Kill Bill Killian's Assault on Freedom of Speech

What happens when America's Department of Justice teams up with Muslims to attack the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?  No need to think about what MIGHT happen....it already IS happening.

From Family Security Matters.

Kill Bill Killian's Assault on Freedom of Speech


As I noted in my last column, "The Stinking Badges of Our Federales" (June 2nd), the Department of Justice is again on the attack against freedom of speech. The occasion for this guerilla attack is a talk to be given by United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee Bill Killian during an event sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

His talk will be about civil rights restrictions on speech in the "social media" as it applies to Muslims - that is, speech that criticizes Muslims and Islam, not speech by Muslims that could be defined as "bigoted" or "hateful" - and there is far, far more of that than there is of the occasional nose-thumbing of Muslims and Islam). It will be about "inflammatory speech," which could mean anything, even a scholarly disquisition on the origins and practice of Islam. Judicial Watch reports that the event, called "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society," will

feature the region's top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

The area's top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. "This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion," Killian says in the local news story. "This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are."

So, civil rights laws will be "interpreted" to identify "harmful" statements made on Face Book and other social media and help the DOJ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to lodge suits against anyone expressing his freedom of speech if it offends Muslims and Islam.

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs is on the warpath and is urging readers near and far to assemble in Manchester, Tennessee to vigorously demonstrate opposition to Killian's trial balloon of selective censorship in favor of Muslims and Islam.

You must stand up. Now. No one is going to do this for you. Only YOU can save you.

I strongly urge every Atlas reader, twitter and Facebook friend who can be in Tennessee to join us in a major demonstration for free speech on June 4th at 5:30pm Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee. Change your plans, get off from work -- go. Tweet it, Facebook share, get the word out.

AFDI, SIOA, and other major organizations will be rallying for free speech. On June 4th, an event titled "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society" will be held from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee. Speakers for the event are Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee and the FBI special agent who runs the Knoxville office.

Instead of my explaining the importance and ramifications of a successful trial balloon, here are Geller's own words about the stealthy attempts to pare away layers of our First Amendment protections:

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________________________

Obama's DOJ Sharia Offensive: Seeks to Criminalize Free Speech on Social Media posts that offend Muslims

How is this any different than Islamic law in, say, Turkey (Obama's favorite and most trusted ally)? In October, 43-year-old Fazil Say went on trial in Turkey for "denigrating" Islam for a series of tweets earlier that year. In one of his messages he had retweeted a verse from a poem by Omar Khayyám, in which the 11th-century Persian poet attacks pious hypocrisy. This is the same thing.

If the DOJ pursued the vicious, offensive, racist, anti-Semitic tweets directed at me (and others) by Muslims and leftists, they would be pursuing little else. But they wouldn't and they shouldn't.

Note to the Justice Department -- we will fight you on this every step of the way. We will drag your dhimmi asses all the way to the Supreme Court. This is Sharia enforcement, and we are not going to stand for it.

"DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights" Judicial Watch, May 30, 2013.

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the "us versus them" environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

"Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation," Holder said after expressing that he is "grateful" to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen "crucial dialogue" between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.

Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event ("Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society") that will feature the region's top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

The area's top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. "This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion," Killian says in the local news story. "This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are."

The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

"Some of the finest people I've met are Muslims," Killian said, adding later: "We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It's why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That's why the First Amendment is there."

Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation's Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti-America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.

The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as "politically motivated persecutions" and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton's special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?

Judge Rejects Atheists’ Lawsuit Seeking to Block Display of Steel Cross at 9/11 Memorial

 This man wants to take your right away to worship your G_d

Doesn't someone in this country have something for atheists to do with their lives other than live in courts trying to take away my First Amendment rights?

It's nice to win one of these.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Judge Rejects Atheists’ Lawsuit Seeking to Block Display of Steel Cross at 9/11 Memorial

A federal judge appointed by former president Bill Clinton has thrown out a lawsuit filed by a national atheist organization that sought to remove a steel beam cross from the 9/11 Museum in New York City because it promoted Christianity.

As previously reported, the group American Atheists stated that the cross, which was found in the rubble following the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, has caused individuals to suffer "depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish," and even indigestion. It had filed suit against numerous responsible parties, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"This shrine is a cross. It was picked up, trimmed, polished, the word ‘Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated," stated David Silverman, the president of the organization. "This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial, and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11."

He also claimed that the cross was problematic because it was stationed on public land.

Attorneys for the museum filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last August, and have been waiting on an answer from the court ever since. Area residents who supported the display stated that they were upset by the legal challenge.

“I’m angry that we are being forced to defend this,” 9/11 survivor Joe O’Connor told reporters. “It was very important to the people who were down there at the time.”

“They’re trying to [take away symbols of hope] a little at a time with these frivolous lawsuits,” he said. “Our country needs to stand tall. It’s so much easier to destroy than to create things.”

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts, appointed by Bill Clinton, rejected the arguments of American Atheists regarding its belief that “the government enshrinement of the cross” excluded non-Christians from being recognized in the tragedy. She dismissed the group’s lawsuit, stating that the cross served both a “historic and secular purpose.”

“No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity,” Batts wrote. “[The museum curators] have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.”

American Atheists says it is disappointed in the outcome.

“We are angry that we have to have this fight,” Silverman told CNN. “We will not sit and let the 500 atheists who died on 9/11 go unnoticed.”

He plans on filing an appeal in the case.

Museum curators state that they are elated with Batts’ ruling.

“[I am thankful that the court] agrees that the display of the World Trade Center Cross is not a constitutional violation but is in fact a crucial part of the 9/11 Memorial Museum’s mission of preserving the true history of 9/11,” president Joe Daniels told reporters.

“The museum is gratified by the decision,” added attorney Mark Alcott. “The plan has been to display this as one of hundreds and hundreds of artifacts … because it is part of the history of the recovery efforts after the 911 attacks.”

“For some of these people, [the cross indeed] had symbolic significance,” he acknowledged, referring to the first responders on the scene. “They treated it as a religious object and it gave them a great deal of comfort at a difficult time. The 9/11 museum is simply depicting what happened.”

The Qur'an Burning...Was It Burning the First Amendment?

This really is an excellent article over at Family Security Matters that cuts through the bullshit of all of the reasons why the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and General Petraeus and Robert Gates implored the Florida pastor not to burn his Qur'ans on September 11th, and lays out just what this all meant - another example of American submission to islam and islamic terror.

I haven't waded into this issue that much but this article really reinforced much of my thoughts - and one thing that I would like to add is this: at what point WILL America draw the line in standing up to threats by the islamists? I mean, if the world body of muslims threatens worldwide violence if America doesn't make homosexuality illegal, will we bow to their requests again? How about if I draw a huge poster of Mohammed and burn it...will that get me a phone call from President Obama?

Here's some of the article that really hits home:

President Barack Obama, technically, as commander-in-chief and representative of the American value of freedom of speech, should have filled Will Kane’s shoes and defended Jones’s right to burn the Korans. He should have taken a stand against the hue-and-cry of the press and Muslims and defended Jones’ proposed action. But, in conformance with his “Muslim outreach” policy, he defended Muslim anger and not Jones.

I have news for Gates: The hatred was always there, and the haters have never lacked an excuse to run amok. Imam Feisal Rauf also warned on the “Larry King Show” of a Muslim retaliation.

But, capping a day-long rhetorical offensive that began Wednesday morning with an opinion piece in The New York Times, Rauf said he intends to go ahead with the "multifaith" center near the site where Islamic terrorists killed nearly 2,800 people because not doing so would unleash fury abroad.

Some “anger” is more equal than others. American anger over the Ground Zero mosque should be restrained and stifled, if not outright prohibited. Muslim “anger,” however, is wholly justified and could “explode.” How? Like car bombs? Shoe bombs? IED’s? Fire-bombings? Homicidal rioting? Well, this is all out of the hands of the self-styled “bridge builder” and yearner for “peace and harmony.”

America, I'm afraid unless some serious resistance doesn't start up soon, we will see a litany of this from now on. We saw all of this bullshit in Europe already - this process of dhimmification...the whole idea that we must avoid being called "islamophobes" at any cost, that we must respect the "religion" of islam above all others. Go ahead and light up the night skies by burning 500 Holy Bibles people but damn you, don't you DARE burn one Qur'an because a Taliban jihadi might get mad and plant an IED against our troops in Afghanistan.

This is completely insane. We are IN AFGHANISTAN, because of the threats and actions of islam! What's next? How about we all just agree to convert to islam...wouldn't that cut down on the home grown terrorist cells in America? You cool with that idea? I've said it before - one of the best weapons against islam is to ridicule it, to expose it for the farce that it is. The burning of a Qur'an can be no different than burning Mein Kampf - both are books laying out the ideology of madmen. We wouldn't have any problem with burning Mein Kampf, would we?

Burning the First Amendment


In the classic western, High Noon, Will Kane, the retiring U.S. Marshall of Hadleyville, must face a gang of criminals who have come back to town, intent on vengeance on Kane for his having helped send the leader to prison. Most of the townspeople, in a demonstration of mass cowardice (a “terror-stricken town,” as the trailer narrative goes), repair to a church after they have abandoned Kane, citing a host of rationalistic excuses. There they pray and squeeze their eyes shut in desperate hope that it is only Kane the gang will kill, and won’t run amok in the town itself. But they would much, much prefer him to leave to save themselves the bother of having any moral backbone.

A deputy refuses to help out of personal jealousy, and resigns. A former mistress packs up and leaves. Even Kane’s new wife, a pacifist Quaker, boards the train out of town, the same train that brings Frank Miller, the gang leader, into it. A young boy is the only person who volunteers to help Kane fight the gang.

The townspeople beg Kane to leave, more to protect their own hides than out of concern for his life. But for Kane, flight is not an option. He chooses to stay and face the gang because he knows they will eventually find him, wherever he goes.

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, is not of the same mettle as Will Kane. Nor is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Nor is President Barack Obama, Nor is General David Petraeus. After promising to burn copies of the Koran in protest against the erection of the Ground Zero mosque (aka “community center”) and against terrorism, Jones decided to not burn the Korans because he was warned that doing so might lead to Muslim rioting abroad and cause death and destruction.

Pastor Jones had a fundamental right to burn his Korans. They were his private property, or his church‘s. It was his or the church’s money. His gesture was loony, not “counter-productive” as some pundits have claimed, but rather a futile protest against the Ground Zero mosque and Islamic terrorism. It may have even been a bid for publicity, which he certainly garnered.

What about burning Bibles, or copies of Mein Kampf, or Das Kapital, or even Atlas Shrugged, or the Harry Patter novels? The same principle applies. Freedom of speech is inherently linked to private property. If property is regulated, controlled, or abolished, then, by extension, so is speech. This is what Obama, Cass Sunstein, and the FCC are creeping up to in wanting to regulate the Internet through “net neutrality.”

However, the author of a Pajamas Media article on the Koran-burning and Justice Breyer‘s comments about it on “Good Morning, America,”, does point to but does not raise a very relevant issue, which is the fear factor. Brow-beating or threatening Terry Jones (as is likely what happened) into canceling his over-publicized plan to burn some Korans -- because burning them might provoke Muslims to riot and kill and run amok is (as they promised to do, and asthey did), and possibly endanger our troops in Afghanistan and Americans in general -- is, on the face of it, an act of submission to Islam.

President Barack Obama, technically, as commander-in-chief and representative of the American value of freedom of speech, should have filled Will Kane’s shoes and defended Jones’s right to burn the Korans. He should have taken a stand against the hue-and-cry of the press and Muslims and defended Jones’ proposed action. But, in conformance with his “Muslim outreach” policy, he defended Muslim anger and not Jones.

"This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda," Obama said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" program. "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities."

"I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in," Obama said.

Well, those “better angels” came down on Jones like a ton of bricks. General lDavid Petraeus also wielded his cosh on Jones.

General David Petraeus said the planned torching of Islam's holy book by a Florida church would be a propaganda coupe for the Taliban in Afghanistan and stoke anti-US sentiment across the Muslim world.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," said Petraeus of the plan. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community," the general said in an emailed statement.

Why should anyone care that the burning would have been a “propaganda coup” for the Taliban or any other Islamic gang? And note that Petraeus said that we are “engaged with the Islamic community” -- not at war with it. What is it that American lives and treasure have been spent on for the last nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Building “community centers”? And if so, aren’t the troops in harm’s way, with the Taliban and al-Qaeda and other Islamic gangs -- all those “community leaders” -- shooting at them already?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Jones to talk him out of the Koran-burning.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sept. 9 phoned a Florida pastor planning to burn Korans and warned him that he was putting the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk, the Pentagon said. Speaking to the pastor, Gates "expressed his grave concern that going forward with this Koran burning would put the lives of our forces at risk, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and urged him not to proceed with it," press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters.

It is almost as though Obama, Petraeus, and Gates had watched High Noon and decided to adopt the cowardly pragmatism of not fighting the Miller-Muslim gang. “You’ll only upset them and make them angrier than they already are. You’ll just stoke the fires of hatred.”

I have news for Gates: The hatred was always there, and the haters have never lacked an excuse to run amok. Imam Feisal Rauf also warned on the “Larry King Show” of a Muslim retaliation.

But, capping a day-long rhetorical offensive that began Wednesday morning with an opinion piece in The New York Times, Rauf said he intends to go ahead with the "multifaith" center near the site where Islamic terrorists killed nearly 2,800 people because not doing so would unleash fury abroad.

"There is a certain anger here [in America], no doubt," he said later in the interview. "But if we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If we don't do things correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis [over images depicting the Prophet Mohammed], which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much bigger footprint in the Muslim world."

"I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Korans," Rauf said in a statement read to ABC News' Christiane Amanpour.

Some “anger” is more equal than others. American anger over the Ground Zero mosque should be restrained and stifled, if not outright prohibited. Muslim “anger,” however, is wholly justified and could “explode.” How? Like car bombs? Shoe bombs? IED’s? Fire-bombings? Homicidal rioting? Well, this is all out of the hands of the self-styled “bridge builder” and yearner for “peace and harmony.”

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning, America.” Breyer, a liberal, hedged on the question of whether or not Terry Jones had a right to burn the Korans.

Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me…that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning. “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion. “It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Maybe, said the judge and mayor and townsfolk in the Hadleyville church to Will Kane, just maybe you’re wrong. Maybe Frank Miller has a right to be angry with you. Maybe you hurt his feelings. You know that better than any of us. He’s a bad man, but must have his good points, we don’t know. Maybe he has a right to shoot you. We’re not saying he should. We don’t know. But, Will, you’ve got to look at this on a case by case issue. And it would be best if you just skedaddled, and saved us a lot of worry and grief. Who knows? Maybe we have a right to just hogtie you now and hand you over to Frank Miller ourselves (hah, hah) and save everyone a lot of trouble!

If one refrains from taking an action because the action may incur the wrath of Allah’s followers or of Wontonka or Attila the Hun or the thug down the street, who is the winner? Imam Feisal Rauf, for example, has claimed that not allowing him to build his alleged “community center” near Ground Zero will be taken as an assault on Islam and provoke riots and vengeance and so on. But then none of these parties has a clue about the link between private property and freedom of speech, except, perhaps Obama, spiritual grandson of Saul Alinsky, enemy of private property and freedom of speech. Obama, Petraeus, Jones, and Breyer have all submitted to Islam.

This is how Sharia law is insinuating itself into political thought. We do not demand that Islam and Muslims defer to secular law and individual rights; we should concede that we should defer to Muslims and Islam, because it's a "religious freedom" issue, because if we don't, Muslims will be angry and begin flying planes into buildings again, and stabbing people to death, or shooting Americans at random, and causing all kinds of unpleasantness, when we really all we want is to get along with them and not be so judgmental, because that’s such a bother.

None of these “moral leaders” had the courage and sense of consequence that Will Kane had. Collectively, they have told the Frank Miller gang (or Feisal Rauf) they can have the town.

Most other Americans, however, have demonstrated through the Tea Parties and their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, that they still have the moral certitude of Will Kane. It is they who are telling looting politicians and dissimulating Islamic leaders to get out of town.

First Amendment

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Wake up, America



View at YouTube

I find myself amazed at the poor quality of education that $41,500 a year buys at Harvard Law School. You would think that for that amount of money they would at least teach the US Constitution. But it seems not to be the case, especially with one of their most famous graduates, Barack Hussein Obama, our current President.

I wonder what part of the First Amendment they did teach him or was he absent that day? For no person who has been taught the US Constitution would ever forget the words of the First Amendment:

"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."

Yet President Obama has chosen to ignore this and is pushing for full restrictions on our right to Free Speech:

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Not the sort of "outreach" the majority of Americans want. We like our Freedoms very much. Free speech is a protected right here in the US. Our own Supreme Court has affirmed the concept that "Even the most hateful and harmful speech is protected speech." (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 [1977])

Oh yes, we can say what we want about a religion without the fear of blasphemy laws. Oh happy day!

Mr. Condell need not worry about the United States losing our Freedoms soon. Not as long as Article VI of the Constitution is the law:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Or in layman speak:

"This Constitution will be the hightest law in the land. No law or treaty can be written or ratified that would violate this Constitution."

This whole idea of forcing Islamic blasphemy laws came about because of the riots over the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, it is only fitting that this post on Free Speech end with these cartoons.

To Muslims around the world:

Feel free to riot. For that shows to us the true face and spirit of Islam. A backward cult suitable only for children and those with the intelligence of an imbecile.

The rest of us will just laugh at your ignorance and keep on speaking our mind!

A First Amendment Hero!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Professor Indrek Wichman

He looks mild-mannered, not a man who would stand up to bullies and force them to back down. But Professor Indrek Wichman of Michagan State University, has become a Hero.

Now what would force this Professor of Mechanical Engineering to stand up for the First Amendment? Nothing less than a planned protest by the MSU chapter of the Muslim Students Union (MSU)

Members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Michigan State University (MSU) didn’t know what they were getting into when they tried to suppress the free speech rights of Professor Indrek Wichman. On February 28, 2006 he read in the MSU student newspaper a call to protest the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. The article struck a raw nerve. He responded with the following:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West--see the 1st Amendment--you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Some may say this reaction was a tad over-heated. But in a university environment, the more important question is: Were the statements accurate? It’s tough to argue with the validity of Professor Wichman’s factual assertions. And even tougher to demand that Wichman remain morally neutral regarding the examples of Muslim misconduct he cites.

For over three weeks Professor Wichman heard nothing about his email. But behind the scenes, the MSA had called in CAIR and had three separate meetings with the MSU provost. The MSA and CAIR both demanded that Wichman be censured, disciplined, enrolled in diversity and sensitivity training, and even “re-educated” on Islam.

To his credit, the MSU Provost did not cave in to the CAIR/MSA demands. On March 20, 2006 he wrote Wichman a letter saying that he strongly disagreed with the “intemperate tone” of his email. But he added that Wichman still had rights to free speech. From there, things got worse.

The MSU Provost told Wichman that if he continued to “harass” and “intimidate” the MSU MSA - while creating a “hostile intellectual climate” - then formal charges consistent with MSU anti-discrimination policy (ADP) would be filed by MSU against him. (emphasis mine)

On April 24, 2006 Wichman realized that the issue had not quietly gone away. He began receiving telephone calls and emails from local newspapers, AP, Reuters and other national and international outlets. CAIR and MSA, frustrated by the MSU Provost, had gone over his head and published a response, organized a press conference, and made a national/international press release.

CAIR and MSA’s public call upon MSU to take “disciplinary action" against Wichman’s “Islamophobic” email was a classic example of Muslim cowardice. Michigan’s CAIR Executive Director Mr. Dawud Walid said it was “unconscionable for a professor to use his university e-mail account to foster a hostile learning environment for Muslim students.” He added, “The University needs to take appropriate disciplinary action in this case to demonstrate through its actions that anti-Muslim bigotry will not be tolerated on campus.”

It should be noted that Mr. Walid has gone to court to argue for applying Sharia law in mid-Michigan. That serves to undercut significantly his stature as an opponent of bigotry towards minorities.

I sat down for a beer - I believe it was a Danish beer – with Indrek Wichman in April. When he said he meant to “protest the protest” of the MSA he really meant it. He helped form a conservative faculty group at MSU. The group serves to protest speech codes, invite conservative speakers to campus, and represent students and faculty whose rights are trampled by the MSU administration.

Indrek Wichman is not your typical college professor. He is a true First Amendment hero.

Meanwhile, Dawud Walid is still fighting to repeal the First Amendment and keep Muslims from being offended. He wants to replace it with Sharia law so Muslims can freely beat their wives and publicly execute homosexuals.

How is it that Muslims can say the most hurtful, racially insensitive, anti-Semitic rhetoric on US campuses without the administrations of those schools saying a word no, yet one lone professor on a campus writes an e-mail in protest of the barbaric practices of Islam, he is vilified and crucified? The behavior of the MSU in regards to Free Speech and other rights is well documented on the net. One just has to read Fousesquawk by blogger Gary Fouse to see what is happening at UC Irvine.

And it is happening at every college and university in the US.

What the MSU & CAIR are trying to do is first to stiffle free speech, then to impose Shar'ia Law on the US. Their counterparts have been very successful in doing this in Europe and Great Britain. But unlike those lost lands, the US has the Free exercise of Speech firmly written into the US Constitution. And there are plenty of court cases backing the right of Free Speech.

Slowly, on campuses, faculity are speaking out against the MSU. They are challenging their claims, and forcing the 1st Amendment down their throats.

I wonder what has taken them so long.

Dear Mr. President

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

I am not going to wait for someone to snitch on me. I will snitch on myself instead.

I am a middle aged white woman, a widow and mother of 2 grown daughters. I am a veteran of the US Air Force and the widow of a retired Air Force NCO.

I am the citizen who attends City Hall meetings, School Board meetings, who gets involved in working and demanding good government. I am a citizen. And I am your boss. Just like the other 300 million citizens of this great nation. And I don't like your proposed bill: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

While there are some good points in the bill, this proposed law does nothing to correct the problems with the Health Care Industry. It forces American citizens into a single-payer plan regardless of their rights and choices. It forces a raise on taxes to Middle Class Americans to pay for this new system. And in the end, it will lead to a system of rationed Health Care that is now in effect in Great Britain, Canada and most of Europe. A system in which the survival rates for Cancer (to use just one example) are lower than the US (the quality of medicine is the same).

This is not what the American people want or asked for.

What we want is for our existing Health Care Providers to provide the service that they are being paid for. That preexisting conditions be covered. That screening for Cancer on a yearly basis be provided. That necessary medical exams and tests be done.

No person should have to go into debt to pay for their health care if they are already paying for it through an Insurance company. And the premium costs should be regulated to insure that the average family can afford it.

For those who through their own stupidity or hubris refuse to insure themselves, then they will be forced to bear the full costs of their Health Care if they become ill. It is time that people take responsibility for their actions.

In the past Congress has been able to regulate the Health Care Industry. The passage of Newborns’ and Mothers’Health Protection Act of 1996 (NMHPA), signed by President Bill Clinton was a step in the right direction and was done with bi-partisan cooperation. Congress could do it again and such moves would improve the quality of Health Care in this country.

I suggest that during your summer vacation you sit down and actually read this bill. Then wonder why no Member of Congress will answer the question: "Would you put yourself and your family under this plan?" I ask that of you Mr. President. If not, why? And then why should I?

On a personal note.

I find your tactics in trying to pass this bill unworthy of the Leader of the Free World.

Having neighbor spy on neighbor, children spy on their parents, friends spy on friends is more the tactics of the Soviet Union (which locked up political dissenters in Psychiatric Hospitals for speaking out) or Nazi Germany (which sent political opponents to Concentration Camps).

In the United States, dissenting political speech is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. You don't have to agree with what is said, but you cannot prevent the words from being spoken.

What your representative, and thus you said was:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

These are the words of a dictator, not an "elected official" with a temporary position subject to the will of the people.

Thank you for your time and patience. I know that you mean well with this idea, but this bill is not the right answer. Perhaps it is time to sit down, examine the issue fully, and do it right, not do it fast.

Findalis
Monkey in the Middle (http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)