Who'd A Thunk?

It is legal to read the Bible out loud in front of the DMZ.

That is right folks.  A pair of Christian men, Mark Mackey and Bret Coronado were arrested for reading the Bible out loud in front of the DMV in Hemet, California in 2011.  That is right.  Arrested and placed in jail.

Hat Tip to Stop the ACLU

A court has said that a pair of Christians were “allowed” to read the Bible aloud outside the Department of Motor Vehicles in Hemet, California. Wasn’t it kind of the government courts in California to say that these Christians were allowed to have their rights to free religious expression?
 
Back in 2011 Mark Mackey and Bret Coronado were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside the DMV location.



Click here if video fails to load.

But on August 13, Superior Court Judge Timothy Freer found the men “not guilty” of any offenses.

Prosecutors had to prove that the men needed a permit for their Bible reading, but were not able to make that case.

According to a full report at Advocates for Faith and Freedom,

 In order for the prosecution to prove that a permit was required under Title 13, Section 1860 of the California Administrative Code, it was required to prove that the defendants were engaged in a “demonstration or gathering” as defined in Section 1851. Judge Freer ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the men conducted either a “demonstration or gathering.” Both definitions require that the conduct of defendants was such that it had “the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers” and the prosecution couldn’t prove that to be the case.

“The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof that our clients committed a crime when they read the Bible aloud in front a line of people,” said AFF attorney Robert Taylor.

Interestingly, the judge also pointed out that the law prosecutors tried to invoke was likely unconstitutional as it gave law enforcement over broad powers to quash public gatherings in the first place. Sadly, this case did not go toward settling the constitutionality of the law, but it was a victory of sorts to have the judge even mention the fact.

Honor, Courage, Love

The conservative entrepreneur recently learned that he has temporarily lost the ability that so many of us take for granted — the ability to speak. Doctors informed Beck that his vocal chords have been temporarily paralyzed. The effects will “come and go,” but thankfully it is a repairable condition, he explained.

Glenn did a 10 minute dialog totally without a spoken word.  Watch it and hear his voice scream louder than it ever has before.



Click here if video fails to load.

I do hope that Mr. Beck regains the full use of his voice, but on that day he spoke louder and with more eloquent than he has ever done before.

 Well spoken Mr. Beck!  Well spoken!

Pigs Will Fly

Another rant by Pat Condell




Click here if the video fails to load.

Is It Possible To Question Islam?

What an interesting question?  Can one question the history of Islam?  Did Muhammad actually exist?  Was he really illiterate?  Creeping Sharia asks those and other questions.

The question really should be whether it is possible to question Islam and not be threatened, injured or killed, slandered, or arrested. Robert Spencer via PJ Media » Is It Still Possible to Question Islam?.

---

Is it “Islamophobic” to question whether or not the standard picture of Muhammad as depicted in Muslim texts is historically accurate?

Certainly many people think so, notably the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a fifty-six nation body (plus the Palestinian Authority) that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, comprises the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. It has been working for years to compel the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the OIC in December 2011, apparently to facilitate just that and figure out ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech.

Journalist Claire Berlinski notes that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:

It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

Yet the mainstream media has for the most part bought into this perspective, treating all investigation of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “Islamophobic,” however useful it might be to understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization. Into this atmosphere comes my book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, which doesn’t touch directly on terror issues at all, but does demonstrate that Islam was political, supremacist, and violent before it was religious — a fact with considerable implications for today’s political scene.

In broad outline, the accepted story of Islam’s origins is well known. It begins with an Arabian merchant of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, known to the world as Muhammad, a name that means the “praised one.” He rejected the polytheism of his tribe and was given to frequent prayer in the hills and caves outside Mecca. In the year 610, when he was forty, he was praying in a cave on Mount Hira, about two miles from Mecca, when he was suddenly confronted by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite.

For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, Muhammad did just that: He recited the messages he received from Gabriel, presenting them to his followers as the pure and unadulterated word of the supreme and only God. Many of his followers memorized portions. The Arabia in which Islam was born was an oral culture that respected poetic achievement, and thus the prodigious feats of memory required to memorize lengthy suras were not so unusual. After Muhammad’s death, the revelations he had received were collected together into the Qur’an, or “Recitation,” from the accounts of those who had memorized them or written them down.
Muslims around the globe are not the only ones who take this account for granted; even non-Muslims generally accept the broad contours of this narrative, which has been told and retold for centuries. However, virtually none of that standard account stands up to historical scrutiny, for several key reasons:

• No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
• The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,”“Muha- jirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
• The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
• The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
• During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross – a symbol abhorrent to Islam.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

In Support Of Free Speech!

Welcome to Eurabia!

Is Europe beyond redemption? Beyond hope?  Has Europe fallen to the Muslim hordes and the proponenets of Shar'ia Law to the point where Resistance is Futile?  I pray not so.

And although Pat Condell does not pray, he does speak out in support of Free Speech.  Here is his latest:

Free speech in Europe



I thank G-d for our First Amendment, something no European Nation ever thought of adopting.  (They do have Socialism, the Nanny State, and Multiculturalism though.)

Playing The Race Card Georgia Style.

If he isn't attacking Jews Israelis, he attacks average, hard-working men and women. Jimmy Carter is at it again.

This time he is using the Race Card to do it.

Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.

Carter made similar remarks at an event at his presidential center in Atlanta, Georgia, The Associated Press reported Tuesday, pointing to some protesters who have compared Obama to a Nazi. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," the former president said at the Carter Center, according to AP. "It's deeper than that."

He grouped Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's speech in that category, according to AP. "I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president," he said.

"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."

First of all, the people protesting are not just white people, they are of all races and religions. They are Americans first. Their color, their heritage, their religion all come second. There is no hyphen between their designation. They are Americans! Plain and simple.

Second, it is the sacred duty of each citizen to speak out against the grievances he or she perceives that the government is doing that is wrong. Was Congressman Wilson wrong to shout out? NO! It is his right as a citizen to do so. Were the Democrats Donkeycrats right in censoring him? NO! Rep. Wilson apologized to the President and they should have left it at that.

We have a President who is black. That is a fact of life, and the vast majority of Americans don't care about the color of his skin. It is the color of his politics that concerns them more. That color is a definite PINK! That is what the anger is about. That is the true color that scares them.

Jimmy Carter had a failed Presidency. His foreign policy fizzled. His domestic policy almost brought the nation to its knees. It was under his watch:

That the Mullahs took control of Iran (a move he applauded at the time).
That 53 Americans were held hostage by the Iranian Government for 444 days.
That unemployment rose to 8.5%.
That inflation was out of control.
That government spending went haywire.

Yet he calls his Presidency a success.

Jimmy Carter is a failed man. He lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan by a landslide.

1980 election results.

Now all he can seem to do is to pick on Southern Baptists, Israelis, and now Middle Class America.

Carter is 85, and perhaps his age has something to do with it. If that is the case, then perhaps we should find a nice rest home for him. Somewhere quiet and peaceful. Far from the hustle and bustle of the world. Somewhere he can dream of the time he didn't lose to Ronald Reagan, and there would be no Israel or Middle Class to bother him so.

MBVD: I'll Snitch Myself Out-Letter to Flag@Whitehouse.gov

Crossposted From Miss Beth's Victory Dance.

This is a copy of the letter I sent to the snitch line at the White House:

Rather than rely on a telescreen as envisioned by George Orwell in his groundbreaking tome 1984, or wait for the Obama Youth Corps as currently being funded in New York under Mayor Bloomberg (a la the Nazi Youth Corps and here), I'll "snitch" myself out.

I blog as Miss Beth at Miss Beth's Victory Dance (http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com). I'm a 48 year old white female, single mom who works for a living and my children are mulatto. In short, they have more black blood in them than BHO.

First and foremost, don't even try to pull the race card on me.

I disagree with Comrade obama on many, MANY levels of his policies, not least of which is his farce of health care "reform". This is not reform but a systematic takeover of yet another industry not mandated by our Constitution. You know, the document Comrade obama is intent upon destroying? The document Comrade obama CLAIMS to have been so knowledgeable of to the point of being able to teach? Yeah, that Constitution.

I object to the nationalization of the banks, the car industry, the bail outs and the robbery at gunpoint of my tax dollars. I object to the "spread the wealth" mentality of this racist in the White House. I object to Comrade obama bowing to the Saudi king while he sells out America. I object to the appeasement of the muslim community, which has stated unequivocally its desire to destroy us. I object to the 42 "czars" who answer to no one but Comrade obama. I object to the constant apologizing for America when he should be defending her. I object to selling out our allies while embracing our enemies. I object to the Neville Chamberlain approach. I object to my tax dollars being used for photo opportunities such as flyovers of New York City. I object to my tax dollars being used for his date nights. I object to the caliber of the company he keeps, such as William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Pflegler, Skip Gates, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I object to Comrade obama making racist comments about situations he knows nothing about a la Sgt. Crowley. I object to Comrade obama stripping our military of weapons and strategic military devices. I object to Comrade obama turning everything into a photo op instead of keeping his skinny butt in a chair and doing his job.

I object to Comrade obama's disrespect for life at all stages, particularly the Infant Born Alive Protection Act and his current fetish for "end of life" counseling in his alleged reform bill. I object to Comrade obama's attempt to shove this travesty of healthcare down my throat when he hasn't performed his own due diligence and read the bill while simply using it as a popularity platform. I object to the insane amount of pork Comrade obama has already forced onto future generations through his smoke and mirrors. I object to Comrade obama's quadrupling the national budget in 6 months--the highest budget in history.

I object to Comrade obama. I didn't vote for him and I never will. I'm a proud supporter of the tea parties. I'm a fervent supporter of individual rights and I will not become one of your brainwashed sheeple, lapping up the pablum being dropped among the masses by a stuporous, lazy media who refuses to pull the curtain back on the false wizard, showing this emperor wanna be to indeed have no clothes--to mix stories.

I object to the farce of anthropogenic global warming and the further rape of American's wallets by a non-existent crisis. The earth goes in cycles--learn your geology (particularly your paleo-geology) and quit telling me what light bulbs I can use. I object to being taxed repeatedly because I smoke. Most of us smokers will simply quit and that will put the tobacco companies (and their workers) out of business and end your "honey pot" of money coming in. The Constitution doesn't provide for you, Comrade obama, to institute a "sin tax" on me.

I will cling to my GOD (who, by the way IS NOT COMRADE obama), my guns and my change. I will make my OWN hope and not rely on a nanny state to provide it to me, telling me when I can live, when I can die, and what kind of quality of life I can have. And I will call for my fellow conservatives to protest, without violence, at every turn and every chance they get, just as the sheeple have been doing since time immemorial--although the sheeple have shown extreme violence toward dissenting opinions and no respect at all for rule of law.

I will continue to use facts and logic in the face of emotionalism. I will continue to point out today's liberals, Comrade obama chief among them, are themselves the liars, the hypocrites, the racists, the double standard holders, the two faced Janus', big government monkeys on my back they are. I will continue to work for a living, against all odds, in this travesty of an economy foisted upon us by a Marxist wanna be commander in chief who doesn't have the balls to produce proof of his eligibility to hold office under our cherished Constitution but who is arrogant enough to demand such proof of his opposition (who promptly produced it). I will continue to point out the misogynistic, narcissistic tendencies of an arrested child who can't handle a job he most certainly is not qualified to hold. A child who can't string together a simple sentence without a teleprompter. A child who feels he must stifle all opposition because the opposition sees through the smoke and mirrors.

And I will claim my actions are consistent with my cherished right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Yes, I am blind copying several people on this email. For those people, I am providing Comrade obama's own words and the links to find them. From the White House Blog itself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/. The problem is, we recognize the facts and the lies are no longer working on true Americans who think.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are now exhorted, by the White House itself, to "snitch" on our neighbors and friends who disagree with the travesty known loosely as Obamacare. A direct quote:

"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."

Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. Hitler had charisma and a smooth tongue himself. As for the Youth Corps, here is a link to Comrade obama's own words (on video): http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-plans-for-marxist-like-national.html and the actual text of the bill can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388

One last question--if this farce called obamacare is so great, why don't I see you, Comrade obama, being the first to sign yourself and your family up for it--and insisting the rest of Congress do the same? Why? Because it's not great, it's not even good. You would reserve the best health care for yourself.

It has been shown, repeatedly, in other countries, your idea is a dead horse. Quit beating it. Otherwise, be prepared for a lot of backlash from true Americans who DO believe in the Constitution, to be aimed at you and your lackies. And we vote. We will no longer tolerate being force fed the slop you think we want to eat. Your hope and change is actually Nope and Cringe.

You have enough clues. Come find me.

My good friend and a contributor here at Monkey in the Middle, Miss Beth, brings up to the President a very good point:

"One last question--if this farce called obamacare is so great, why don't I see you, Comrade obama, being the first to sign yourself and your family up for it--and insisting the rest of Congress do the same? Why? Because it's not great, it's not even good. You would reserve the best health care for yourself."

This is the one question that none of the Democrats trying to sell this Snake Oil disguised as Health Care will answer. If they won't take it, neither should the American People.

It is time to send a direct message to our "elected" officials:

We can and will vote you out of office on this!

Bloggers Beware: Freedom of Speech is NOT for you!

Freedom of Speech, along with Freedom of Religion, the Press and the Right to Peaceful Assembly are the first four rights guarenteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The right of Free Speech is now under threat from the Obama Administration.

Freedom of Speech for them, but not for you!!!

It seems the White House desperadoes are now coming right out and asking Americans to snitch on each other. Some months back I found a site that appalled me. It is called the Obama Nation, and on that forum it had threads encouraging readers to name names; this included listing licence plate numbers of cars sporting Republican stickers, and also encouraged children to report and list not just their neighbours who supported anyone other than BO, but also to turn in their parents. The first time I found that site, (and yes, I did register to get the goods) I was appalled at the rampent racism as regular posters called any dissenters "crackas", and delighted in sharing what they should do with - and to - "honkey women":. No, I am not going to give the link to that site. It IS disgusting. I did email the White House and ask if this is what they want their dear leader's name associated with; no reply, of course! And the hatred continues unfettered.

During the election campaign (no, not the never-ending campaign; the official campaign that was supposed to end on voting day, ) BO minions volunteered on a team with the title "Fight the Smears." Their 'job' was to troll the internet, and swoop onto the offending sites and attack any who dared voice disagreement with the proposed Utopia that many swallowed hook, line and sinker on voting day. Hey, even dead people voted for the "vision."

Today it has become official: the White House boldly goes where no-one (except themselves) has gone before, at least in America. It seems that questions from patriots (or right wing terrorists like grannies scared of the proposed health care "reform",) can now be reported directly to the White House. I kid you not. They have established an official email address just for this purpose.

Finish reading this important piece a Assoluta Tranquillita.

There were people in the past who did such a thing. The old Soviet Union. The East Germans. And of course the Nazis. This type of behavior is NOT condoned in free nation, no matter what the cause. It was NOT condoned after 9/11, and it must not be condoned now.

You can write to the President at flag@whitehouse.gov. This is the address that Obama's Cronies Gestapo has set up to report your friends, co-workers and neighbors. Write to them and let the Gestapo know what you really think of this AND their Health Care Bill!

DO IT TODAY!!!

Restricting Criticism: White House Makes Another Move

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Language that send a chill up your spine. The following concerns a White House blog: Update on Recovery Act Lobby Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence. Attempting to silence all criticism of the Porkulus Bill, the White House is not the slightest intimidated about putting the plan right on the White House blog. This is the kind of language that should send a chill up your spine.

White House

This from Mark Tapscott at the Washington Times who writes: "This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked..."

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added): [red text Maggie's Notebook]

"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

"Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

"Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact."

The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

Please read the entire post at Mark Tapscott for links and commentary. H/T to Hot Air, also with great commentary.

Then visit ShopFloor who notes that the same restrictions being put into place "do not apply to people like corporate executives or officials." [...and the officials are ???] and asks these questions:

What exactly is “the merits?” How do we determine what these merits are? Apparently not through oral communication, i.e., “Oh, hi, Bill. That’s a good project.” No phone calls, either.

Everyday we hear about the next White House move. With each move, we lose a bit of our independence. Restricting criticism???

fas⋅cism

 Noun - A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Right of Free Speech

Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth's Victory Dance

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.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America.

There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have.

Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas.

Until now.

And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys' oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.

Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.

Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression.

If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

UN Human Rights Council: Curtailing Freedom of Expression

Many times NGO's have been asked to speak in front of many United Nations organizations. And every time a pro-Israel group has spoken, they have been stopped by one or another Muslim nation. Most of the time it hasn't been recorded, but this time it was recorded.



View at YouTube

Jewish lobby groups have long claimed that United Nations councils that discuss matters related to the Middle East are outright anti-Israel. The UN watchdog organization Eye On The UN has released a 3-minute film of a session of the UN Human Rights Council calling it a blatant case of silencing a pro-Israel speaker.

On September 18, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva discussed Item 7 on the agenda: "the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories." Time was allotted to hear comments from NGO's at which time a Joint statement of B'nai Brith International and the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations was read. The B'nai Brith representative said:[the above video starts with his statement]

"The discussions under this agenda item are not only repetitive in the sense that speaker after speaker accuses Israel of all conceivable human rights violations without any reference to human rights violations committed by Palestinians. These are not only committed against Israeli civilians, but against other… "

At this moment in the film clip, the president of the council interrupted and gave the floor to Egyptian representative Elchin Amirbayov, Vice President of the Human Rights Council, who made a point of order:

"When we allowed and welcomed the participation of NGO's in the work of this council, we expected this to be serious input… But I am sorry, I don't see any seriousness… No amount of diversion can cover what is happening in Palestine. Those who cannot address the facts and the issues on the ground, should not try to distort and waste the time of the council and waste the time allocated to NGO's. This is not seriousness... We did not hear a single serious statement thus far."

The president of the council accepted the point of order by the Egyptian representative.

The Free Speech Protection Act

Early this year we alerted our members to legislation introduced in the New York Assembly called the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act,” now commonly known as “Rachel’s Law.”

Rachel Ehrenfeld, a member of the Advisory Board of our sister organization American Congress for Truth, was sued in a British court by a Saudi billionaire who claimed her book, Funding Evil, was defamatory. This Saudi has filed dozens of lawsuits in foreign courts in an attempt to intimidate authors and publishers.

“Rachel’s Law” was introduced to provide legal protections from this kind of “libel terrorism” to New York authors and publishers.

Many of our members signed our petition to the New York Assembly calling for the passage of “Rachel’s Law,” and many others contacted New York legislators directly. In a tremendous victory for free speech rights the bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by the Governor.

Now, similar legislation to protect authors and publishers has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (bill number H.R. 5814) and Senate (bill number S-2977). Entitled the “Free Speech Protection Act”, the bill was introduced by Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

This bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign courts that do not have the same protections for free speech that are found in the U.S. Constitution. The bill has been assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

We’re asking you to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative today to urge them to support the bill. And if any of your two Senators or your U.S. Representative is a member of the Senate or House Judiciary Committees, it is especially important that you contact them and urge them to support efforts to report the bill out of committee as soon as possible. The members of both Judiciary Committees are listed below.

To contact your U.S. Senators or U.S. Representative, click this link:

http://www.actforamerica.org/contact-congress/

Please ACT! today on this very important legislation!

House Judiciary Committee Members

(Party and congressional district number included after each name).

Democrat Hon. Berman (D) California, 28th Hon. Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th Hon. Nadler (D) New York, 8th Hon. Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd Hon. Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th Hon. Lofgren (D) California, 16th Hon. Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th Hon. Waters (D) California, 35th Hon. Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th Hon. Wexler (D) Florida, 19th Hon. Sánchez (D) California, 39th Hon. Cohen (D) Tennessee, 9th Hon. Johnson (D) Georgia, 4th Hon. Sutton (D) Ohio, 13th Hon. Gutierrez (D) Illinois, 4th Hon. Sherman (D) California, 27 Hon. Baldwin (D) Wisconsin, 2nd Hon. Weiner (D) New York, 9th Hon. Schiff (D) California, 29th Hon. Davis (D) Alabama , 7th Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th Hon. Ellison (D) Minnesota, 5th

Republican Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th Hon. Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th Hon. Gallegly (R) California, 24th Hon. Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th Hon. Chabot (R) Ohio, 1st Hon. Lungren (R) California, 3rd Hon. Cannon (R) Utah, 3rd Hon. Keller (R) Florida, 8th Hon. Issa (R) California, 49th Hon. Pence (R) Indiana, 6th Hon. Forbes (R) Virginia, 4th Hon. King (R) Iowa, 5th Hon. Feeney (R) Florida, 24th Hon. Franks (R) Arizona, 2nd Hon. Gohmert (R) Texas, 1st Hon. Jordan (R) Ohio, 4th

Senate Judiciary Committee Members

Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)

Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Tom Coburn (R-OK)

From Monkey in the Middle:

We must never take our Freedom's for granted. The Freedom of Speech was so important to our Founding Fathers that they made it part of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Now a foreign court can silence us if they choose. It is time for us to take a stand and say that our Constitutional Rights must be maintained. Contact your representatives and tell them to get this law out of committee and passed now.

A Freedom Message

Hat tip to Rebel Radius

Although this video is for the Libertanianz Party in New Zealand. It's song and message is one for every nation forced to live with Multiculturalism and Dhimmitude.

I hope you enjoy it. I did.



View at YouTube

Free Speech Bound and Gagged!

Hat tip to Hot Air

Some things are best left unsaid. And this week's Jihad Watch video is one of them.





Freedom of Speech means that any speech, even the most hateful is protected speech.

Vancouver: The Fight For Freedom

This is an ongoing series of reports from Covenant Zone in Vancouver.


I think we've got you on our hand-out for tomorrow morning at the local court house where we will be staging a small and low-key demonstration in support of free speech in Canada and the world at large. We've had a great reaction so far. Tomorrow at 8:00 we'll see who shows up to support us, and we'll see if the man on the street cares at all about this issue as of yet. In time we'll succeed but for now we're still not so well known.

My colleagues at Covenant Zone and I have put together two double-sided pages to hand out tomorrow. I have done a couple of my won that we won't hand out, this being Canada where people are professionally timid. The people are my friends and colleagues, so I make allowance, particularly given that I am a guest in this country. However, the Internet is not Canada, and the following links are from my blog, representing me alone.

Let us do nothing while there is time.

The soul selects her own society.

There are links to covenant zone at the bottom of each piece here. I'll try to write up a short intro for your blog, if I may post it there through you. This is a very foreign nation, stranger all the more so for being on the surface so much like America. It i not at all America. Here, the thought of free speech is not automatic, and the creature who claims the "free speech in an American concept" is right. my colleagues here are not strong believers in aggressive freedom. Thus, seeing them protesting in favor of Mark Steyn is remarkable to the nth degree. I hope this gives you and your readers some comfort, as it does me.

I'd like to be in touch with your blog more often that I have been, and if this trial winds down quickly I'll make an attempt to respond to comments direct to me there more promptly than I have so far. I apologize to your readers for that. I still have to make a living, poor excuse that that is but it's the one that has me.

---

Yalla,

Dag

You can find a copy of the leaflet that Covenant Zone has created here. Monkey in the Middle supports Free Speech every where in the world. Even in Canada. Our good neighbor to the North.

Covenant Zone meets every Every Thursday evening, 7-9 p.m, at the main public library in the atrium outside Blenz coffee bar they meet to discuss current events regarding jihad and Left dhimmi fascism.

If you are in the Vancouver area, you are welcome to join them.

Vancouver: The Heroic Struggle

This is an ongoing series of reports from Covenant Zone in Vancouver.


Primo Levi was an Italian intellectual, a man who had a Ph. D. in chemistry, held down a good job, and lived a quiet life as a Jewish guy in a small European city, everything pretty ordinary and sort of nice. Then one day he landed at Auschwitz. Eventually he committed suicide.

I'm happy to write that there's more to this story. It's not a happy story, but it's a story worth knowing, I think. In the abstract, it's our story today. I'll keep it very brief.

Levi survived the death camp. He did so by surviving. I mean, and he explains, he survived because he wanted to survive, and he thought about it, and he discovered there were ways of surviving, ways others didn't think through, those others dying in their millions. We know it's millions. We know Levi survived because he wrote Survival at Auschwitz. We know from his book that he survived, ultimately, by chance. And if we try to think he survived because God spared him to write this book, then I suggest that God could have found any number of better writers, probably far better people, to do a better job. Levi isn't a great thinker, not a great writer, not a great person. Any of a million other people could have written the kind of book he wrote. That's why it's important: because he's ordinary. He's only exceptional in that he survived Auschwitz. In his book he summarizes the experience in a essay entitled "The Drowned and the Saved." I put it to you, dear reader, that we face the same situation Levi faced, though not so brutally and immediately, but the same dilemma of life: Do we live or do we die? I don't mean to liken the world to a death camp; I hope to bring to our attention the problem we face, that Levi faced, in whether we will live rather than die. Levi faced an immediate problem by the moment. We face something different but we face a problem of being in the same sense Levi did. What kind of people are we? Are we the Drowned or are we the Saved?

Levi relates that he witessed people disembarking from trains, that they were lined up, sorted out, some sent to die immediately, the rest sorted out for death by, among other means quicker, exhaustion and starvation. We, of course, don't face that kind of immediate physical threat, but I suggest we face threat as dire in the long term, the existential threat of dying like those disembarking from trains at a death camp. Levi claims he didn't want to know those around him, didn't give them names, didn't think of them as alive at all. it wasn't cruelty or apathy or hatred. Those who disembarked from the trains, those not singled out for immediate murder en masse, we given labor specifically engineered to cause their deaths within three weeks if they followed the rules assigned them. Most, the vast majority, and almost to a man, followed the rules. They followed rules designed to murder them. He saw those around him as not alive to begin with, their deaths not being anything more than a formality. They were, he writes, the drowned.

Levi committed suicide, as did many survivors of the death camps, and as do many survivors of other horrors. He died, though, after he survived Auschwitz. Was it worth it? Having an answer to that will tell what kind of person one is.

It is the natural fate of most of Humanity to follow even unto death that which they follow regardless. Who knows? people are social and they do as others do, even if that is to die by murder. In circumstances less dramatic than Levi's one has the luxury of sympathy. I find that I have written for a number of years now the same phrase: "We are blessed." We are blessed with the chance to care about those who have no idea of their peril. We re blessed in that we can take our lives and do some great thing in the defense of the defenseless, those disembarking from the trains of societies unraveling before our very eyes daily. All are lost in this life, and none survive. Till then, that time, is it worth the living?

Those who never ask such a question are those who deserve never to have to ask such a question; but they might be faced with such a forceful thing. It is our blessing that we will be ahead of all in our defense of the unquestioning. I'm sorry to say it's nothing dramatic we can do. no costumes like a comic book hero, no fancy space weapons to blast down enemies by the score. We can do this great task set for us by simply sitting quietly, talking. If we're saved.

Again I've made a long preamble to a short point. Here in Vancouver, Canada we, my mates and I, sit in the main hall of the city library once a week, talking and drinking coffee and swapping books and so on, like any of hundreds of others around us. We are very unexceptional. Some might say, some indeed have said, we are boring. We seek such people. We have, actually, found many. To a degree, they are in trouble that affects their lives deeply. You might know of some of them by name. Mark Steyn is one. Ezra Levant is another. Kathy Shaidle, too. No one is pointing a gun at their heads, not directing them to death chambers. This is, after all, Canada. Here, the situation is different, less violent than many other places, but as creepy and worsening as one might find anywhere that fascism has seeped into the fabric of society. It will only get worse if people drown in the rule-following of conformity and sociable behaviour. It's the nature of things.

Last evening, Thursday, we met as we do every Thursday evening, to discuss events in the nation and beyond regarding jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. We focussed our discussion on Steyn, Levant, et al. No costume changes, no ray-guns, we simply sit and talk and plan as we can to assist our colleagues in the struggle to stop the Leftist fascism now so deeply rooted in the West. What can we, as bloggers and private citizens, do?

There is no shortage of issues, here or elsewhere, to do with jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. So, along with our discussion of Styne and company, we discussed as well the local situation that includes people in the immediate area, those under attack in various devious ways, by the socialist political party that runs a good half of the city. We have contacted and befriended a number of those who are struggling to wrest control of a community center from professional "social activists." As it happens, the latter group have strong liking in their public announcements for the use of Stalinist cliches and Maoist phraseology. It's not surprising, given that one of their numbers showed up on television at his election to the city council wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt. Not surprising that one of the clique referred to the area as a "Maoist Liberation Zone." We sit at the library and talk. We aren't particularly dramatic. We talk about free speech, how to protect people who exercise it, those who are penalized for doing so. And sometimes they just go too far and we go picket the bastards and make ourselves real visible and heard over their shouting! There come times when enough is enough and one must stand up and start making it known it's too much at all.

We might even lose this struggle not just for the right to speak freely in public but to live at all. We might find ourselves attacked by ever-more emboldened jihadis. We've had our minor encounters. There might well come a time when we can't face them down without a fight. We're talkers and writers and thinkers. We aren't brawlers. But we're not going to drown, either. If there's any way to prevent it, we won't let our societies drown in the muck of collectivist fascism. We might go down with the rest, but we'll go down trying to swim. Yes, it's hopeless, and we'll all go down someday, never to return and lost for eternity. But not till then. Till that time we go on and we sit like the best of men who talk. We drink coffee and we even eat cookies. That's what I ask of you, dear reader. What kind of person are you?

If anyone were more heroic than we, I'd get nervous. What would we have in that case? We don't need hot-headed people looking for instant and eternal answers to all of life's problems. We seek instead comrades in an endless struggle to preserve what good we have and to extend it beyond it's current boundaries and to others who might or might not develop it further. But we live scattered across the wide globe and we might never meet face to face, hand in hand. We might have to rely on knowing that you and yours sit quietly in libraries talking to those who feel like you, that freedom is worth preserving and extending in your neighbourhood against those who would extinguish it from our nation and these lands. it doesn't take much to further the freedoms our forefathers died for. We do our parts just by sitting in public letting the world know we are there. And they do know. For all the lack of drama, we frighten the Death hippies in this city. Because people whisper about us now, whereas before they stayed silent and did what they were told, obeying the rules that allowed the creation of this nasty little police state in Canada. All it take is sitting down to talk. I hope that you will, in your town or your city, do the same for the sake of all.

I'll return next week if I may to bring some news of Mark Styne who will face the government in a hearing against him for having written a book, America Alone. As well, i hope to have news of a local nature on the Maoist liberation Zone's community centre election of a board of directors, some of whom were last term evicted from the building for daring to question the ruling cliques right to do as they pleased, which is to run a campaign headquarters on union wages to re-elect a Communist M.P. from this city. this story will never end, and shouldn't end. it's the nature of life that we will always have to work to preserve and extend the good. And because we can, friend, I say, "We are blessed."

--

Yalla,

Dag

Covenant Zone meets every Every Thursday evening, 7-900 p.m, at the main public library in the atrium outside Blenz coffee bar they meet to discuss current events regarding jihad and Left dhimmi fascism.

If you are in the Vancouver area, you are welcome to join them.

Vancouver: Fighting the Thought Police

This is an ongoing series of reports from Covenant Zone in Vancouver.


Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. ---Dean Stacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission

It's Thursday in Vancouver, Canada, and that can only mean one thing: The Blue Revolution comes again to the public library to meet openly and as subversively as possible in the atrium outside Blenz coffee bar. We don't do this to upset the thought police in the country, but as soon as they clear their roster for trials against Mark Styne, Erzra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and co, I suspect they'll find a way to bring us up on charges too. We meet once a week here in Vancouver to talk about, among other things, free speech, which as you see above, is an American thing. What you might not have known is that according to the CHRC, that means it's not a Canadian thing. And who or what is the CHRC? Damned if I know.

They're the thought police here, but what is that? What, aside from a group of quasi-judicial provincial and federal government employees with the power to enter your home or office at any time they find reasonable to look for anything they might find of interest to themselves regarding a complaint anyone at all might have made about you being a hate-monger, and then having the power to haul you before their commission to have a hearing, which, by the way, you need a lawyer to defend you from, (while the complaintant has his paid for by the government) and which, unfortunately for you, you have no chance of winning since the government bureaucrats have never lost even one case, i.e they've won 100 percent of their cases against "hate-mongers', you can then get socked with an entirely government backed-up by the police fine of up to $50,000.00. That's part of what the thought police CHRC is. And it gets worse, unfortunately. Worse and worse and worse daily. If you haven't see so far, look at the youtube videos of Ezra Levant for some black humor and more details of this madness. Dean Steacy, as above, he's a government bureaucrat who files charges against hate-mongers. He's one of the thought-police here. I'm not making it up. Crazy, yes, but it's true. And eventually the CHRC thought police are going to come for me and the people I meet with every Thursday evening at the library. When they do we do not stand a chance of defending ourselves against them. No one does.Not ever.

"[F}or an organization that is supposed to promote 'human rights,' the HRC's agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy was asked 'What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" -- to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.' "

I'm living in a foreign country, and this one is so foreign I can't shake my head hard enough to see straight when I encounter the kind of insanity that passes for law and government here. This is Canada, only a few hundred miles from Seattle, only a short drive to America. This place is mad with politically correct thought police run amok. It's a porous border, friend. If you come here, you can be arrested for saying the wrong thing, and you can end up bankrupt for it, criminalized, and ruined. This mad place is coming to you, however slowly, and not so slowly at that.

My friends and I meet in public once a week in the main library to talk about jihad and left dhimmi fascism. We sit in the open, and anyone who cares to know does know that we do so. We face down jihadis, we confront Death hippies who can barely restrain themselves from attacking us physically. We stand up to them, and we sit every week for a couple of hours to show we won't be silenced by this kind of government sanctioned madness. They'll come for us someday. till then, we sit and challenge them to come today. This might be the day. We won't know till they come for us. I'm asking you to sit with us. I'm asking you to face the same danger. To take the same risk of losing and being hurt.

Free speech is an American thing. I don't expect anyone from out of town to actually sit with us this day, but I do ask that you think about sitting in your own city library with your own friends as we do here to discuss the case of free speech in Canada. We're going to talk again this evening about Mark Styne, who'll be here in a few weeks to face his own inquisition before the CHRC's provincial arm, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. you can do that now if you choose to. You can sit with people you meet over the internet or from your daily encounters with people you know. You can do what we do, and with some lesser degree of danger, I hope. Free speech. It's an American Concept. According to many Canadians, it's a Canadian concept too. Even the English have thought it an English concept since around the time of the Magna Carta. The French, much as one might not think them likable, think of it as a French concept, at least since 1789. And many people around the world think it's just plain universal as a concept. But it's one people have to fight for if it's going to be a concept all at.

We're going for coffee and cookie tonight at the library. We could be arrested for talking to each other. We could be arrested for talking about free speech.

We're not exactly wild-eyed radicals here. We're more bookish and tending toward the past 40 demographic. We're dangerous. We speak out loud in public and people know about it. We aren't political or religiously motivated. We're just folks who believe in democracy and other American things like free speech. We're creating a revolution here. We'd like you to join us in it. Meet some friends for coffee at a library. Talk. Share ideas and books and internet tips. You'll scare the hell out of the Death Hippies if you do.

Tonight we'll talk about Mark Styne; about the the al-Dura hoax, about a 15 year old English boy arrested for referring to Scientology as a cult; about retirees threatened by the city government for speech violations; maybe about homeless people barred from city shelters for being suspected of blogging.

Mostly we'll sit and have coffee and talk and wait....


--
Yalla, Dag

Covenant Zone meets every Every Thursday evening, 7-900 p.m, at the main public library in the atrium outside Blenz coffee bar they meet to discuss current events regarding jihad and Left dhimmi fascism.

If you are in the Vancouver area, you are welcome to join them.