who participated in the convention read it as well. Most of the principles Webster presented for creating a new government were put into the Constitution by the framers. His provisions included a surrender of a degree of state sovereignty to a stronger Congress, “a supreme power at the head of the union,” “all power is vested in the people,” equal representation of the states in Congress, and congressional power to regulate and impose duties on interstate commerce. Webster also proposed the abolition of slavery. Most of his ideas were not original. He was simply drawing from the best available sources and included many of the documents examined above, including the Declaration of Independence and various state constitutions (especially Connecticut’s). Washington, Hamilton and others had presented various ideas for a new government, yet Webster was the first to give an overall framework. Madison and others acknowledged Webster’s key role. New York State Chief Justice James Kent said Webster was “the first man who proposed the present government” of the United States.

        The document that was approved by the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and sent to the states for ratification had both a Christian power and form— a Christian power because the source of the Founders ideas primarily came from the Bible. The brief summary of the development of ideas of liberty given above reveal this to be the case, plus this is affirmed by a direct examination of the source of their political ideas. A study was published in The American Political Science Review that listed the citations from about 15,000 political documents written by the Founders between 1760 and 1805. By far the most quoted source in these political documents was the Bible—34% of all citations. The great majority of the remaining sources were from writers with biblical ideas. In addition, almost ever one of the Founders were Christians who had a biblical worldview. Even the 2 or 3 non-professing Christians at the Convention had a biblical view of life. (Franklin is the most famous of these. His call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention reveals his belief in God’s active involvement in His creation.) The form of the Constitution is Christian as well; that is, the framework of the document reflects a Christian view of man and government. These general ideas include representative government, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the unique concept of federalism. The Preamble to the Constitution contains a good summary of the biblical purpose of civil government. The document directly acknowledges God in the requirement of an oath of office (Article 6), in recognizing the Christian Sabbath (Article 1, section 7, paragraph 2), and in dating itself “in the year of our Lord” (Article 7). The first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791. The individual liberties secured in this Bill of Rights were developed out of Christian civilization and were derived from the Bible and a biblical understanding of unalienable rights. These ideas were not new, but, as we have seen, were developed over many centuries. To our Founders, the primary purpose of civil government is to protect the citizens’ God-given rights. Lack of a listing of these rights in the original Constitution caused many to oppose ratifying it. Many of those who voted to ratify it in various states did so only after being assured a Bill of Rights would be added.

        During the summer of the Constitutional Convention Webster was living in Philadelphia and he had numerous discussions with many of the delegates. Near the close of the convention, Webster was asked by one of the delegates to write a paper in support of the new constitution as a means of encouraging ratification by the states. His 55 page essay — An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia — was completed in about a month, and then was printed and distributed widely. It played an important part in assuring the ratification of the new constitution. In Examination Webster compares the Constitution to “the promulgation of the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai.” He wrote the “the origin of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC is distinguished by peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by fear and necessity. . . . In the formation of our constitution the wisdom of all ages is collected—the legislators of antiquity are consulted, as well as the opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In short, it is an empire of reason.”

        As we have examined the development of ideas of liberty and constitutional principles, we have seen that the greatest “wisdom of the ages” affecting civil documents of liberty has arisen from the Christian religion and the precepts of the Bible. This is the primary source of American constitutionalism, and consequently, civil liberty throughout the world. Such an understanding must be transferred to all Americans in this and future generations if liberty is to be maintained. Noah Webster had a vision for educating all Americans, and posterity, in principles of liberty. His entire life was devoted to fulfilling this end. His Speller of 1794 had a Federal catechism and was the first text to educate Americans in the form of our government. His History of the United States taught fundamental governmental principles. His textbooks also contained writings of the best of American literature which he intended to inspire youth with “a love of virtue, patriotism, and religion.” His An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) gave American Christian constitutional definitions. Webster not only sought to educate Americans in the source of our liberties, in constitutional principles, and in a knowledge of how our form of government works, but he, most importantly, sought to infuse into Americans the power or spirit necessary to support liberty. Both the power and form of free nations is rooted in Christianity. Webster wrote: “Men may devise and adopt new forms of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be, no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law.” As we obey God’s law and act upon the principles of Christianity, we shall see mankind advance, for, according to Webster, the gospel of the Savior contains “the genuine principles of civil life—the only principles which can perfect the work of civilization.”

      • Kay

        so right God’s law is the law of love and love of a clean heart. he first loved us… He came here because he loves us and does not want any one to go to Hell, here we can live as we choose…Jesus did not come to force you to live his way…he came to pay the debt we can not pay for the sin in our life…till we did as Phill did. He chose to follow Jesus…and A& E does not like that! I do not see Phill asking A&E about their believes and spreading it all over the internet and the news for that matter…this shows me there is no real love out of
        A& E…only judgement….so who really is at fault here? First
        let us remember he was asked for his opinion !!! if you do not want
        someone’s opinion do not ask! and shame on you A&E for asking for
        his opinion and spreading it all over the place as if he was just
        talking on his own behalf! you asked for it you got it! It is a sad
        thing that often we are interested in only Gods promised and ignore the
        if’s and but’s… As I said it is a choise…choose wisely.

    • Boobie_The_Rocket_Dog

      CAREFUL! Duck Dynasty DVDs are an A&E product and Phil doesn’t get a new dime from them. Buy pirates!!!

      • Rabelrouser

        In the event that the family does not have rights to merchandise profits, or a share thereof. The Boycott should still go on. A statement has to be made.
        Remember Chic-Fil-A had a record day because of their “Appreciation Day” and their critics shut up!!.

      • Rabelrouser

        I am also sure that A&E has other products that I wont be purchasing also.

      • Cuda

        To support Phil direct purchase products from their company, get a colorful duck call as a stocking stuffer!

    • Marshall Sattler

      I
      stand for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st. Amendment, Phil can say
      anything he wishes about his religion. Anytime & anywhere! I stand
      with Phil! WWJD… A&E contact info Ms. Abbe Raven, CEO A&E
      Television Networks 235 East 45th St. New York, NY 10017 ABBE RAVEN
      (CEO) Abbe.Raven@aetn.com WHITNEY GOIT (SR. EVP) whitney.goit@aetn.com
      ROBERT DEBITETTO (EVP) robert.debitetto@aetn.com COLLEEN CONWAY
      (Director of Non-Fiction Programming) colleen.conway@aetn.com GENERAL
      EMAIL: A&E. viewerrelations@aetv.com ABBE RAVEN (CEO) LINE: (212)
      210-9007 GENERAL TELEPHONE: (212) 210-1400
      …………………………….
      Here is an idea, don’t buy one thing that is put out by Duck Dynasty.
      Those products line the pockets of A&E. Buy Duck Commander products
      only! Duck Commander is the Robertson’s line and none of those dollars
      go to A&E!!!

      • TIMedWork

        Marshall, thanks for the contact info.

    • Tony Marcus

      Wow, Rebelrouser, it’s odd that billions of people on the earth actually have DIFFERENT religious beliefs than you do. But, they MUST all be wrong because YOU know the only truth. This is the sort of thing that’s caused untold misery and suffering over the centuries, and is exactly the same as the insanity that drives Islamic terrorists. Now, of course you can boycott A&E, write the sponsors, etc. If you would be just as fervent in supporting someone who was penalized for views you DON’T share, then I applaud you. If what you want is just that all media share your particular bias, then shame on you.

  • cautiousnautious

    Since some of don’t agree with the opinion of A&E, we should “fire” A&E network by not watching A&E, and let their sponsors know we will not be participating.

    • Boobie_The_Rocket_Dog

      In order to do that, though, one would have to be watching A&E in the first place.
      “Duck Dynasty” is on YouTube. All it takes is one person with one set of the DVDs and everybody can watch it for free there.

    • Martin

      I won’t go along with any thing that hurts or demeans the Robertsons

  • http://www.arizonaedit.com/ Kristine

    Uhh. Clearly that guy has never watched the show. There’s NEVER been any “spewing” of any hate towards anything. Though perhaps a mild dislike for his grandkids being “citified”. :D

    • babbott

      Everything against the homosexual community is defined as “hate” because they know that no one wants to be accused of hatred. They are a small minority, they use the government to force their agenda on the nation, they are completely intolerant of any differing opinions, and they are the most “hateful” group in existence in this nation. The A&E network removed Phil but did not cancel the show because it has been their biggest cash cow. The entire Robertson family should walk away from A&E and find another network to work with.

      • ocarol500

        I’d like to see the network that will have Sarah Palin’s show “Red, Wild and Blue” (I think it’s called), take over Duck Dynasty. 11.5 million viewers! That’s not chump change for A&E. Did you read the Tribune story out of Las Vegas? “Utah ‘plural marriage’ wins a round in court?” 91-page decision by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups struck down key elements in Utah’s anti-polygamy law, saying they violated constitutional rights to privacy and religious freedom. ~~~ What’s next? Will some judge declare Sharia Law has standing and approve honor killings as a “religious freedom?”

        • John Campbell

          The taking of ones life would be considered a violation of ones rights in such a case. Not likely to fly.

        • Martin

          Let all homosexuals know what the three acceptable ways of killing gays are. Then see if they will scream as loudly about that?

        • Washington22

          or give the OK for pedophilia?

      • Sunshine43

        TheBlaze has already offered! That would be a win win!!!!
        Duck Dynasty does NOT need A&E, A&E needs Duck Dynasty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Y K

    The homos have mental problems, which is why they are homos in the first place; do you really expect them to act rationally ?

  • RightWingRider

    Yes, A&E is a private company and they have the right to do anything they choose. Firing the Duck Commander is their prerogative. And mine is to turn off that network and not watch it again until Phil is returned to the show.

    It’s called the Free Market, and A&E is about to find out how it works.

    • Jerry

      Yes they will find out who the real majority is.

      • Rabelrouser

        Only if that “majority” takes a stand with one voice. If not, A&E will still push the PC it is pandering to.

        • Jerry

          Yes, we saw with chicfala what that majority can do.

          • Washington22

            Yes, Chick fil a , one of my favorite events in our country. It was a show of the silent majority, and there were thousands willing to come out in the heat and stand in line for hours to show our dopes in WDC just how we come together. Duck Dynasty is another unifying moment, a teachable moment for Obama. The tide is turning……..

          • Jerry

            Yes and thank you for correcting my spelling.

          • Washington22

            That wasn’t my intention, however, only 2 days ago, someone corrected mine. It’s OK with me but I do feel silly because I used to be such a good speller….But again, I loved Chick fil a day that August, promoted by Gov Huckabee. I loved what I saw America do. It was spectacular. You can only imagine how WDC viewed it.

          • Jerry

            WDC acts like its nothing. Just like they act like nothing is wrong with their yoBamacare

    • Lori Fanelli

      Oh yes they are lmao

  • Sarah4Prez

    Any speech the left doesn’t like is deemed “hate” speech. They are all in factor of the 1st Amendment so long as your speech conforms with their views.

    • TIMedWork

      The control over people’s behavior through ‘PC fear’ makes any tyrant jealous. Only those whose agenda is hateful, would want to control other people’s thoughts, or condemn them for expressing those thoughts.
      Only fear of the truth justifies ‘political correctness’; after all, if it’s correct, then it’s correct. To be ‘politically’ correct simply means that it is necessary to withhold a portion of the truth, in order to win a political advantage, or more accurately, not to lose one. Plain and simple. Political Correctness is simply a form of deceit.

  • Boobie_The_Rocket_Dog

    Doesn’t matter. He’ll continue to collect a fat check without having to work for it, the ultimate goal of all Democrats. Isn’t that ironic?
    Look for Phil to appear on Leno in the near future.