Spurring Facebook Censorship

My Facebook friend Frank Einstein alerted me to the existence of a Facebook page dedicated to demanding the removal of Facebook groups critical of Islam. In perusing their page, I discovered that they are also attacking another of my old friends, Az Zaqqum. I find their information page to be full of hypocrisy, which I expose here by giving selected excerpts H2 status and interspersing my comments between them.

The document is long and rambling, I took excerpts out of context in order to conserve space. I have added bold face and font color emphasis to some quotes from Islam's canon in order to make the significant points stand out with more clarity. The heading immediately below is a link to the page.

Remove All Groups and Pages that Attack Islam

Brothers and sisters, not just in religion, but in creation

until when will we watch transgressors step into our lives as if they own us?

We would live and let live, but you will not. Islam demands that the entire world submit to it. We object to Islam precisely because it attempts to impose itself upon us by force. For the details, see: What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims?

Until when will we specifically ignore our own rights to the freedom of religion

Until Islam is no more.

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

As the son or daughter of a male Muslim, you have no choice. If you apostatize, you are subject to execution.

• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-7.html List of acts entailing apostasy.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html Penalty for Apostasy.

My right to question, criticize and mock Islam does not in any way impair your freedom of religion.

practice it peacefully anywhere civilized?

Islam can not be practiced peacefully. Jihad is ordained for you. Allah commands you to wage war upon us. [J.M. Rodwell] hadith confirm & Shari'ah codifies the jihad imperatives.

• Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html The caliph makes war on Jews... codification of 9:29.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html The caliph fights all other people... codification of 8:39.

Until when will we watch transgressors attack our religion

Until you go blind or wise up and emancipate yourself from slavery to Allah. Between 1787 and 1815 you attacked our shipping. On September 11, '01, you attacked our World Trade Towers for the second time. We have every right to name and shame the enemy who is attacking us, and by God, we will.

be satisfied with having their own rights

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. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

We have the right to choose our own religion or none; to worship or not as we choose. You have a demonic mandate to impose Islam upon us. We have a right to freedom of speech & press. You assert a right to be shielded from criticism. We have rights, and by God, we will blessed well maintain them!

not even dare to force other's in their decision making

Our Facebook groups do not have any force. We can do nothing more than expose Islam to ridicule by reference to its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence, just as I do in these blog posts. It is Muslims, demanding that Facebook delete us, threatening boycotts and demanding international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam who are attempting to use force.

do not know the true essence of peace and justice

"Peace" is what happens after Islam completes its global conquest. "Justice" is just us Muslims.

purpose of individual rights is to recognize and protect the

individual's freedom of choice for "constructive" purposes

The only right is the right to obey Allah's dictates in every facet of life. That is how Islam defines the term.

When people think they can mentally or physically attack anyone

• ... fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]... 8:39 The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• Fight against those who ... and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 9:29 The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Yes I agree killing innocent people is wrong

Only Muslims are innocent, all others are rebels against Allah, subject to the hudud prescribed in 5:33. Ibn Kathir, in his tafsir, defines waging war against Allah to include disbelief.

`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [ The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land]

publicly humiliating any religion

• 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad ()) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
• 5:60. Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allâh: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allâh and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Tâghût (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell­fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."
  
  

creating any laws that contradict individual rights is wrong

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-5.html Restrictions on dhimmis.

Sphere: Related Content

Religious Freedom Report: Suicidal Orwellianism

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 26, 2009

The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation.

It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our founders made an understandable oversight, relying on the traditional acceptance of institutions popularly considered to be religions, perhaps because they did not anticipate the development of modern transportation with its resultant increase in immigration which brought Islam to the West.

Unfortunately, Islam does not fit the pattern for two reasons. First, it is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, being founded for a mercenary mission. Second, it is intolerant and violent, denying others the tolerance and respect it demands from them.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad, and Jihad involves terrorism & genocide. How can that be tolerated?

We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue...

The Common Word Between Us and You, a missive from the Ulema to Pope Benedict XVI, is a pious fraud. Christianity and Islam have nothing in common except what Islam plagiarized from Judaism & Christianity,

These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.

Christianity values life and peace. Islam values war and death. We have no shared values.

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

Anti-defamation policies have nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. Their purpose is to protect Islam from truthful criticism. The OIC and their allies are complaining of and campaigning for the criminalization of "negative stereotyping of religions", particularly association of terrorism with Islam.

But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

The proper practice of Islam involves warfare for the purpose of making it dominant. Islam perceives our freedom of expression as an impairment of their demonic duty to enforce Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Muhammad and their doctrines & practices.

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

In its practical implementation, "proactive government outreach to minority religious groups" means appeasement of Islam.

So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.

If the Secretary would read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, she might learn that only Muslims have rights. How can we have rights when our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims?


The secretary called on Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report

Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom


Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.

Assistant Secretary Posner wants us to believe that the concept of defamation was excluded from the recently passed Freedom of Opinion and Expression Resolution. Like most politicians, his words are deceptive. The concept is present, slightly disguised. [Emphasis added.]

6. Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

"Related intolerance" is a code phrase for "Islamophobia", which is a code word for any negative expression about Islam, which is considered defamation. "false images and negative stereotypes" and "racist" are codes for criticism of Islam. If you have been reading my posts, you know that those codes refer to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders. See You've Been Mooned for the proof.

There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.

There is one little detail he does not tell us: that other forum is working on a protocol to ICERD, which will be enforcible international law, not a non-binding resolution. .

When asked about misogyny, whether it was of religious origin:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.

He thinks that all major religions are predicated on humanity and ethical behavior. He thinks that extremists interpret Islam in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, which are abberations. Does he actually know anything about Islam? I doubt it. In Islam, women are chatle property, literally fields to be plowed. Muslims have Allah's permission to beat their wives. Women are inferior in intelligence and religion.

Violence and discrimination are also intrinsic and foundational. Mr. Posner would know that if he had read Book O of Reliance of the Traveller.

Introduction

First, religious freedom is the birthright of all people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's faith must be respected by all societies and governments. The United States takes this obligation seriously. "America will always stand," the President said in his Ramadan message to Muslims, "for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society, and have confidence in the rule of law."

There is an absolute right to profess, practice and propagate, regardless of the substance of the faith; its doctrines and practices. If the doctrines include supremacism & triumphalism and the practices include conquest, genocide & terrorism, that's ok with our Department of State. It ain't ok with me; is it with you? What they did in Beslan and are doing in Darfur is foundational to Islam. It is intrinsic and inseverable; impossible to reform. Who gives a damn? Certainly not our government.

Al-Anfal 39 commands warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Al Anfal 12 declares that Allah will cast terror and orders Muslims to decapitate their victims and cut off their fingers and toes. Al-Anfal 60 orders Muslims to build armies and stock up on weapons with which to terrify their enemies. Al-Anfal 67 informs us that while Moe wanted ransom money, Allah prefers great slaughter. At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war on Christians & Jews until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the order by declaring that he was ordered to fight with men until they became Muslims and that their blood and property were not sacred to Muslims until they did so. Those doctrines are foundational to Islam [3:7], can't be abandoned and can't be changed.

By expressing agreement with the false concept of an absolute right to Jihad, our Federal Government is engaging in civilizational suicide.
Executive Summary

`Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom

In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions" by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the "defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.

"While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam"; then the United States deplores this blog post. because it tells the truth about Islam. Since when is truth defamatory? What is wrong; deplorable about naming and shaming the enemy?

The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.

"The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence." Jihad, genocide & terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. That is a fact, not stereotyping. The terror attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid & Washington D.C. were perpetrated by young Muslim Males who shouted "Allahhu Akbar" as they murdered innocent victims. Only a damn fool can tolerate the continued propagation of the damnable doctrines which motivated those men to murder for the promise of eternity in a celestial bordello.

"To condemn hateful ideology"? Why don't they condemn Islam? Don't they know that it curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Don't they know that it declares genocide as a prerequisite to Judgment Day, when they hope to gain admission to the celestial bordello?

"Proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups"; those are code words for appeasement. A lot of good that foolishness has done Israel in the last 60 years. Are these fools incapable of learning?

With their lips, our Department of State pays lip service to freedom of speech. With their pen, they co-authored a UNHRC resolution which erodes that freedom, while ignoring the composition of a protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam, effectively nullifying our First Amendment.

Sphere: Related Content

Ban Islam

One of my Google Alerts returned a link to a discussion thread at alt.religion.islam. The post was by kangarooistan, who titled it "There's a group called " BAN ISLAM " help us to delete it". Kangarooistan's post is intended to initiate a movement to pressure Face Book to delete a discussion board titled "Ban Islam."

I will not reproduce the complete drivel here, instead I will refute a few key deceptions which need to be addressed directly.

This group is created because there has been a breach of contract by the creator of the Group "Ban Islam" and Face book needs to address this issue as a group demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people...

The group began with an obscenity in its name, Face Book objected and the organizers changed the name.

• demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people

While some posters swing the heavy hammers of condemnation & execration, others post relevant factual evidence to support their conclusions. We tell the truth about Islam and they interpret it as demonization. Yes, kangarooistan chose the wrong word. Islam is immoral and demonic, by design.

• .encourages religious hatred among people

That is what the Qur'an does, but it goes further, inciting genocidal violence. The Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an lists 527 ayat which incite religious hatred.

Of course there is a freedom of speech.. BUT, There is no freedom of abusing, spamming, swearing or disrespecting!

Kangarooistan is a clever liar, the sentence quoted above is an exemplar of kitman: lying by commission or concealment. We can discover the truth of this matter by examining Islam's all purpose handbook of Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller.

• O11.10-5 or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

Any negative remark about Islam breaks the covenant of dhimmitude and forfeits the dhimmi's life.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Remember the penalty for apostasy!

• O8.1

  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

• O8.2

  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Every one has a right to oppose & criticize others' belief but in a positive and gentle way..

If you oppose or criticize Islam in any place where Allah's writ runs, they'll kill you for it!

Earth is sweltering with the heat of tyrant and brutality.. Let's transform it into an oasis of peace and love!.. Let's say no to hate!
Let's stand against the racism.. We all are created equal... Let's respect the differences!.. Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate... So let's join hand and walk together to make the earth a wonderful planet...

• Let's transform it into an oasis of peace and love!

Translation: convert the entire world to Islam, by force or deception, then it'll all be peachy keen.

• Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate

Islam is neither a religion nor a philosophy; it is a way of life: predation! It preaches hate and genocidal violence. 8:37 mandates perpetual war against pagans until only Allah is worshiped. 9:29 mandates perpetual war against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion. 8:67 sets "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. 47:4 commands killing and wounding "many of them". One Jewish settlement surrendered after a long siege. Moe decapitated the men, then he examined the boys, and decapitated any who had reached adolescence. Genocide, anyone? The historical record is here: Sunan Abu Dawud 38.4390. See also Sahih Bukhari 4.52.280.

Islam is aggressive, offensive, predatory, genocidal and mercenary. I have presented much of the evidence in this post. Click the links and see for yourself. If any doubt remains, read What's Wrong with Islam/Muslims and follow the links therein contained.

If you are ready to take action, here are some things you can do to advance the cause of human life and liberty against Islam's genocidal aggression. Please sign and promote the following on line petitions. Send their urls to your Congressman & Senators. Copy these petitions and paste them into emails, urging the recipients to forward them. Learn as much as you can about Islam and share your knowledge with others; each one teach two!

• Congress Debate Qur'an Petition
• Outlaw Islam!
• Ban Islam
• Citizens' Declaration of Threat & Plea for Relief

Sphere: Related Content

The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars

TSUNAMI MEDIA ALERT

May 29, 2009 The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars www.WAMAction.org

A long-forecast and dreaded announcement came this morning from the head of the "Change" Administration himself.

The astonishing sequence of end-runs, by the "Change" Adminisitration - around traditional and critical structures which

preserve the U.S. Constitution- and its balance of powers - seems about to take its greatest toll to date. The protections provided

by the 3 American branches of government have continued to erode via Obama's unprecedented installation of "Czars" - i,e, politically hand-picked individuals who are given enormous powers over free enterprise - and whom report directly to the Chief Excutive himself. This newly invented system for expanding Executive branch authority, among its other dangers, eliminates the need for Congressional approval or involvement with these power-packed new authority figures. It also short circuits Capitol

Hill oversight of the activities which they undertake.

Obama has made public today his plan to take control of the Internet - directly from the White House - on behalf of preserving

"cyber-security." This strategy to expand his authority to encroach further on Americans right to privacy - with warrantless supervision of online activity - has been in the works since the Inauguration. The timing of its current announcement holds notable coincidence to the Chief Executive's recent decline in public opinion polls (along with the downhill slide of popularity among his key Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Reid and Dodd.)

Former Democratic activists who worked against Obama's nomination are among those most aware of the alarm bells this current

move to suppress opposition sets off. His online primary campaign, which generated maximum impact via use of high tech applications-is recalled by many for its brutality and vicious conduct against web opponents in 2008. Several reported personal threats while many more indicated repeated disruption of their blogs and large-scale attacks on their forums. Throughout the campaign season, an online army of campaign-paid web thugs were hired for these intrusions, as reported and verified by FOX News. Intimidation, verbal threats, gutter language and even obscene images were the order of the day.

Those in the know, then are acutely aware, then, that the "threats to security" listed by this Head of State in his televised speech today ironically coincide with tactics similar to some his own campaign used to get elected. An Obama small-dollar-on-line donor even reported receiving a phone call on his unlisted cell phone to remind him of a "Meet Up" in his own neighborhood - this despite the fact that the donor had not supplied the campaign with either his cell number nor his physical address! At least one Nigerian husband and wife both confessed last year to using their executive positions with international tech corporations to obtain personal records of U.S. citizens for use in harassment by the "Change" campaign.

In the meantime, while specifics of the new leader's rationale remain to be seen, it's already foreshadowed they will be as far-reaching as possible. Obama's sweeping statements about the urgent need to protect everything from banking records, to online purchases to information exchange. Rumors have indicated that the NSA is also disturbed that this new report-to-President only position would also circumvent this agency's normal role in cyber-watching. Further evidence of the long-term planning of this eradication of online privacy plan lies in the fact that Senators Rockfeller and Snowe introduced a bill in Congress on April 1st to give the White House these cyber-space powers.

One could ask: How does the rest of Congress feel about turning over their responsibility and authority to the Executive Branch?

Also, if the right to online privacy is allowed follow the path of warrantless phone wire-tapping what does Big Brother have in mindnext? And lest we wonder who might be put on the Cyber Czar's Watch List, just remember the recent Homeland Security Warningthat "right wing extremists" (ie any citizens identified as"Change administration opponents) are now a grave threat. Even a child could connect quickly connect the dots between that recent DHS Alert and the press conference on cyber-security threats today! it's not hard to guage whose "security" seems to feel most threatened. The only question that remains is how much more terror - against free enterprise and freedom of speech - will We the People permit the "Change" Administration to undertake?!

For quick valuable information on other current events, come to Wake Up America Movement at: http://WAMAction.org/NewsRoom.html

Sphere: Related Content

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


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?

Sphere: Related Content

UN Human Rights Council: Curtailing Freedom of Expression

Cross Posted at Monkey in the Middle

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.

Sphere: Related Content