cialis dosage options
ZION'S TRUMPET
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; Joel 2:1
Show MenuHide Menu

Category Archives: Freedom Of Speech

Femi-nazis and Rape Culture

June 12, 2014

‘Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But George Will’s Column Raped Me’

Posted on | June 11, 2014

Peter Paul Rubens, Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus (1618)

“Feminism is, among other things, a totalitarian attempt to tell us what to think by controlling what we are allowed to say.” – Robert Stacy McCain, May 4

Who is turning rape into a joke? Feminists, by their counterfactual insistence that American university campuses are now plagued by an epidemic of sexual violence unprecedented in human history. When an unfortunate incident between between a girl and her ex-boyfriend is rhetorically magnified into a horrific crime — a U.S. Senator goes on national TV to claim Dan Kopin “brutally raped” and “nearly choked to death” Lena Sclove — it cheapens the meaning of the word “rape.”

Yet the totalitarian Thought Police tolerate no criticism of feminist tactics, which is why George F. Will cannot be allowed to say this:

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle. Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.”

From that beginning, Will went on to examine the “rape culture” phenomenon both anecdotally and statistically, considering it in terms of law and policy, focusing on how the Obama administration is using this as an excuse to impose new federal mandates on universities. But it was his opening paragraphs which made him a Thought Criminal.

First, Will observed that the campus climate “make[s] victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges,” and then he referred to “the supposed campus epidemic of rape.” In doing so, he violated a 21st-century commandment: Thou Shalt Not Doubt a Feminist.

The privileges conferred by the Cult of Victimhood are never to be skeptically examined, no matter how many examples — hello, Meg Lanker Simons! — of the phenomenon we may observe. And if feminists say rape is an “epidemic” on campus, we are all supposed to nod in agreement, rather than doing what George Will did, namely calling attention to evidence that this “epidemic” is a matter of statistical voodoo and elastic definitions. Rude gestures and clumsy hugs are categorized as “sexual assault,” and the claim is made that 1-in-5 college girls suffer sexual assault, despite data indicating that the real number is probably less than 1-in-30 — “too high,” Will hastened to add, “but nowhere near 20 percent.”

Creating a phony “epidemic” by statistical inflation and rhetorical exaggeration is dishonest, yet liberals always expect us to accept their lies at face-value, bristling with indignant outrage that intelligent people refuse to be bullied into mute acquiescence.

On MSNBC — America’s Least Trusted News Source™ — professional outrage peddler Michael Eric Dyson leaped atop the barricade:

“When he used phrases like so-called rape epidemic, doesn’t that trivialize the trauma that women have to endure in the face of the rape that they’ve endured, and then they’re re-raped, they’re re-traumatized again verbally and rhetorically by insensitivities like the ones Mr. Will exhibited?” Dyson asked, in typical absurdly leading fashion. For her part, liberal guest Zerlina Maxwell said Dyson was “absolutely 100 percent” correct in that assessment.

Victims are “re-raped” and “re-traumatized” by newspaper columnists! One imagines thousands of teary-eyed women, bruised and disheveled, brought in for the police line-up. They peer at the suspects on the other side of the one-way mirror and then, pointing the accusatory finger at the septuagenarian pundit in owlish glasses, the victims scream: “That’s him! He’s the columnist who re-raped us!”

If mocking this feminist nonsense is “rape,” the sarcastic commenters at Ace of Spades HQ are turning it into a gang-bang.

From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/

What is The Real Story? Michael Hastings and Bowe Bergdahl Linked together.

June 10, 2014

Was the Obama Regime behind the mysterious car crash and untimely death of Rolling Stone writer, Michael Hastings, who first exposed Bowe Bergdahl as a deserter/traitor?

Michael-HastingsAt the time Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings was killed under suspicious circumstances, he had recently written a huge exposé on Bowe Bergdahl, revealing that he had deserted his unit and actively sought out the Taliban. Hastings had also revealed Bergdahl’s anti-American sentiments, publishing the emails to his father that so shocked America: “I am ashamed to be an American…The horror that is America is disgusting.”

cover-up-300x180Western Journalism (h/t Frederic F)  This revelation actually came in July of 2012, when Hastings published a ten-thousand word article on Bergdahl, in which he had traveled to Afghanistan to speak to his former platoon mates, the soldiers violating their gag order to speak to Hastings anonymously. Hastings had also visited Bergdahl’s parents in Idaho, where he presumably obtained the emails. When we saw Obama pawing Bowe Bergdahl’s mother and hugging his father last week in the White House Rose Garden, this wasn’t how he was treating them in 2012.

The Obama administration had been successful at suppressing the fact that Bowe Bergdahl was essentially a traitor and that his father was not far behind.

The Obama administration in 2012 had “encouraged” his parents to keep their mouths shut. The father, Robert Bergdahl, had gone on a very public crusade, criticizing the Obama administration for killing Afghanistan civilians, and had even said that one of the Taliban captors of his son had had his child murdered by a CIA drone—mirroring events in the popular Showtime series “Homeland”.

060813hastings

This was stated at a very public GOP fundraising event in 2010 hosted by former RNC head Michael Steele. Robert Bergdahl had also just posted a video on YouTube, where he appealed directly to this son’s captors, stating: “…We must also thank those who have cared for our son for almost two years…We have wept that God may show his beneficence, his mercy and that his peace may come upon the people of Pakistan. As-salamu alaykum [peace be upon you].”

After this, the Obama administration actively sought to keep the lid on Robert Bergdahl and Michael Hastings’ reporting of Bowe Bergdahl, as secret FBI documents now reveal.

hastings-email

Keep in mind, at the time of Hastings’ death, the FBI had denied they had ever investigated Hastings, despite Hastings sending out a frantic email hours before his death with the subject line: “FBI Investigation,” stating that he was being investigated. Also included in the body of the email was a reference to a “big story” he was working on. This “big story” turned out not to be about Bergdahl, but an investigation of then-terrorism czar—now CIA head—John Brennan, per Hastings’ widow. After Hastings’ death, all of his notes and documents on Brennan were suppressed—and this “big story” never appeared in Rolling Stone.

According to the book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, John Brennan runs the secret black ops army JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command)—that operates with zero oversight—outside the purview of Congress, the Courts and even the Pentagon—essentially giving Brennan more power than the President of the United States! One of JSOC’s major functions is to make sure weapons are flowing unhindered to rebel groups worldwide that are on the side of the United States—including the al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.

john-brennan-stooge-for-jihad1

At the time of the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012, JSOC and the CIA were housing a huge cache of weapons at the secret CIA base near the consulate, the reason why Barack Obama could not send help to Americans under attack in Benghazi. JSOC’s transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria at the time was illegal, and sending in the cavalry to save Americans would have exposed Brennan’s illegal operation.

Whether that includes Americans is a guarded secret. And whether Michael Hastings was someone who needed to be killed because of bad press on Bergdahl, or for some other big story he was working on—i.e., exposing Brennan’s illegal activities—is also an unanswered question.

From BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

The New Freedom of Private Speech Inquisition

May 21, 2014

Bob Copeland, Donald Sterling And The Criminalization Of Private Conversation (For Whites)

By Matthew Richer on May 20, 2014

VDARE.com note: We redact what we’re now supposed to call the “N-word” even in reported speech, because of what’s called “censorware” which blocks some users from seeing this webpage.

See also, from 2001, the Janice Barton case: The Barton Case: Waking The Sleeping Giant?

Like most Americans (I suspect), I was disappointed by the abrupt resignation of Bob Copeland, the 82 year old part-time Wolfeboro, NH police commissioner who used the “N Word” to describe President Obama to a friend while having a drink at the bar of a local restaurant, thus triggering the latest Political Correctness witch-hunt. At first, Copeland defended himself bravely and it looked like we might get another test of Paul Kersey’s thesis that this whole Ruling Class Show Trial strategy is about to collapse. But apparently the social pressure on Copeland’s family was too great. So Kersey has one winner (Duck Commander Phil Robertson) and two losers (Cliven Bundy and Don Sterling)…plus, of course, the ultimate loser: America. [N.H. police commissioner who used racial slur in reference to Obama resigns, By Wesley Lowery, May 19, 2014]

It’s important to grasp the details of this appalling story.

A woman at a table in the restaurant, Jane O’Toole, overheard Copeland’s remarks and decided to take offense. She even found out who the elderly man was and then contacted the Wolfeboro Police Department to complain about his use of the N-word…in a private conversation.

When Copeland learned of her complaint, he decided to reply by email. He did not deny making the remark and refused to apologize for it:

While I believe the problems associated with minorities in this country are momentous, I am not phobic. My use of derogatory slang in reference to those among them undeserving of respect is no secret. It is the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights… I believe I did use the “N” word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]. For this I do not apologize – he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.

[Wolfeboro police commissioner under scrutiny for racist comments about Obama, By Sarah Palermo, The Concord Monitor, May 15, 2014]

Bob Copeland’s reply may be stubborn and surly, but he appears to be using the N-Word in a similar way to Chris Rock in his comedy routines: “I love black people but I hate n******.” [YouTube]

Everyone knows what Chris Rock means by this distinction. That’s why it gets so many laughs.

Nevertheless, Jane O’Toole didn’t grasp the distinction. So she contacted the New Hampshire Main Stream Media about Copeland’s remarks and they, needless to say, gave the story prominent coverage.

Years ago, the local and national press would have considered reporting on the contents of a private conversation between two elderly men to be both off-limits and absurd. But now, in Obama’s post-America, it is Page One news.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Spend some time with any octogenarian men or women and you can bank on the fact that they will say some inappropriate things, especially if they have had a couple of drinks. We’ll all get there some day; so will Jane O’Toole.

More importantly: President Obama regularly socializes with rap stars who use the N-Word in public all the time. So it’s OK to use the term publicly if you’re black—but it’s a sin to even speak the word privately if you’re white.

Certainly if Bob Copeland was black, Jane O’Toole would never have made an issue out of this.

Is it not a remarkable double standard that blacks are allowed to speak freely in both public and private with no fear of condemnation, but whites must police every word they say lest someone catch a casual remark on their cellphone and post it online? Apparently, in Obama’s post-America, blacks simply enjoy greater political freedom than whites.

What kind of craziness is this?

Wolfeboro, NH is a charming town on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee with a proud history dating back to colonial times. Many longtime residents can trace their roots back generations. My own parents used to live in Wolfeboro and my oldest sister was born there. A few summers ago, when I walked into a golf shop in Wolfeboro, I discovered that the owner had posted a sign on the wide open front door that read: “Sorry. Have to pick up my car at the garage. Be Back Soon. Make Yourself At Home.”

Business owners don’t have that kind of confidence in the more diverse areas of America. That’s what people love so much about Wolfeboro.

In fact, the central antagonist in this most unnecessary drama, Jane O’Toole, only moved to Wolfeboro four months ago—most likely because of the lack of diversity she unconsciously appreciates, but consciously resents. But this is precisely the kind of doublethink that characterizes most racial agitators.

There was actually a town meeting held at the Wolfeboro Public Library to discuss Bob Copeland’s private remark, or rather, the national controversy that Ms. O’Toole instigated over it. From what I can tell, despite MSM claims to the contrary, the turnout for this meeting was not very high. And some of the people there actually had the courage to defend Bob Copeland. Good for them.

True, a handful of blacks live in Wolfeboro, and some of them showed up at the meeting to protest as well. But I suspect that most of them are associated with Brewster Academy, a boarding school located across the street from the town library, and that few of them actually live there full-time. [VDARE.com note: Wikipedia says that Wolfeboro’s population(2000 census) was 6,083, of whom 0.16% were African American, which is <10 people.]

Certainly, Bob Copeland did a poor job of defending himself. You can watch video of him hobbling on his cane as he is confronted by people more than half his age in the parking lot of the public library. . [Video: Police Commissioner Who Called Obama the N-Word Snaps at ‘Skunk’ Reporter as Angry Residents Demand His Resignation, By Dave Urbanksi, The Blaze, May 16, 2014]

My guess is that Copeland suffers from some age-related infirmities of both the body and the mind, making him an easy target for racial grievance mongers

But the point is this: Informing on white people for sins committed in private conversations appears to be a growing trend.

Just recently, 80 year old Donald Sterling’s girlfriend coaxed him into making crude remarks about minorities during a private conversation and illegally recorded them before someone sent them off to TMZ. Now Donald Sterling has been fined $2.5 million and is being forced to sell his franchise for having an inappropriate private conversation.

And nearly everyone in the MSM and beyond seems to accept that the virtual criminalization of private conversations is entirely appropriate.

It is now perfectly respectable to make an example of a white person if they make an impolite remark about another race in private—and it doesn’t matter if they are friends, relatives, strangers, or even the elderly.

Incidentally, Mitt Romney owns a palatial lakefront estate in Wolfeboro where he remains a familiar presence. You can often see him with his large extended family getting ice cream on a summer evening downtown. But in case you need a further reminder of why Mitt Romney was not elected to the White House, he recently joined the chorus calling for Bob Copeland’s resignation: “The vile epithet used and confirmed by the commissioner has no place in our community,” said Romney loftily. [Romney Rips NH Officials ‘Vile Epithet, By Matt Stout, The Boston Herald, May 17, 2014]

Bob Copeland, a Navy veteran and longtime resident of Wolfeboro where his wife was born, will probably spend his few remaining years behind closed doors out of fear of running into people like Jane O’Toole.

What we are seeing today is a phenomenon more pernicious than anything that took place during the much-denounced McCarthy Era.

Hannah Arendt defined totalitarianism as the drive to control the inner life of private individuals. And Arendt argued that totalitarianism does not actually depend on government control, but on a “volunteer espionage network” of private individuals who strive to intimidate their fellow citizens into conformity with the party line. In a recent speech, Michelle Obama actually encouraged this: “Maybe that starts simply in your own family, when grandpa tells that off-colored joke at Thanksgiving, or you’ve got an aunt [that] talks about ‘those people…’” [Michelle Obama Would Like Students to Monitor Family Members for Racial Insensitivity, by Pete Kasperowicz, The Blaze, May. 19, 2014]

Thus in Bertolt Brecht’s short play, The Spy, [PDF] a mother and father are enjoying a Sunday lunch with their son during which the parents make some critical remarks about the Nazi regime. After lunch, the son leaves and the parents inadvertently learn that he has gone to attend a mandatory Hitler Youth meeting. For the rest of the afternoon, they both anguish over the prospect that their own son will report them to the authorities for expressing a thought-crime against the regime.

Incredibly, Brecht’s nightmare is becoming a reality in Obama’s post-America.

Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.

From V-Dare: https://www.vdare.com/articles/bob-copeland-donald-sterling-and-the-criminalization-of-private-conversation-for-whites

I hope so Too.

May 2, 2014

I hope everyone realizes exactly where the Donald Sterling case is going to lead

by

It is easy to dismiss the NBA booting noted jerk Donald Sterling as good riddance to bad rubbish isn’t it? I mean no one, and I mean no one is defending this old fool and his foolish, deplorable words, or his taste in skanks, I mean mistresses. So, a bigot shoots off his mouth, and his fellow owners choose to throw him under the bus, fine right? Well, maybe not. What happens when an NBA owner, or an owner in the NHL, NFL, or MLB, or coach, or GM are “outed” for some other thought crime. Let’s say the individual is found to support traditional marriage, or tighter border security, or to oppose abortion, or affirmative action? How far are we from the day when those are found to be views that are just not welcome in our hyper sensitive society? Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has already asked the NFL to go after Redskins owner Daniel Snyder because he refuses to change the teams name. The Congressional Black Caucus wants sports leagues to crack down on any owner that is “racially insensitive”. Ask the former Mozilla CEO about his situation. So, get ready folks, get ready to have a new thought police that will decide who gets to own, or run what in America. I will allow Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks to give us a final thought

A day earlier, however, Cuban — while criticizing Sterling’s comments as “obviously bigoted, obviously racist” — called it “damn scary” that a precedent could be set.

“Regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we’re taking something somebody said in their home and we’re trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that’s not the United States of America,” Cuban said. “I don’t want to be part of that.”

There are those that will say that as long as the government is not coming after people for words they say, then our right to free speech is untouched. But, at a certain point we are soon going to be living in a nation where we have the freedom to speak, but might be to afraid to use it. A nation with defacto speech codes barring certain thoughts from being expressed, then, maybe a nation with speech codes dictating that we MUST express certain views or else. In short, a nation where anyone stepping out of line will be subjected to bullying, intimidation, and thuggery. A nation where expressing yourself on Twitter, Facebook, or your personal blog, or even in a private conversation might cost you your livelihood.

From TDG : http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

Upside Down World

April 28, 2014

A World Turned Upside Down, Part DCLXVI

27 April 2014

by

When this is praised

Quisling-Flag-001-600x375With the news this week that more than 600,000 Washington residents have acquired new health care plans through the state exchange, U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said it’s unlikely the Affordable Care Act will be repealed.

“We need to look at reforming the exchanges,” the Eastern Washington Republican said Thursday.

The five-term congresswoman and chair of the House Republican Conference kicked off her re-election campaign this week with visits to Walla Walla, Colville and Spokane. She faces Democratic challenger Joe Pakootas.

and this get’s you arrested

[Mark Steyn, first quoting from an old column of his] In The River War (1899), Winston Churchill’s account of the Sudanese campaign, there’s a memorable passage which I reproduce here while I’m still able to:

‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

‘Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.’

Is that grossly offensive to Muslims? Almost certainly. Is it also a rather shrewd and pertinent analysis by one of Britain’s most eminent leaders? I think so. If Blunkett bans the sentiments in that first sentence, the sentiments of the last will prove even more pertinent.

“A memorable passage which I reproduce here while I’m still able to.”

Yesterday, in Hampshire, Paul Weston, the chairman of a newish political party called Liberty GB and a candidate in next month’s European elections, was speaking on the steps of Winchester Guildhall and quoted that same Churchill passage. A half-dozen police officers arrested him and took him away in a police van.

…then you know the World has truly turned upside down.

God help us all.

If buttercups buzz’d after the bee If boats were on land, churches on sea If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse If the mamas sold their babies To the Gypsies for half a crown If summer were spring And the other way ’round Then all the world would be upside down!

From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/

So Do I.

April 16, 2014

Bk3gLkwCMAACN_k

From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

Liberty Demands Disobedience to Unjust Laws and Actions

April 16, 2014

From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

As simple as That.

April 7, 2014

The removal of Eich is about fascism.

It’s about one group of people forcing everyone else to bow to their hat on a pole;

it’s about book burning, compelling obeisance to, as Jame Surowiecki put it, “a universal ideology” in a manner so bald that even those who might gain politically in the short term from it are horrified by its crudity. Perceptive gays understand now, if they hadn’t noticed before, that a whole mechanism now exists for persecuting people whose views are deemed unacceptable. Today it is directed against Eich; once it was directed against Summers; on other occasions it was employed against Clarence Thomas. But sooner or later, probably sooner, they understand it will be directed against them — or us — or someone.  And if it can get a corporate CEO who is widely regarded as the father of Javascript it can get pretty darned anyone.  Belmont Club » Eich

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

No More Christianity Allowed in Public America.

March 6, 2014

Moonbats Attack Cross Commemorating World War I Vets

The eradication of Christianity from American culture and history proceeds:

A humanist advocacy group [the American Humanist Association ] has filed a federal lawsuit to remove a cross-shaped World War I memorial in Prince George’s County [Maryland], alleging the display violates the First Amendment.

The First Amendment actually protects religious expression. Next authoritarian moonbats will use the Second Amendment to justify seizing guns.

“We are certainly recommending coming up with a monument inclusive of all religious groups,” said Monica Miller, a lawyer with the association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center.

Yet again we see that in liberal upside-down world, “inclusive” means “exclusive of Christianity.” Counting all the Americans who ever lived, well over 90% have been Christians. Dictating that Christianity can be no more in evidence than hostile alien religions like Islam is the same as excluding it.

The 40-foot-tall concrete memorial was erected in 1925 by the American Legion to commemorate the 49 men of Prince George’s County who died during World War I.

We’ll see if the government they died for will defend their memories by defending the memorial they lie under.

If liberalism prevails, people born today may live in a world where Americans know no more about Christianity — which substantially provided the foundation upon which American civilization was constructed — than they do about Zoroastrianism. Except of course they will know that it was bad.

The more you try to figure out liberals’ dedication to erasing Christianity, the more it will send chills up your spine.

On a tip from Wiggins.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

FCC Actions are In-Your-Face Tyranny

February 21, 2014

Obama Federal Storm-troopers To Act As Government Minders To Control And Regulate News Content

Kim Jong-un Approves Of Controlling All Aspects Of News Reporting.

Galloping Marxism is upon us.  Freedom of speech, thought, affiliation and information dissemination is under attack from the radicals controlling the levers of government.  The Obama Administration is out of control and seeks to gain hegemony over all aspects of American life.
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The FCC selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. This Government wants to control the news that gets reported, this is tyranny pure and simple.  Resist Tyranny. Resist the corrupt Obama Administration. We cannot allow the Government to control the news.  Resist becoming North Korea.

From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/

Apathetic and Pathetic American Christians

February 19, 2014

Christians: Empty the Churches and Fill the Streets

By: T.L. Davis

David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, has, through great hesitation, decided to sue the federal government to ensure his rights to pursue his religious rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.
The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There simply is no more clear admonition than “Congress shall make no law…” What part of “no” is vague? What part of “congress” is vague? What part of “law” is vague? What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is vague?
Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.
Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.
If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.
There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.
Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.
Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ’s defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.
From CM: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/

Support Mark Steyn and Free Speech

January 28, 2014

Mark Steyn is in the fight of our lives.

Yes, you read that right – it is not a typo.

As you may have heard, Mr. Steyn is being sued by Climate Specialist and fiction writer Michael Mann.

The suit was filed over a year ago against MS and National Review.

The Quislings over at NR [yeah, I said it] recently put on their best turncoat costumes and now Mr. Steyn is fighting alone and without a lawyer.

As he wrote recently:

…I’m not the first to discover too late that the American court system is no place for wee unsuspecting foreigners. Although I was the only one on the NR side who’s actually won a free-speech battle (and so decisively that the law was eventually repealed), I was prevailed upon through the course of last year to leave it to the experts. The result is that we blew through half a million bucks, and have nothing to show for it – other than what even Judge Weisberg calls a “convoluted procedural history” that utterly buried the real issues at the heart of the case.

As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.

NR’s behavior in this case has, for me, been the final nail in the coffin regarding their death as a relevant voice for conservative thought, as far as I’m concerned.  As MS points out:

…If you are only a print subscriber (as opposed to an Internet reader) [of National Review], you will have no idea that NATIONAL REVIEW is in the midst of a big free-speech battle on one of the critical public-policy issues of our time. There have been no cover stories, no investigative journalism, no eviscerating editorials. NR runs specialized blogs on both legal matters and climate change, yet they too have been all but entirely silent. I assume, from this lonely outpost on NR’s wilder shores, that back at head office they take the view that it’s best not to say anything while this matter works its way through the courts. In other words, a law explicitly intended to prevent litigious bullies from forcing their victims to withdraw from “public participation” has resulted in the defendants themselves voluntarily withdrawing from “public participation.” That’s nuts.

Those in charge of National Review have surrendered without a fight and allowed themselves to be subjected to Spinal Bypass Surgery by the Left.

But Mark Steyn is determined to fight this necessary battle and not leave the field to the forces of Tyranny:

…it is now necessary to bring this thing to trial and for Dr Mann to lose, and be seen to lose. If he gets away with just another case in which he threatens somebody and runs up their legal bills but is never actually forced to court and on to the stand, he will do it again, and again. The real threat is to his fellow scientists who are already queasy about his work but see what happens when, like Judith Curry, you question this insecure bully in public. They will remain silent, and vote for a quiet life.

So Dr Mann has to lose big. And I look forward to helping make that happen.

His fight is our fight.

If Mark Steyn can be silenced this way then none of us is safe from these kinds of abuses and usurpations.

You can help him out (1) by getting the message out about this attempt to violate the First Amendment and (2) by buying a gift certificate at his online store [he hasn't set-up a legal defense fund just yet] and not redeeming it so that all the monies from it can be used to help Mark fight these rat bastards.

Like us, Mark Steyn has been declared an Outlaw.

And we have to hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately.

Resistentiam Tyrannis nunc. Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula. PROSCRIPTUS!

Resistance to Tyranny now. Resistance to Tyranny forever. OUTLAWS!

From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/

Something must Be Wrong With You

January 25, 2014

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Six year old Girl Not Allowed to Talk about The Bible in School.

January 17, 2014

Six-Year-Old Girl Humiliated in Class for Referring to Bible

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here is how the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are applied in government schools, now that they are run almost exclusively by liberals:

The parents of a 6-year-old girl said their daughter was humiliated when a teacher interrupted the child’s one-minute speech and told her to sit down because she’s “not allowed to talk about the Bible in school,” attorneys for the California family allege.

The little rebel not only mentioned the Bible in school, but brazenly linked Christmas to Christ.

The incident occurred Dec. 19 inside a first grade classroom at Helen Hunt-Jackson Elementary School in Temecula, Calif. The previous day the teacher instructed boys and girls to find something at home that represented a family Christmas tradition. They were supposed to bring the item to school and share the item in a classroom presentation.

Brynn Williams decided to bring the Star of Bethlehem that adorned the top of her family’s Christmas tree. She also worked on a one minute presentation to explain that her family’s tradition is to remember the birth of Jesus at Christmas time.

“Our Christmas tradition is to put a star on top of our tree,” the little girl said. “The star is named the Star of Bethlehem. The three kings followed the star to find baby Jesus, the Savior of the world.”

That is as far as she got before her thought crime was abruptly ended by the teacher, who barked, “Stop right there! Go take your seat.” Brynn was the only student not allowed to finish her presentation.

After Brynn had completed the March of Shame back to her seat, the teacher proclaimed to the other students that she had done wrong by referring to the Bible.

Just a rogue teacher, right? Wrong. The whole system is rogue, as Brynn’s mother discovered.

“The principal confirmed that Brynn’s teacher did the appropriate thing by stopping her mid-presentation and there are specific education codes that protect the school,” [Gina] Williams said.

The principal then asked Brynn, who had tears in her eyes, to come into her office and deliver the same presentation that was censored in the classroom. Afterwards, the principal stood by her decision.

The reason: authorities had a duty “to protect the other students from being offended by Brynn’s presentation.” According to liberal ideology, the Christian religion is offensive.

Obviously this sort of humiliation will have a powerful effect on a child. Gramscians infiltrated and eventually came to totally dominate education for the same reasons they took over the media — to establish cultural hegemony. What they are doing with their power can only be described as cultural genocide.

From this same Temecula Valley Unified School District:

Last October, a seventh grade student was publicly ridiculed by a teacher for reading the Bible. The classroom assignment had been to read a non-fiction book. The teacher told the student in front of the class that the Bible was fiction and refused to give him credit for the assignment.

If our liberal overlords succeed in eradicating Christianity by brainwashing children at public expense, they will replace it with pure, unadulterated moonbattery, consisting of authoritarian statism, collectivism, racial self-hatred, sexual perversion, and all the rest of the diseased delusions and repugnant moral deformities that make up the liberal mindset. There will be nothing about our culture that any reasonable person will be able to respect.

But by then it won’t be our culture anymore, and all reasonable people will have learned to keep their mouths shut until they can find a way to escape.

Brynn-Williams
This thought criminal was denounced in front of the other children.

On tips from Artfldr and Dr. 9.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

Leftist Commie Liberals Never Rest in Their Quest to Stop Freedom Of Speech

January 17, 2014

Bill Introduced Targeting Internet “Hate Speech”

We have known for generations that the triumph of the Left will mean the end of freedom of speech. It is unthinkable that sites like Moonbattery.com would continue to exist if Democrats had the leverage to suppress them. Facing only the floundering, unprincipled, and essentially useless Republican Party in the way of opposition, some liberals feel that the time is already ripe to do to the First Amendment what they long ago did to the Tenth.

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

By now even the most clueless are aware that “hate speech” is defined as speech hated by the Left. But you’ll never get anyone on the Left to admit it, as their agenda can only be advanced under a smoke screen of euphemisms and lies.

Among the bill’s sponsors is Rep Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who intones,

“The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. But it can also be used as a platform to promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.”

“Vulnerable individuals” is Newspeak for “politically favored groups.”

The focus will be on sites allegedly encouraging “hate crimes” relating to “race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.” This means that sites deemed not to promote the interests of blacks, women, Muslims, and perverts will targeted for repression. These group interests will be defined by left-wing demagogues and community organizer types like Al Sharpton and Dan Savage.

Unsurprisingly, the NAACP and NOW support the bill, which is a first step toward silencing the opponents of their toxic radical agendas. An official statement from NOW expresses “hope that the study will address continuing hate speech that vilifies women seeking reproductive health care” — i.e., that it will be used to silence critics of abortion.

Only if liberalism is turned back decisively can the liberties that have always defined this country be preserved.

Hakeem Jeffries
Hakeem holds forth.

On a tip from |.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

Lest We Forget: Freedom of Speech is On Trial Everywhere Because of islam

January 17, 2014

A Fight to the End

Posted on by

As we reported last month, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has exhausted all avenues of appeal within the Austrian “justice” system. Her final appeal will be heard in the European Court of Human Rights.

Below is an article about the case that was published earlier this month in an Austrian newspaper. Elisabeth sends this introduction to accompany the translation:

The march through the Austrian court system has finally come to a conclusion, though not in the way we free speech activists had wished for the struggle to end. Free speech has died, and with it our right to criticize an ideology that masquerades as a religion while reaping the benefits, both material and spiritual, of the Austrian state.

Just a reminder to the readers:

Islam, along with Christianity of all denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Judaism, and Buddhism, has been a “legally recognized religion” in Austria since 1912. This entails the state, i.e. the taxpayer, shouldering the burden of religious education in schools and provides special tax breaks, among many other perks.

In order to achieve legal recognition, a religion must prove that its teachings are compatible with the precepts of the law. This is ideally done by providing the representative of the state (the minister of culture) with a translated copy of the religious teachings. All religious groups with legal status in Austria have done so; only one has not. Want to venture a guess as to which religious groups has been in arrears until this day?

As a result of this Law on Islam, one may not criticize religious teachings, even if the authorities do not know the contents of the Koran, the Sunna or the Sira, all of which make up Islam. And as a result, a conviction of “denigrating the religious teachings of a legally recognized religion” with respect to Islam constitutes enforcement of Sharia Law by the Austrian judiciary, even if they are unaware of this fact.

This is what occurred in my case. Back in late 2009, my seminars on Islam were infiltrated by a young (female) journalist and surreptitiously recorded. I was later reported to the authorities, who decided to put me on trial.

It is important to remember that there was never any victim, never anyone who felt any insult, no Muslims who complained, no imam who denounced what I had said. It was the state that took the case up in lieu of Muslims who “might be offended”. Offended by my simply stating the words of the Koran and the Sunna and musing about what these words might mean in the early 21st century in light of Koran 33:21, a verse that calls Mohammed Al Insan al Kamil, the man to be emulated by all devout Muslims for all times. That is what the Austrian legal system calls “denigration of religious teachings”; that is, it recognizes Mohammed’s marriage and consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was six and nine, respectively. This behavior— which is to be emulated and is being emulated every single day as evidenced by news stories reporting the deaths of nine-year-olds after giving birth — will always be unacceptable.

The freedom to call a spade a spade must not be infringed due to religious laws and sensitivities. Laws gagging free speech must be repealed here in the European Union. I still dream of a European-style First Amendment that will allow us to speak our minds. Yet I realize that there is a long way to go; we haven’t even begun comprehending the magnitude of losing the right to free speech.

Do a survey on your own in the streets here in Europe. I am certain that most people will say: “Well, you should not have said what you said. If you had shut up, you wouldn’t have been in trouble. And anyway, you can’t say it that way.” As my lawyer rightly argued all the way to the Supreme Court, you may not like what I said, but I must have the right to say it. Free speech means saying things that may shock someone. Free speech is not necessary so that citizens may hear speeches by the president or the weather forecast.

To sum up: after fighting for nearly four years all legal possibilities have now been exhausted — unsuccessfully. My case has been pending at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasburg since February 2012, and will set an important precedent for the freedom to criticize religions and/or religiously-sanctioned conduct.

One final note: I will never cease fighting for my God-given right to free speech. Religious sensitivities must never trump freedom of speech.

The translated article from Die Presse, kindly translated by JLH:

Death of Free Speech in America by The “Morality” Mob

December 31, 2013

Crowdsourcing the End of Free Speech

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
The end of free speech will not necessarily come when there are soldiers in the streets, secret police in the alleyways and a mustachioed man screaming at you on a television set that can’t be turned off no matter how hard you turn the knob or click the buttons.

Some of these things certainly existed in totalitarian countries. But they were there to sweep up the hardened dissenters who refused to be silenced. The vast majority of citizens did not have bugged phones or men in trench-coats following them around.

That was what their friends and neighbors were for.

The first line of offense by a totalitarian society against freedom of speech is crowdsourced to the people in the streets. It begins with the imposition of a social norm, escalates to punishments for violating that norm and concludes with gulags and firing squads.

No secret police force is large enough to spy on everyone all the time. Nor does it need to. That is what informers are for. Some of the informers are committed fanatics. Others do it because they accept whatever they are told. And the worst do it for the pleasure of destroying someone else using the power of the law.

Whatever their varying motives, ideology or malice, such people become even more dangerous in groups where they become a morality mob.

The Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s 1984 is repeated on a regular basis in our society today with hysterical lynchings like those of of Justine Sacco; one of a long list of disposable victims of opportunity. The Two Minutes Hate was a Pavlovian exercise to stimulate the hate reflex. Modern counterparts like #hasjustinelandedyet with its overt malice are the genuine thing.

The process by which these ugly events happen has a good deal in common with any other form of mob violence. There are familiar elements from Shirley Jackson’s disturbing story, “The Lottery”. There is a ritual aspect to the whole thing. The crowd knows what is coming. Like many rapists and murderers, it derives pleasure from a victim who does not yet know what is about to happen and eagerly anticipates the moment of shocked revelation when that will change.

“When is Justine landing?” they whisper eagerly to each other. Sadism is no good if the victim doesn’t know what is being done to her. The anticipation sharpens their appetite for the revelation.

Behind it all is a moral structure. The crowd in the Two Minutes Hate does not randomly lash out. The very name with its time limit is a demonstration of civilization. For two minutes they will become hateful animals in reaction to a profound ideological offense. And then they will turn the outrage machine off.

Anyone can be a mob, but they are a morality mob. They do horrible things because the ends, such as fighting racism, justify the means. They hate for two minutes and then go back to their daily lives.

Structure maintains the illusion of morality. Like The Lottery, it has to pretend that it isn’t random so that the participants can make believe that they are doing this for some nobler reason than the primal joy of bashing another human being’s head in with a rock.

Modern social media is The Lottery. You type things into it. You type them in when you’re sober or drunk. When you’re on top of the world or miserably depressed. You tweet and get retweeted. You like and are liked in turn. The sentiments you express move beyond your close circles of family and friends.

Sometimes you win the lottery and become famous. Your Twitter feed gets turned into a CBS sitcom. Other times you lose the lottery and your equally stupid tweet gets you picked to be stoned to death.

Each time you participate in the global mass of the internet, you are pulling a ticket out of the lottery. And even if you don’t participate, a crazy lesbian waitress can tell the world that you refused to give her a tip, a former friend or lover can make your letter, stripped of context, go viral and what passes for reporters in the new media looking for pageviews can make you a target to fill a daily quota.

The Internet is going crazy for, the headlines on the same sites that create the frenzy say. The Internet is exploding. The Internet lashed out. The Internet lynched someone. But it’s not the internet. It’s the cowardly individuals in the morality mob hiding behind their collective malice in a hashtag who want to hurt someone from the physical and moral safety of the mob.

The morality mob is attracted to pettiness. It rarely takes on big things because it knows its own weakness. A morality mob is a bully without the courage and it needs easy targets that it knows it can hurt. It attacks individuals for minor social offenses. It targets them for perceived sins against their social consensus, but it is truly animated by the perception that its targets violate these norms because they are elitist, because they view themselves as special and above the rules that apply to everyone.

The modern internet morality mob began in China. A country that is not only Communist, but a place where sticking your head out is its own crime. The Chinese version of the Ugly Duckling story doesn’t end with the duckling turning into a swan, but being eaten because he was only a foolish duck who had the ridiculous idea that he was a swan.

“It was just the latest example of a growing phenomenon the Chinese call Internet hunting, in which morality lessons are administered by online throngs and where anonymous Web users come together to investigate others and mete out punishment for offenses real and imagined.” That is how the New York Timesdescribed it in 2006.

The phenomenon has since spread to America, but it predictably enough began in a collectivist society ruled by the iron hand of the Communist Party.

Totalitarianism relies on harnessing the darker emotions in the human catalog; fear, sadism, hate, contempt and the sense of power that derives from causing harm to another beneath the mask of the self-righteous inquistioner whose moral authority allows him to both inflict and enjoy the torment.

Beneath these responses is a deeper sense of helplessness and insecurity. The anonymous mass of  society has become even more chokingly cramped and anonymous on the internet than in the biggest twentieth century cities. For some of the uglier faces in the crowd, the only way to feel real is to hurt someone. And their leftist ringleaders know exactly how the game is played.

The morality mobs on the internet are mostly of the left. That is because the left is better at organization and rhetoric. It also holds the commanding heights of social morality dictating what behaviors are acceptable and which are not.

Morality mobs crowdsource the left’s values enforcement. While its activist groups concern themselves with Phil Robertson, its morality mobs band together to target ordinary people. The organized left can make examples out of famous people while the ad-hoc left can make examples out of ordinary people by making their morality mob lynchings go viral.

The left responded to criticism of its actions in the Phil Robertson case by arguing that they are not violating the First Amendment. And they aren’t. Directly. Though indirectly their entire culture of activism and the promotion of their values is funded by the government. But free speech can be structurally suppressed without ever officially involving the authorities in the dirty work.

If the outcome is the end of free speech, then the details of how it got that way become academic. If instead of a top-down solution, the actual death of free speech involves a mid-level intervention by an oligarchy of media and new media outlets, activist groups and fearful businesses banding together to make free speech impossible while the authorities go on smiling and insisting that speech is still free; then the destination is the same. Only the road we took to get there will have changed.

The First Amendment was not just a legal safeguard against government abuses, but a statement that an open society is best. The letter of the law protects the people from government intervention, but the spirit of the law is an argument for an open society in which the freedom to worship, to speak and to protest against the government make all our freedoms possible.

The left aspires to a society in which dissent is suppressed. And a society without dissent is totalitarian whether it is ruled by the hateful mob of the Two Minutes Hate or by Big Brother. 

From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

This is Where we Are In America

December 20, 2013

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

I Guess Free Speech Will Have to Go…It Offends mooslims. Wait…Everything Offends mooslims.

December 12, 2013

OIC Blames Free Speech For “Islamophobia” In The West…

Via Gatestone Institute:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.

The “Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013″ is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”

But the primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.

Keep reading…

From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/

Free Speech only Goes One Way for Liberals: Their Way.

November 27, 2013

opinion

 

From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Criminalizing Criticism of islam Worldwide. Hillary and Obama want it Done.

October 23, 2013

Geneva Conference moves toward criminalizing ‘Islamophobia’ in America

securefreedom_silentconquestlogo

Supported by Barack Hussein Obama, and advanced by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, in its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address ‘Islamophobia.’

Frontpage Magazine  This past September, the OIC held “The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media.”  The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior workshops on Islamophobia from media, legal and political perspectives.  A main conclusion was the consensus to institutionalize the conference and create an Advisory Media Committee to meet under the newly established OIC Media Forum based in Istanbul Turkey.

640x392_24273_157826

Supposedly, the purpose of the conference was to support an OIC campaign to “correct the image of Islam and Muslims in Europe and North America.”  By this, it means to whitewash the intolerant, violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam and Islamists.  The OIC has launched a campaign to provide disinformation to the public, delinking all Islam from these undesirable traits and attacks all who insist on these truths, as bigots, racists and Islamophobes.

The OIC is a 57 member organization consisting of Muslim countries whose long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and seemingly the ultimate establishment of a Caliphate.  Its members tend to vote together as a block in the UN, so it is extremely powerful, despite the fact that few people have heard of it.

clare-lopez-oic-clinton-free-speech-17.12.2011

Its present goal is the international criminalization of all speech that “defames” Islam, which the OIC defines as anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even when it’s true.

oic-coming-back-with-another-attempt-to-stamp-out-free-speechIts target is the West and one of its tactics is to accuse those who criticize Islam or its various interpretations as “Islamophobic.” It is attempting to pass the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy codes in the West, using accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic terrorism or Islamic persecution of religious minorities. The OIC uses international bodies such as the UN and international “consensus building” as a platform to achieve its goals.  Certainly, if the OIC straightforwardly informed America and Europe of its aspirations to silence speech, it would gain no strides.

Therefore, it uses bureaucratic, unaccountable entities such as the UN as a means to make inroads, using watered down language and words that sound palatable to the West in order to deceive the public about its underlying goals.

IhsanogluUnfortunately, the OIC has been fairly successful in passing UN resolutions that if implemented, would have the effect of stifling speech that “defames religions.”  Of course, the OIC is only concerned with the defamation of Islam.  Indeed, OIC countries all have some sort of Islamic blasphemy laws which prohibit such defamation.  To be certain, these laws are regularly used to criminally punish those who speak critically of Islam.  These laws are also used to justify persecution of religious minorities.  For example, in many OIC countries, openly practicing a version of Islam not sanctioned by the government can land one in jail for blasphemy.  The OIC has no reciprocity in refraining from “defamation” of Judaism, Christianity, or other religions.

slide13

After the US realized that the UN resolution to Combat Defamation of Religions had a potentially disastrous impact on free expression, the US State Department asked the OIC to draft an alternative resolution that would address “Islamophobia” concerns and still retain free speech.  The OIC produced Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief. Initially, the State Department interpreted this resolution to protect religious minorities of all stripes from discrimination and violence, while still retaining freedom of speech.

The OIC, however, has made it clear that it clings to its goal to protect Islam from so-called defamation.  Indeed, it has manipulated the language in resolution to do just that.

OIC-gears-up-to-get-defamation-of-religion-criminalized-18.2.2013

Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General has explained that the OIC’s goal is to make “denigration of religions” a crime. Somehow, over time, the State Department appears to have adopted the OIC’s view that the West is Islamophobic and that Islam is a religion of peace which should never be associated with terrorism.  Toward this end, the Obama Administration has completely purged all its counterterrorism training programs from any mention of Islamic terrorism.  Only “right-wing extremists” persist in using the term, and of course are “Islamophobes” for doing so.

dhimmioadminantitruthonislamvi-vi1

The OIC’s claims that it seeks to protect all religions and religious symbols from defamation are patently false and are contrary to the actions of the OIC countries which discriminate against infidels.  In Saudi Arabia, Jews are denied citizenship; in Iran, Baha’is are denied equal employment opportunities; in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are jailed for openly practicing their faith, and there’s a genocide against Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Many OIC countries also prohibit the building or repair of churches and synagogues as well as public worship by minority religions.

The September meeting constituted the third Istanbul Conference:  international meetings designed to implement Resolution 16/18 in support of the OIC’s agenda to combat “Islamophobia” in the West.

clintontip_600_1

If the OIC really wanted to combat Islamophobia, it would persuade terrorists to refrain from violence; it would condemn the genocide of Coptic Christians in Egypt and it would spare little girls from forced marriages in OIC countries. The OIC has the power to stop the denigration of Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian and Baha’i religious symbols in the OIC countries.  It can pressure IC member states to implement domestic policies that will honor and respect minority religions in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Do this, and “Islamophobia” in the West will dissipate.

Instead, the OIC requests that the media censor their reports about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam, as an interim step toward the criminalization of such speech.  All of this will only serve to increase, not decrease “Islamophobia.”

The clash of civilizations widens.

obama-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam-e1382505134348

 From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

Yes. I. Do.

October 18, 2013

yes

Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/

Before it’s Too Late. And Too Late is Now.

September 23, 2013

yourself

I actually Agree with this Liberal

September 6, 2013

cusack

Tyranny in Action Against a US Citizen Who Voices his Opinion on Facebook

August 30, 2013

Government Confirms Tyranny Fears for Blaine Cooper

Like I was saying earlier about a congealing hard tyranny… Within 24 hours of posting on Facebook about America degenerating into a police state, 33-year-old Blaine Cooper was called in by the Prescott Valley, AZ police for an interview with the FBI:

He complied with the request for an interview, which lasted 45 minutes with federal agents present.  He was released after apparently being determined to not be a threat.

“They had every Facebook post I had ever made in a huge file, along with all my wife’s information, and parent’s information,” Cooper told policestateusa.com.

Cooper said that he was told that without “defusing the situation” by complying with the interview, his house might have been raided.

It was thoughtful of the authorities not to send in a SWAT team straight off.

It should be pointed out that answering questions from federal agents is an extremely risky idea, especially without the presence of a lawyer.  Supreme Court case BROGAN v. UNITED STATES affirmed that it is a federal crime to tell any lie, or misrepresent any fact, to a federal agent.  Even an innocent person with good intentions could commit a federal crime by misspeaking during an interview.

At least they proved Cooper’s point for him.

This is what got him in trouble. Careful what you type. Your tax dollar may be paying people to read it.

Blaine-Cooper
Cooper is training to be a much-needed wildfire fighter.
This is what he wrote on Facebook:

BlaineCooper1

On a tip from Wiggins.

From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Diane Marxist Feinstein: Absolute Power and Absolutely Corrupt. And Absolutely a Dangerous Enemy of the Constitution.

August 18, 2013

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom

By  on 8.16.13

No politician should be allowed to decide who is a “real journalist.”​

Senator Dianne Feinstein has had a busy year. She kicked off 2013 by leading the charge against “assault weapons,” analogous  to Nerf guns with extra plastic glued on. When the California Democrat’s gun control amendment decisively failed, she turned to defending extra-judicial targeted killing of American citizens with drone aircraft. Then Edward Snowden pushed intelligence officials into the spotlight without their usual kabuki stage makeup.

Right on cue, the self-styled “chairman” of the intelligence committee threw herself into tireless apologetics. The NSA’s indiscriminate collection of telephone metadata is of dubious utility and faces dubious oversight from the hamstrung Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yet Feinstein, a senior member of the judiciary committee as well, insists the agency does nothing illegal. They have nothing to hide, so please stop asking what they are hiding. Now, after taking shots at the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, she has set her sights on the First. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, never say Di.

A notable act of White House damage control this spring was the championing of a journalist shield law President Obama previously opposed. It would purportedly strengthen American press freedom, protecting journalists from being forced to disclose confidential sources by subpoena or court order. A common thread running through the Obama’s scandals is suppression of dissent. The current administration brags about prosecuting six leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act, twice as many as all previous administrations combined. Adams, Wilson, FDR, and Nixon had their own methods, to be sure, but President Obama’s crackdown puts him in such company.

Incredibly, the last few weeks have seen debate over whether reporting on the NSA is treason. How easily we forget the First Amendment’s unique robustness. When the Guardian acquired the Wikileaks documents, its editors contacted the New York Times to circumvent draconian British press regulations. In late June those same editors told Charlie Rose the U.S. government had raised no specific national security concerns about its NSA disclosures. Someone is lying, and of the two sides, the government has a much worse track record.

Feinstein would only protect the anonymous sources of what she would call “real journalists,” those being paid by an “established news organization.” The law would still have had direct bearing on the James Rosen case, and that of homophonic New York Times reporter James Risen. But Feinstein would exclude bloggers, an entirely arbitrary, meritless distinction. Until very recently,FiveThirtyEight was “just a blog” and Nate Silver was “just a blogger.” Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer by training who took up blogging almost as a hobby, but built himself into a Guardiancolumnist and now one of the paper’s stars, responsible for building its international brand.

As Feinstein would tell it, a few years ago Silver and Greenwald were not “real journalists.” Were they not just as talented? Their platforms were smaller, but were their professional goals and seriousness fundamentally different? Greenwald’s NSA reporting is the archetypical example. Edward Snowden sought him out after following his work. The enigmatic hacker also initially approached the august Washington Post and filmmaker Laura Poitras, who no longer feels comfortable entering the United States after facing rough treatment at the border numerous times.

Snowden is an anomaly, notably for expressing a willingness to forfeit his future as a free man. In the wake of the AP phone scandal, it was widely reported that government sources were clamming up. To be clear, the protection of confidential sources is not a settled issue. This specific debate is about whether anyonewho disseminates information from a confidential source should be protected under the First Amendment from revealing that source. People holding power have no qualms about covering up their misdeeds. Almost a dozen scandals in the past few months bear that out. So did the Church Commission that scrutinized government abuses in the wake of Watergate. It would be a grave error to allow political leaders to decide who is a journalist and what journalism is.

After seeing the depths of government abuses, commission chairman Senator Frank Church warned that an unfettered surveillance state would allow complete subversion of American democracy:

That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [An autocrat] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.

Flash forward from 1975 to 2013 and Edward Snowden professes the same fear if nothing changes:

A new leader will be elected, they’ll flip the switch, say that because of the crisis, because of the dangers that we face in the world — some new and unpredicted threat — we need more authority, we need more power. And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it and it will be turnkey tyranny.

I generally avoid open-air polemics because I love reporting, believe it is crucially important, and do not want to alienate potential sources or readers. However, Dianne Feinstein poses an existential threat to my vocation, finding facts that tell stories. About a month ago I was approached by a former federal employee alleging unsecure data practices at a government agency. This was just after Snowden came forward, and my contact was utterly terrified of losing her anonymity and being imprisoned. I do not have the resources to independently verify her claims, but am still coaxing her to take the story to an outlet with the knowledge and resources to see it through. I worry how she will react to this debate.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is no platitude. I have seen it with my own eyes, heard with my own ears intelligence officials lie in congressional hearings, sometimes to complicit lawmakers. Dianne Feinstein tops that list in the Senate. Her disparagement of the First Amendment is difficult to fathom. If she gets her wish, we will all be worse off for it, necessarily less certain about the future of liberty.

From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/16/sen-feinstein-threatens-press

Rodeo Clown is Welcome in Texas

August 15, 2013

GOP Congressman Invites Rodeo Clown Who Wore Obama Mask To Perform In Texas…

“Liberals have targeted this man for personal destruction to create a climate of fear.” – GOP Rep. Steve Stockman

WASHINGTON — Congressman Steve Stockman Wednesday invited the rodeo clowns who performed at the Missouri State Fair, and were banned or ordered into “sensitivity training” when one clown mocked President Barack Obama, to perform at a rodeo in Texas’ 36th District.

Fair officials did not reveal the clown’s identity.

“Liberals want to bronco bust dissent. But Texans value speech, even if its speech they don’t agree with,” said Stockman, “From Molly Ivins to Louie Gohmert and every opinion between Texans value free and open political speech.  I’m sure any rodeo in Texas would be proud to have performers.”

“Disagreeing with speech is one thing. Banning it and ordering citizens into reeducation classes for mocking a liberal leader is another,” said Stockman. “Liberals have targeted this man for personal destruction to create a climate of fear.”

From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/

Veritas Odium Parit – We are Here Folks.

August 13, 2013

Pamela Geller, WND Column: Veritas Odium Parit (Truth begets hate)

Fresh off the presses, my column today at WND:

DEFENDING THE WESTScreen Shot 2013-08-12 at 9.50.44 AM Veritas Odium Parit (Truth begets hate) Exclusive: Pamela Geller exposes ‘irrefutable denial of reality of jihad threat’

We have now gotten to the irreconcilable point in the contemporary  public discourse (or lack thereof) of irrefutable denial of the reality  of the jihad threat. This denial persists no matter what. Newscasters  (both local and national) spout a language of the absurd denying all  connection of jihad with – jihad.

The Fort Hood jihadi, Nidal Malik Hasan, describes himself as a  mujahid (holy warrior) in the cause of Islam, but we are told that his  act of war (and he uses that word – war) has nothing to do with Islam. The Boston Marathon jihad bombers repeatedly explain that their  bombing was an attack designed to “defend Islam,” but we are told that  it had more to do with a right-wing conspiracy or the desperation of two dejected youth, immigrants who had trouble making American friends.

Continue reading “Pamela Geller, WND Column: Veritas Odium Parit (Truth begets hate)” »

From Atlas Shrugs:

All About Choices

August 7, 2013

Mark Steyn: “The Choices We Make”

Mark Steyn speaks to cowardice, government coercion to submit and the will (or lack thereof) to fight for our most basic fundamental freedoms.

The Choices We Make Mark Steyn, NRO

Anti-Islamization campaigner Pamela Geller is pushing back hard against the local police’s attempt to nix her Toronto speech earlier this year. She’ll be testifying before the Independent Police Review Director  tomorrow. Meanwhile, Mendel Kaplan, the squishy rabbi who got bullied by the coppers into canceling Miss Geller’s appearance at his synagogue,  has been giving his version of events:

Asked whether he ever felt intimidated or threatened, he said, “There was a very clear choice laid out to me. The police said, ‘we don’t  believe this agrees with [our] values, so either you have to give up  your chaplaincy or you can have this speech.’

“I did something that I didn’t necessarily want to do because I had to do it.”

Ontario in the 21st century: a land where cops bully rabbis. Kaplan  had already been on the receiving end of York Regional Police’s thuggish Diversity Commissar, Inspector Ricky Veerappan, whose “Diversity,  Equity and Inclusion Bureau” had conducted a five-month investigation into one of the rabbi’s sermons. (Under the perversions of common law that now prevail everywhere from  the Diversity Bureau to the IRS, the process is the punishment.) So  Kaplan well understood that Veerappan’s threat was real. Nevertheless,  as Laura Rosen Cohen writes:

He should have told the YRP Diversity Stasi to shove it . . .

It is not true that he “had” to cave to them.

He had a choice.

We always have choices.

Jews above all people should know that. Rabbi Kaplan:

He added, “It was a wise decision not to host her because it was not something worth losing my chaplaincy over.”

Wrong. It’s not something worth keeping such a chaplaincy over. It profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but for a York, Ontario, Diversity Bureau chaplaincy?

From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

The American People Have Given Their Freedom Away

July 30, 2013

The subjugation of a free people

– their conversion from citizens to subjects — requires that the State assume unchallenged authority over three things: communications, education, and weaponry. The latter two are now firmly in the State’s hands; only the first remains largely unfettered. — Liberty’s Torch: From Citizen To Subject

From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/