« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we�re told never happens

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 13 Aug 17 12:15 AM | 10 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21655 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21645 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Totalitarian Left on the move.
Home of CPA.




Avatar


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another of those gun confiscations which we’re told never happens
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 06 Aug 17 6:38 PM
Msg. 21645 of 21655

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/05/another-gun-confiscations-told-never-happens/

Hmmm ... those New York law enforcement officers better be damn glad they aren't trying to serve those unconstitutional warrants here in Texas.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: A Brilliant Defense of the First Ammendment: Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Sun, 13 Aug 17 12:09 AM | 12 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21654 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21644 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

From burying their head in the sand to appeasement to adoption. Simple progression. Very disturbing all this has gone on under our noses. Russian active measures!

Thank God for Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Frank Gaffney and a host of others, which include Rich Higgins and Stephen Coughlin, as well.




Avatar


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
A Brilliant Defense of the First Ammendment: " Just stay quiet and you'll be okay."
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Wed, 26 Jul 17 7:31 PM
Msg. 21644 of 21655

This is an extended review of a new book. The book is written by the founder of http://jihadwatch.com, Robert Spencer.

Putting it on my reading list.

The tragic fact, alas, is that during the sixteen years since 9/11, the forces of ignorance and submission have been on the ascendant in the West, aiding stealth jihad and squelching its critics. Atta's seven simple words have become the refrain of the CAIR crowd and the pro-Islamic left – and tens of millions of men and women in the West have listened, held their tongues, and buried their heads in the sand.

No: as Spencer has made abundantly, authoritatively, and illuminatingly clear, staying quiet will not make everything okay.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267369/complete-infidels-guide-free-speech-and-its-bruce-bawer

Uploaded Image
http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/07/cvb.jpg?itok=gimz4Gkg

The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)

[To order "The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)," CLICK HERE.]

What would we do without Robert Spencer? In over a dozen definitive books, and on his invaluable Jihad Watch website, he has served as a one-man truth squad on the subject of Islam, providing readers with lucid, cogent accounts of the belief system itself, of the Koran, of jihad, and of the life of Muhammed. In Stealth Jihad (200Cool, he described the ways in which Islamic law is being forced upon America, subverting the nation's constitutional freedoms in aggressive but peaceful and even, at times, seemingly reasonable ways. Now, in The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), he looks at the same phenomenon from the other side – providing a compendious if not comprehensive history of the ways in which Western governments, media, and others in positions of authority have enabled stealth jihad and punished its critics.

Needless to say, it's a depressing story. In my 2009 book Surrender, I told it up to that point – the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the Danish cartoons. As it happens, Spencer kicks off his account with the cartoons, reminding us that the good guys (notably Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who refused to discuss freedom of speech with Muslim ambassadors) were outnumbered by the bad guys (the UN's Louise Arbour and Doudou Diène, the EU's Javier Solana, and – surprise! – Bill Clinton, all of whom condemned the cartoons). Spencer then takes a long leap back – not to Rushdie, but all the way back to Muhammed, who himself, Spencer points out, initiated the time-honored Islamic practice of eliminating critics tout de suite. After each of several poets – among them Ka'b bin a'l-Ashraf, Abu Afak, and Asma bint Marwan – publicly mocked Islam, Muhammed, prefiguring Henry II, asked aloud, “Who will rid me of [insert poet's name here]?” Each of these versifiers was promptly dispatched by one of his faithful followers. And a beloved Islamic custom was born.

Spencer doesn't just focus on Islam. By way of demonstrating to American readers that they shouldn't put too much faith in the indelible, rock-solid nature of the First Amendment, he harks back to the 1798 Sedition Act – under which several individuals were imprisoned for mocking then-President John Adams – and the 1917 Espionage Act, under which Socialist Party leaders were jailed for opposing the draft. History, warns Spencer, “shows that First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation.” Have we reached that point now? After all, look at the procedural encumbrances that have been placed on the Second Amendment in many jurisdictions. Who's to say that the same can't happen to the First?

It's not as if it such limitations haven't been entertained at the highest levels. Spencer reminds us of a failed 2015 House resolution that decried “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims”; of Hillary Clinton's 2016 statement that “every constitutional right and amendment can be tailored in an appropriate way without breaching the Constitution”; of Hillary's promise, in a 2011 Istanbul speech, to use “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to silence Islam's critics; of President Obama's support for a UN Human Rights Council motion calling for the criminalization of “negative racial and religious stereotyping”; and of an Assistant Attorney General's refusal “to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.”

And of course Spencer revisits the Benghazi killings, every aspect of which, we're reminded, was pure evil – Hillary's mendacious attribution of the killings to an anti-Islam video; her promise to a victim's father that its producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, would be “arrested and prosecuted”; Nakoula's actual arrest and year-long (!) imprisonment (allegedly for a minor violation of probation); the cruelly cynical condemnations of the video by Obama himself as well as by innumerable administration flunkies, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Every one of these actions, of course, was a betrayal not only of the First Amendment but of the dead in Benghazi, of the American people, and of the truth itself. Spencer quotes the estimable Kenneth Timmerman (whose 2016 book Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi I don't think I've even heard of before) as calling Nakoula “the first victim of Islamic Sharia blasphemy laws in the United States.” During the presidential campaign, Democrats complained endlessly about conservatives' supposed harping on Benghazi; in fact Hillary's heinous conduct in this matter – forget everything else she's ever done – should have been more than enough reason for a decent-minded electorate to repudiate her entirely. And to think that this wretch dared to call half of America deplorable!

There are details in Spencer's book that will be familiar to some readers but new to others. For example, I didn't know – or had forgotten – that on the very day after the massacre at that San Bernardino Christmas party in December 2015, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, speaking to a Muslim group, focused not on that jihadist atrocity but on the purported danger of “anti-Muslim violence,” and instead of committing the Justice Department to enhanced anti-terrorism measures made comments that seemed to many to suggest that she was prepared to prosecute anti-Muslim speech acts. One of the very few politicians to call her on these reprehensible remarks was former New York Governor George Pataki, who, in a tweet, dared her to arrest him for wanting to see jihadists annihilated. (Similarly, when Terry Jones, an obscure Florida pastor, announced his intention to burn copies of the Koran, drawing protests not only from Obama and Hillary but also from Sarah Palin and General David Petraeus, the good guy was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who instead of upbraiding Jones affirmed his First Amendment rights.)

Spencer reminds us that the FBI officials knew of Major Nidal Hasan's terrorist contacts and pro-jihadist statements before he committed the Fort Hood massacre, but let him alone, for the same reason that British authorities kept mum for years about the systematic rape of children (ultimately over 1400 of them) by Muslims in Rotherham: because they didn't want to be called Islamophobes. At the other end of the cowardice-to-courage spectrum, Spencer tells us how a terrorist plan to kill soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a young Circuit City clerk, Brian Morgenstern, whom the plotters paid to transfer jihad videos from VHS to DVD. When Morgenstern noticed the alarming contents of the videos, he hesitated to say anything to anybody for fear he was being “racist,” but overcame his fear, informed authorities, and saved lives. As Spencer notes, Morgenstern's hesitation was a perfect example of the kind of “peer pressure” and “shaming” that Hillary Clinton celebrated in Istanbul.

“Americans,” laments Spencer, “are internalizing Islamic blasphemy law.” Well, that's certainly the case with despicable Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who accused the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists of “hate speech” and of having “brought a world of pain to France.” It's also true of the execrable novelist Joyce Carol Oates, who (along a couple of hundred other writers) criticized a posthumous award by PEN, the authors' rights organization, to the Charlie Hebdo victims. Far from all of the dhimmis have been on the left: among those who objected to the 2015 Draw Muhammed event in Garland, Texas, were Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Rep. Peter King (a leading anti-jihad voice in Congress), and, alas, Donald Trump. Spencer reminds us that in the midst of the Satanic Verses controversy, the Vatican denounced Salman Rushdie; that Pope Benedict, after causing a ruckus by censuring Islam in his 2006 Regensburg speech, quickly tendered a groveling apology; and that Pope Francis responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by calling for limits to the right to criticize somebody else's beliefs, suggesting that if you “make fun of the faith of others” you should “expect a punch.”

One of this book's big pluses is the attention it draws to unsung heroes – and villains – in the counterjihadist struggle: I've never heard of Natalie Merchant or her rock group, 10,000 Maniacs, but kudos to her for deciding to stop covering Cat Stevens's “Peace Train” (which had apparently been a big hit for her) after he expressed support for the Rushdie fatwa.

Near the beginning of this work, Spencer quotes 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who told the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11: “Just stay quiet and you'll be okay.” Well, as we all know now, they weren't okay. In the days and weeks after that fateful day, we should all have gotten busy learning things that would have entirely altered the grim history related in these pages. The tragic fact, alas, is that during the sixteen years since 9/11, the forces of ignorance and submission have been on the ascendant in the West, aiding stealth jihad and squelching its critics. Atta's seven simple words have become the refrain of the CAIR crowd and the pro-Islamic left – and tens of millions of men and women in the West have listened, held their tongues, and buried their heads in the sand. Atta's promise – his assurance, his admonition – echoes throughout this book, in which Spencer, at appropriate moments, quotes it again and yet again, reminding us that it was, and is, nothing but a deadly lie. The cumulative effect is powerful, even haunting. As we reach the volume's concluding pages – in which Spencer covers some of the latest acts of campus violence by the fascist anti-fascists known as Antifa and offers up sage advice for President Trump (who we can only hope will read this book) – we find Atta's chilling words ringing in our ears. No: as Spencer has made abundantly, authoritatively, and illuminatingly clear, staying quiet will not make everything okay.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Fri, 11 Aug 17 7:19 PM | 18 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21653 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21652 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

>> It also might be because I have the security settings on I.E. set so tight.

Naw, Zim. That's a FEATURE. Like any good leftist corporation today, they can only give you one side of the story. *s*




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we�re told never happens
By: Zimbler0
in CONSTITUTION
Fri, 11 Aug 17 6:26 PM
Msg. 21652 of 21655

Strange, and disturbing.
I go to the link, and half the text is missing.

Uploaded Image

So I copy the link, paste it into Mozilla and I see
ALL of it.

(I might have to go Mozilla. It also might be because
I have the security settings on I.E. set so tight.)

Zim.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which weâ��re told never happens 

By: Zimbler0 in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Fri, 11 Aug 17 6:26 PM | 15 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21652 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21645 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Strange, and disturbing.
I go to the link, and half the text is missing.

Uploaded Image

So I copy the link, paste it into Mozilla and I see
ALL of it.

(I might have to go Mozilla. It also might be because
I have the security settings on I.E. set so tight.)

Zim.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another of those gun confiscations which we’re told never happens
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 06 Aug 17 6:38 PM
Msg. 21645 of 21655

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/05/another-gun-confiscations-told-never-happens/

Hmmm ... those New York law enforcement officers better be damn glad they aren't trying to serve those unconstitutional warrants here in Texas.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

A Most Excellent and Eloquent Defense of the Second Ammendment 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Fri, 11 Aug 17 5:44 PM | 21 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21651 of 21655
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Probably deserves to be on Constituti also ... *tootie board* *w*

Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing – Hartford, CT
Read more at https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=60b_1359752020#zXxjRmQS9YAuW2bl.99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHyJ4Ckms8

Uploaded Image

Cross posted to PopeIV




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens 

By: ribit in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 08 Aug 17 7:32 PM | 19 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21650 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21649 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

...they use the crimes of the thugs and gangbangers to provide them the data to justify taking guns away from law abiding citizens.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when ya see one tumble down a flight of stairs!


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 08 Aug 17 5:57 PM
Msg. 21649 of 21655

Yeah, I agree, ribit ... but, they don't want to disarm the thugs and gangbangers - THEY are their most loyal constituents!


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Tue, 08 Aug 17 5:57 PM | 17 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21649 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21648 by ribit)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Yeah, I agree, ribit ... but, they don't want to disarm the thugs and gangbangers - THEY are their most loyal constituents!




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens
By: ribit
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 07 Aug 17 9:08 PM
Msg. 21648 of 21655

...IMHO they should start with the thugs and gangbangers in Chicago. See how that works out before they make "flyover country" hostile territory.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens 

By: ribit in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 07 Aug 17 9:08 PM | 23 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21648 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21646 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

...IMHO they should start with the thugs and gangbangers in Chicago. See how that works out before they make "flyover country" hostile territory.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when ya see one tumble down a flight of stairs!


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 07 Aug 17 6:10 PM
Msg. 21646 of 21655

Required reading - and note the total 'reported' numbers.

Suspension of the Bill of Rights, en flagrante delecto, not just of the Second, but of all of them.

Please REMEMBER it was GWB, in 2001, that allowed the law FORCING all pharmacies, doctors, and hospitals to submit ALL our medical records to the fascist empire previously known as 'the federal government of the Constitutional Republic of the United STATES of America.'

What are the estimates of the number of citizens that have ever been prescribed 'anti-depressants'. I believe it hovers around 1 in every three.

BOTTOM LINE: The United States government can now use
SchutzStaffel tactics to confiscate the guns of
a FULL THIRD of the citizens of the United States.

And if that doesn't concern ya, ya is definitely in the wrong corner of the internet by reading these posts.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which weâ��re told never happens 

By: ribit in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Mon, 07 Aug 17 9:07 PM | 20 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21647 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21645 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

From the Link: When elected officials, at both the federal and state levels, propose new gun control laws we are given the same speech every time. Stop crying wolf. It’s not as if armed officers are about to go door to door confiscating everyone’s guns.

...I think their line about not taking your duck guns is funnier. It's almost as if they think the second amendment is about duck hunting.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when ya see one tumble down a flight of stairs!


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another of those gun confiscations which we’re told never happens
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 06 Aug 17 6:38 PM
Msg. 21645 of 21655

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/05/another-gun-confiscations-told-never-happens/

Hmmm ... those New York law enforcement officers better be damn glad they aren't trying to serve those unconstitutional warrants here in Texas.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another of those gun confiscations which we're told never happens 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 07 Aug 17 6:10 PM | 21 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21646 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21645 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Required reading - and note the total 'reported' numbers.

Suspension of the Bill of Rights, en flagrante delecto, not just of the Second, but of all of them.

Please REMEMBER it was GWB, in 2001, that allowed the law FORCING all pharmacies, doctors, and hospitals to submit ALL our medical records to the fascist empire previously known as 'the federal government of the Constitutional Republic of the United STATES of America.'

What are the estimates of the number of citizens that have ever been prescribed 'anti-depressants'. I believe it hovers around 1 in every three.

BOTTOM LINE: The United States government can now use
SchutzStaffel tactics to confiscate the guns of
a FULL THIRD of the citizens of the United States.

And if that doesn't concern ya, ya is definitely in the wrong corner of the internet by reading these posts.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another of those gun confiscations which we’re told never happens
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 06 Aug 17 6:38 PM
Msg. 21645 of 21655

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/05/another-gun-confiscations-told-never-happens/

Hmmm ... those New York law enforcement officers better be damn glad they aren't trying to serve those unconstitutional warrants here in Texas.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Another of those gun confiscations which we’re told never happens 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Sun, 06 Aug 17 6:38 PM | 25 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21645 of 21655
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/05/another-gun-confiscations-told-never-happens/

Hmmm ... those New York law enforcement officers better be damn glad they aren't trying to serve those unconstitutional warrants here in Texas.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (4) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

A Brilliant Defense of the First Ammendment: " Just stay quiet and you'll be okay." 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (4)
Wed, 26 Jul 17 7:31 PM | 51 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21644 of 21655
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

This is an extended review of a new book. The book is written by the founder of http://jihadwatch.com, Robert Spencer.

Putting it on my reading list.

The tragic fact, alas, is that during the sixteen years since 9/11, the forces of ignorance and submission have been on the ascendant in the West, aiding stealth jihad and squelching its critics. Atta's seven simple words have become the refrain of the CAIR crowd and the pro-Islamic left – and tens of millions of men and women in the West have listened, held their tongues, and buried their heads in the sand.

No: as Spencer has made abundantly, authoritatively, and illuminatingly clear, staying quiet will not make everything okay.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267369/complete-infidels-guide-free-speech-and-its-bruce-bawer

Uploaded Image
http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/07/cvb.jpg?itok=gimz4Gkg

The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)

[To order "The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)," CLICK HERE.]

What would we do without Robert Spencer? In over a dozen definitive books, and on his invaluable Jihad Watch website, he has served as a one-man truth squad on the subject of Islam, providing readers with lucid, cogent accounts of the belief system itself, of the Koran, of jihad, and of the life of Muhammed. In Stealth Jihad (200Cool, he described the ways in which Islamic law is being forced upon America, subverting the nation's constitutional freedoms in aggressive but peaceful and even, at times, seemingly reasonable ways. Now, in The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), he looks at the same phenomenon from the other side – providing a compendious if not comprehensive history of the ways in which Western governments, media, and others in positions of authority have enabled stealth jihad and punished its critics.

Needless to say, it's a depressing story. In my 2009 book Surrender, I told it up to that point – the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the Danish cartoons. As it happens, Spencer kicks off his account with the cartoons, reminding us that the good guys (notably Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who refused to discuss freedom of speech with Muslim ambassadors) were outnumbered by the bad guys (the UN's Louise Arbour and Doudou Diène, the EU's Javier Solana, and – surprise! – Bill Clinton, all of whom condemned the cartoons). Spencer then takes a long leap back – not to Rushdie, but all the way back to Muhammed, who himself, Spencer points out, initiated the time-honored Islamic practice of eliminating critics tout de suite. After each of several poets – among them Ka'b bin a'l-Ashraf, Abu Afak, and Asma bint Marwan – publicly mocked Islam, Muhammed, prefiguring Henry II, asked aloud, “Who will rid me of [insert poet's name here]?” Each of these versifiers was promptly dispatched by one of his faithful followers. And a beloved Islamic custom was born.

Spencer doesn't just focus on Islam. By way of demonstrating to American readers that they shouldn't put too much faith in the indelible, rock-solid nature of the First Amendment, he harks back to the 1798 Sedition Act – under which several individuals were imprisoned for mocking then-President John Adams – and the 1917 Espionage Act, under which Socialist Party leaders were jailed for opposing the draft. History, warns Spencer, “shows that First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation.” Have we reached that point now? After all, look at the procedural encumbrances that have been placed on the Second Amendment in many jurisdictions. Who's to say that the same can't happen to the First?

It's not as if it such limitations haven't been entertained at the highest levels. Spencer reminds us of a failed 2015 House resolution that decried “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims”; of Hillary Clinton's 2016 statement that “every constitutional right and amendment can be tailored in an appropriate way without breaching the Constitution”; of Hillary's promise, in a 2011 Istanbul speech, to use “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to silence Islam's critics; of President Obama's support for a UN Human Rights Council motion calling for the criminalization of “negative racial and religious stereotyping”; and of an Assistant Attorney General's refusal “to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.”

And of course Spencer revisits the Benghazi killings, every aspect of which, we're reminded, was pure evil – Hillary's mendacious attribution of the killings to an anti-Islam video; her promise to a victim's father that its producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, would be “arrested and prosecuted”; Nakoula's actual arrest and year-long (!) imprisonment (allegedly for a minor violation of probation); the cruelly cynical condemnations of the video by Obama himself as well as by innumerable administration flunkies, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Every one of these actions, of course, was a betrayal not only of the First Amendment but of the dead in Benghazi, of the American people, and of the truth itself. Spencer quotes the estimable Kenneth Timmerman (whose 2016 book Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi I don't think I've even heard of before) as calling Nakoula “the first victim of Islamic Sharia blasphemy laws in the United States.” During the presidential campaign, Democrats complained endlessly about conservatives' supposed harping on Benghazi; in fact Hillary's heinous conduct in this matter – forget everything else she's ever done – should have been more than enough reason for a decent-minded electorate to repudiate her entirely. And to think that this wretch dared to call half of America deplorable!

There are details in Spencer's book that will be familiar to some readers but new to others. For example, I didn't know – or had forgotten – that on the very day after the massacre at that San Bernardino Christmas party in December 2015, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, speaking to a Muslim group, focused not on that jihadist atrocity but on the purported danger of “anti-Muslim violence,” and instead of committing the Justice Department to enhanced anti-terrorism measures made comments that seemed to many to suggest that she was prepared to prosecute anti-Muslim speech acts. One of the very few politicians to call her on these reprehensible remarks was former New York Governor George Pataki, who, in a tweet, dared her to arrest him for wanting to see jihadists annihilated. (Similarly, when Terry Jones, an obscure Florida pastor, announced his intention to burn copies of the Koran, drawing protests not only from Obama and Hillary but also from Sarah Palin and General David Petraeus, the good guy was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who instead of upbraiding Jones affirmed his First Amendment rights.)

Spencer reminds us that the FBI officials knew of Major Nidal Hasan's terrorist contacts and pro-jihadist statements before he committed the Fort Hood massacre, but let him alone, for the same reason that British authorities kept mum for years about the systematic rape of children (ultimately over 1400 of them) by Muslims in Rotherham: because they didn't want to be called Islamophobes. At the other end of the cowardice-to-courage spectrum, Spencer tells us how a terrorist plan to kill soldiers at Fort Dix was foiled by a young Circuit City clerk, Brian Morgenstern, whom the plotters paid to transfer jihad videos from VHS to DVD. When Morgenstern noticed the alarming contents of the videos, he hesitated to say anything to anybody for fear he was being “racist,” but overcame his fear, informed authorities, and saved lives. As Spencer notes, Morgenstern's hesitation was a perfect example of the kind of “peer pressure” and “shaming” that Hillary Clinton celebrated in Istanbul.

“Americans,” laments Spencer, “are internalizing Islamic blasphemy law.” Well, that's certainly the case with despicable Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who accused the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists of “hate speech” and of having “brought a world of pain to France.” It's also true of the execrable novelist Joyce Carol Oates, who (along a couple of hundred other writers) criticized a posthumous award by PEN, the authors' rights organization, to the Charlie Hebdo victims. Far from all of the dhimmis have been on the left: among those who objected to the 2015 Draw Muhammed event in Garland, Texas, were Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Rep. Peter King (a leading anti-jihad voice in Congress), and, alas, Donald Trump. Spencer reminds us that in the midst of the Satanic Verses controversy, the Vatican denounced Salman Rushdie; that Pope Benedict, after causing a ruckus by censuring Islam in his 2006 Regensburg speech, quickly tendered a groveling apology; and that Pope Francis responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by calling for limits to the right to criticize somebody else's beliefs, suggesting that if you “make fun of the faith of others” you should “expect a punch.”

One of this book's big pluses is the attention it draws to unsung heroes – and villains – in the counterjihadist struggle: I've never heard of Natalie Merchant or her rock group, 10,000 Maniacs, but kudos to her for deciding to stop covering Cat Stevens's “Peace Train” (which had apparently been a big hit for her) after he expressed support for the Rushdie fatwa.

Near the beginning of this work, Spencer quotes 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who told the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11: “Just stay quiet and you'll be okay.” Well, as we all know now, they weren't okay. In the days and weeks after that fateful day, we should all have gotten busy learning things that would have entirely altered the grim history related in these pages. The tragic fact, alas, is that during the sixteen years since 9/11, the forces of ignorance and submission have been on the ascendant in the West, aiding stealth jihad and squelching its critics. Atta's seven simple words have become the refrain of the CAIR crowd and the pro-Islamic left – and tens of millions of men and women in the West have listened, held their tongues, and buried their heads in the sand. Atta's promise – his assurance, his admonition – echoes throughout this book, in which Spencer, at appropriate moments, quotes it again and yet again, reminding us that it was, and is, nothing but a deadly lie. The cumulative effect is powerful, even haunting. As we reach the volume's concluding pages – in which Spencer covers some of the latest acts of campus violence by the fascist anti-fascists known as Antifa and offers up sage advice for President Trump (who we can only hope will read this book) – we find Atta's chilling words ringing in our ears. No: as Spencer has made abundantly, authoritatively, and illuminatingly clear, staying quiet will not make everything okay.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The Judicial Coup Continues 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 25 Jul 17 6:27 PM | 54 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21643 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21642 by micro)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

My life has been blessed infinitely more than I deserve, micro ... only because God has a loving, magnanimous spirit beyond all reckoning ... and, most probably, a great sense of humor ... 'cuz I well imagine it takes one where I'm concerned.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: The Judicial Coup Continues
By: micro
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 25 Jul 17 5:47 PM
Msg. 21642 of 21655

You NAILED IT Beldin!

This is all predicted in scriptures anyway and as usual, it is coming true.....

You are a gifted person indeed! Thumbs Up Very Happy


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The Judicial Coup Continues 

By: micro in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 25 Jul 17 5:47 PM | 69 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21642 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21641 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

You NAILED IT Beldin!

This is all predicted in scriptures anyway and as usual, it is coming true.....

You are a gifted person indeed! Thumbs Up Very Happy


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: The Judicial Coup Continues
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 18 Jul 17 8:38 PM
Msg. 21641 of 21655

I agree, Professor, but I'm afraid it is even more than a systemic problem - it's a much deeper problem of rapidly declining moral fiber in our society. I fully realize that Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln also had to deal with bad actors in their day, but today we have whole segments of our society who willfully look at right and see "wrong," look at wrong and see "right," and prefer anarchy to lawfulness. It's downright sad.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to do what we can to improve things, but Christ is the only one who can ... and will ... put things right.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The Judicial Coup Continues 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (9)
Tue, 18 Jul 17 8:38 PM | 131 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21641 of 21655
(This msg. is a reply to 21639 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I agree, Professor, but I'm afraid it is even more than a systemic problem - it's a much deeper problem of rapidly declining moral fiber in our society. I fully realize that Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln also had to deal with bad actors in their day, but today we have whole segments of our society who willfully look at right and see "wrong," look at wrong and see "right," and prefer anarchy to lawfulness. It's downright sad.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to do what we can to improve things, but Christ is the only one who can ... and will ... put things right.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
The Judicial Coup Continues
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 17 Jul 17 4:56 PM
Msg. 21639 of 21655

Daniel Greenberg nails it ... again, and as per usual. Oligarchy ... And then we will be living under a permanent reign of judicial terror.

In our previous 'discussion' on ARTICLE V - one of the main points I made was that a very necessary Constitutional Ammendment is needed to restrain the 'judiciary'. A point that was made without presenting a 'plethora of evidence' to buttress the case showing a judiciary 'out of control' - considering it unneeded elucidation for regular participants here.

Events since those posts, involving 'federal judges' have made the point in spades.

Daniel DOES elucidate in his article, and butresses it with history of what the Founders thought of the dangers of judges and courts.

OLIGARCHY
oligarchy
n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
n. Those making up such a government.
n. A state governed by a few persons.

mt. definition: DICTATORSHIP of a few.

Here is Daniels article - quoted in full. Please visit his page to give him any click revenue he derives from his site. The comments (not included) are sometimes good - and often amusing.

Friday, July 14, 2017
America is Not a Nation Ruled by Judges
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 19 Comments

When President Trump tweeted that his measure to protect Americans from Islamic terror was a “travel ban” and that it should never have been watered down, he was right.

Calling it a pause hasn’t appeased a single of the radical judges abusing their authority. It doesn’t matter what the lawyers call it, when courts insist on referencing President Trump’s campaign rhetoric instead. Watering down the ban achieved nothing. The judicial coup can’t be appeased with a “moderate” ban.

Stripping Iraq from the list of countries undermined the effectiveness of the measure considering that the vast majority of refugees being investigated for terror links in this country are Iraqis.

Most of the rest are from the other countries listed on the travel ban.

And the failure to protect Middle Eastern Christians by prioritizing them as refugees is a left-wing war crime. The lawyers, activists, media bosses and judges responsible for it have blood on their hands. Even as they mouth hollow platitudes about compassion, they have become complicit in Islamic genocide.

Waiting on the Supreme Court didn't work. The temporary compromise measure violated presidential authority while giving the left the room it needed to continue its judicial coup by expanding "prior relationship" to mean anything while unconstitutionally undermining the refugee cap.

There are legitimate debates about the limits of presidential authority in every administration. It’s fair to question whether any president, of any party, should be able to engage in military action without Congress because the Constitution grants the legislative branch the authority to declare war. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Trump is acting within his legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants him the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” for as long as he thinks it’s necessary.

Obama made use of this power to temporarily halt Iraqi migration. So have other presidents in the past. Immigration is in the hands of Congress and the White House. It is not up to judges to decide who can come to America.

Our entire system of immigration “discriminates” based on religion and national origin. It allots visas and refugee status based on national origin and membership in persecuted religious groups.

If the judicial coup succeeds, elected officials will lose their authority over immigration. And that means that the American people will lose all control over immigration.

The implications go far beyond the travel ban.

Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama pal, didn’t just go after the ban, but asserted that he had the authority to decide how many refugees should be allowed in. The Supreme Court chose to split the difference there. It’s a short hop and a skip from there to judges deciding that they have the constitutional authority to set the annual number of refugees and immigrants to prevent “discrimination” by the elected branches.

If you want to imagine the end of America, that’s a good place to start.


Federal courts have been unconstitutionally treating states like this for far too long, intervening in everything from elections to prison populations, but now they’re using the general anti-Trump hysteria to assert judicial supremacy over the elected branches of government.

If this judicial coup is allowed to stand, anything that any White House official or member of Congress says at any time in the past, can and will be used by Federal courts to seize control over any policy.

And then we will be living under a permanent reign of judicial terror.
 

This was the nightmare loophole that opened up when we declared that preventing discrimination was such a compelling interest that it could be used to override nearly everything else. Now the legal butcher’s bill might be coming due. And when it arrives, the Bill of Rights will cease to exist and the elected branches of government will wither under the shadow of black robes and falling gavels.

That is what is at stake here.

President Trump isn’t just defending us against Islamic terror. It’s up to him to defend government of the people against two political coups; one that seeks to reverse the results of the election with a manufactured scandal based on a Hillary conspiracy theory and the other that aspires to make elections irrelevant through a judicial ruling class.

A civil war is underway. Trump, like Lincoln, isn’t just fighting an elitist Democrat ruling class embedded in secessionist enclaves of gated communities surrounded by political plantations of minority poor.

Both Republican presidents had to face off in a civil war against judicial supremacy.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Abraham Lincoln asserted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case did not suffice to “have the citizen conform his vote to that decision; the member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto power”.

Lincoln then quoted Thomas Jefferson’s warning that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” would be “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy”.

And that is exactly what judicial supremacy has done.

Thomas Jefferson cautioned that judges have "the same passions for party, for power" and "their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."

He stated firmly, "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign with themselves."

Both the first Democratic-Republican and the first Republican presidents rejected judicial supremacy. They did so because it undermined a government of the people and imposed a judicial oligarchy.

What of the first Democrat president? In his veto of the Bank of the United States, President Andrew Jackson affirmed Jefferson’s “co-equal” and “co-sovereign” principle stating that, “the Congress, the Executive and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.”

Jackson’s portrait now hangs over President Trump in the Oval Office. It is up to Trump to defend Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution against judicial supremacy.

For too long the conservative position has been that we must defend the Constitution from judicial activism by putting the right sort of men on the Supreme Court. This approach has been somewhat successful. But trying to solve the abuse of judicial authority with judicial authority is like plugging a leak with water. Conservatives seek judicial saints who will never overstep the boundaries of their power while the left merely needs to find judges who will have no compunction about abusing their authority.

That is the judicial coup which has placed us in a political stalemate. Conservatives hope that the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution. And if it doesn’t, a whole new “law of the land” appears.

Even if the Supreme Court does the right thing, the challenges won’t end. And the judicial coup will have proven that its members can freeze any presidential policy for the better part of a year while the administration runs a gauntlet of political appointees who deliberately humiliate and undermine it.

And they won’t stop now.

Conservatives should continue seeking judges who will respect the Constitution. But truly respecting and protecting the Constitution means rejecting judicial supremacy. And the battle against judicial supremacy can’t be fought and won in the courts. Only the White House can defy the courts.

The Civil War was fought over the supremacy of the Constitution. Then, as now, the Democrat secessionists privileged the Supreme Court’s interpretation over the written text of the Constitution.

In his inaugural address, President Lincoln opposed judicial supremacy, warning that if government policy for the entire country is “irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court... the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers.”

During the Civil War, he rejected a decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney and arrested Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael. Judge William Matthew Merrick, an Associate Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court, was placed under house arrest and had his salary suspended. Merrick, like today’s secessionist Democrat judges had attempted to undermine the war effort through legal obstructionism.

The Civil War should have settled the question of judicial supremacy. But Democrats snuck their judicial fetish through the back door until it has become the greatest threat to our rights and our freedoms.

And it must be defeated again.

Lincoln and Jackson defied judicial supremacy by rejecting its illegitimate authority. President Trump must do the same. The travel ban is within his authority. No serious legal challenge has been made to that authority. It is the legality of his motives that has come under constant attack, but the President of the United States is not obligated to justify his motives to a paternal court to exercise his authority.

By ignoring the courts, President Trump will restore respect for his authority, for the separation of powers and for the power of the people to rule themselves.

And he will be following in the tradition of Jefferson, Lincoln and Jackson.

The majority of Americans support his policy. The law, in both the legislative text and judicial precedent, supports his actions. As the death toll in Europe mounts, they are waiting for him to do the right thing.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next