View Full Version : Telling the truth about Islam may violate civil rights?
Well…., the Chicago Jesus did say “The Future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” :rolleyes:
How can it be slander, or violate someone’s civil rights, simply if one points out the prophet of Islam was a murdering pedophile?
So is some speech more free than other speech?
Group sets meeting to increase tolerance of Muslims, culture
May 21, 2013 at 1:15 pm
CITY EDITOR
brian justice
“….“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd.
Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.
Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.
“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no
different from those in other religions.
Source: http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/justice-department-to-hold-event-on-how-federal-civil-rights-laws-can-actually-be-violated-by-those-.html
I suspect the top tier DOJ attorney for Tennessee, Mr. Killian, doesn’t comprehend that Islam is unique among other religions of the world, in that it has a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers, the kafiroon.
PedOncoDoc
06-01-2013, 02:29
So it's Freedom of Speech vs. an argument that making statements about a religion infringes on one's Freedom of Religion??? :confused:
Seems off to me, IMHO.
If this precedent is set, a let of atheists are in deep shit for their posts on social media. :munchin
longrange1947
06-01-2013, 06:54
No, the atheists will be safe, this will only be applied to the Muslim faith, trust me. Much like the UN resolution about slandering religions, since Islam is the only true religion it is the only "religion" protected. :munchin
Nothing to see here, move along.
medic&commo
06-01-2013, 07:14
Wonder if someone / group will bring this to SCOTUS; to either remove it, or to make it apply to all religions?
m&c
England illustrates what can happen WHEN the thought police take root.
Thought Criminals Arrested after London Horror
Frontpage Mag
By Bruce Bawer
May 30, 2013
<snip>
"Ever since 9/11, every time some place or another on the planet has been struck by a major jihadist act, the mainstream media have reliably come out with stories about “backlash” against Muslims. Not accounts of actual backlash, mind you, but pieces in which various academics, public officials, Muslim leaders, and other sensitive souls have been described as wringing their hands over the dreaded possibility that some of us boorish infidels might respond to this latest action by going on the warpath against innocent Muslims. If these “backlash” articles have been such a staple of post-9/11 journalism, it’s obviously because they’ve offered the media an opportunity to focus not on the innumerable Muslim-on-infidel atrocities that have actually taken place but, rather, on hypothetical, and violent, infidel-on-Muslim responses – and thus to persist in casting Muslims in the role of victim, even while the bodies of those they have slaughtered in Islam’s name have yet to go cold."
Yet the fabled “backlash” has never really materialized – not, at least, on anything remotely resembling the scale that the media have repeatedly predicted. On the contrary, with a very small number of minor, isolated exceptions, people in the non-Muslim world have routinely responded to Muslim violence with civilized restraint. Indeed, it’s hard to think of anything that more dramatically reflects the difference between the Islamic and Western cultures than the contrast between the brutality and scale of the jihadist attacks on the West in recent years and the extraordinarily low level and modest scale of actions taken against Muslim targets in revenge. This refusal of non-Muslims to take an eye-for-an-eye approach in response to jihadist acts is a remarkable testament to the native tolerance of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims – and, indeed, to the black-and-white distinction between pretty much every other religion in the world and Islam, which, alone among major faiths, instructs its adherents to see offense everywhere and to respond even to the merest cartoon with murderous violence on a global scale.
"As it turned out, when the Telegraph, Mail, and innumerable smaller papers referred to a nationwide “backlash,” what they meant was not a wave of beatings, bombings, or anything like that. What they were talking about was, mostly, this: people around the United Kingdom had been exercising what they thought was their right to free speech by posting on Facebook and other social media comments that were critical of Islam. Period. And the British government – this is by far the most important part – was treating these speech acts as crimes. Why wasn’t that the headline – that British authorities were using the Rigby murder as an excuse not to finally take action against the countless Muslim “refugees,” “asylum seekers,” and so forth within its borders whom it has long known to be threats to public safety, but, rather, to clamp down on those few solid citizens who, in the wake of the murder, had dared to tweet the truth about the Religion of Peace?"
"But no: the British media were going along with the whole chilling business – reporting on criticism of Islam as if it was indeed a high crime, and reporting on the arrests of those who had engaged in such criticism as if arresting people for such acts were perfectly justifiable."
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/brits-arrested-for-internet-comments-after-london-horror/
Team Sergeant
06-01-2013, 07:28
No, the atheists will be safe, this will only be applied to the Muslim faith, trust me. Much like the UN resolution about slandering religions, since Islam is the only true religion it is the only "religion" protected. :munchin
Nothing to see here, move along.
BINGO!!! This "attempted" federal mandate only applies to mooslims and islam. Bill Killian is dead wrong, he and the feds can go pound sand. I can't wait until the "feds" target someone on the internet. Here ya go Bill Killian, the islamic prophet muhammad preferred to have sex with camels instead of his dozens of child wives!!! Take me to court. :munchin
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/feds-suggest-antimuslim-speech-can-be-punished-165163.html
"He’s just wrong," said Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment attorneys. "The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion."
"And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is," Abrams said.
A conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of using federal law to specifically protect Muslims from criticism.
"In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights," the group wrote in a blog post.
The die is cast my friends. Sadly, our nation is governed by 'teams' not citizens and no end is in sight.
We are watching this charade of "immigration reform" which is really just a two party gamble over who can buy the most votes from an 11 million vote pool of ILLEGAL immigrants.
It isn't immigration reform, its the largest 'voter scam' ever in history.
...health care, religious freedoms, gun control, taxes, out of control spending.
It will be ok, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
It all appears to be about Murfreesboro….., and the stifling of free speech…
Washington….The Obama administration, for the second time in two months, interjected itself Monday into an angry local dispute over a proposed Islamic center, warning local officials that opposing the mosque could violate the civil rights of its members and become a federal crime.
Source: http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013196793_mosque19.html
Here is some background info:
In late April 2012, a Tennessee legislator held a meeting with aides to Gov. Bill Haslam. It concerned unauthorized and apparently unconstitutional moves by Bill Gibbons, Tennessee State Commissioner of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DSHS), establishing a partnership with a religious NGO, the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) which has ties to local Muslim Brotherhood leaders via the American Center for Outreach (ACO). Gibbons was the long term District Attorney General in Memphis’ Shelby County and previously served as an aide to two former GOP Governors, Lamar Alexander and Don Sundquist.
Sources:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/115327/
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Jerry_Gordon/The_Murfreesboro_Mosque_Conflict_Chronicles/
The die is cast my friends.
It is…. :(
"BINGO!!! This "attempted" federal mandate only applies to mooslims and islam. Bill Killian is dead wrong, he and the feds can go pound sand. I can't wait until the "feds" target someone on the internet. Here ya go Bill Killian, the islamic prophet muhammad preferred to have sex with camels instead of his dozens of child wives!!! Take me to court. "
Bravo indeed!
My reply to this screed was as follows:
"Just try, you fascist scumbags, just try!
I've got news for Obummer, Holdit and their Department of INjustice: You can all kiss my big, fat, round, red, rosy a$$. I will never, repeat NEVER, stop telling the truth about pislam while there is still breath left in my body!
You think you can win this thing? I don't think so. There are many more decent, patriotic Americans than you idiots know. This is a line in the sand that REAL Americans will not countenance.
Bring it on..."
Below is some info that may be of interest:
Al Qaeda in Iraq still threatens America:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/al-qaeda-in-iraq-still-threatens-america/
Obama eliminates hot meals for marines; but hires more IRS agents to enforce Obamacare:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-eliminates-hot-meals-for-marines-dines-on-chocolate-opera-cake/
Islam is the ultimate sleeper cell:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-sleeper-cell/
And a heartbreaking story of one pastor in Uganda, and what he has to say to us:
http://formermuslimsunited.org/pastor-umar-mulinde-on-leaving-islam/
cat in the hat
06-03-2013, 22:40
does this mean i will go to jail for wearing my F#%K Mohammed tshirt?
aegisnavy
06-04-2013, 00:05
One step closer to Americastan. Boiling the frog slowly. At what point do we acknowledge that Islam is intent on destroying the foundation of western society and its freedoms?
My apologies, I get angry when I see stuff like this.
Divemaster
06-04-2013, 01:25
does this mean i will go to jail for wearing my F#%K Mohammed tshirt?
Can I order one of those?
TOMAHAWK9521
06-04-2013, 09:12
does this mean i will go to jail for wearing my F#%K Mohammed tshirt?
Or my big patch with the Crusader's Cross on it?
Islam forgets that the Crusades were an attempt to take the Holy Land back from the Muslims who stole it to begin with.
They seem to forget a lot.
TOMAHAWK9521
06-04-2013, 19:50
Islam forgets that the Crusades were an attempt to take the Holy Land back from the Muslims who stole it to begin with.
They seem to forget a lot.
Didn't they also invade and attempt to conquer Europe before being driven out? And didn't that also happen before the Crusades?
Didn't they also invade and attempt to conquer Europe before being driven out? And didn't that also happen before the Crusades
Charles the “Hammer” in the “Battle of the Tours….”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwpvEgXF1dk
At what point do we acknowledge that Islam is intent on destroying the foundation of western society and its freedoms?
How's that different from the "fundamental transformation" taking place per Obama's liberaces? The end result is the same: destruction of the foundation of western society and its freedoms.
If you want to get pissed, get pissed at the facilitators, and vote their asses out of office.
Here is the problem...
Politicians are not E-lected they are SE-lected. It is party politics that decides who "gets to run".
We get to vote for a ballot that has the names of a few individuals who have been SELECTED to represent the 'party' in the election. otherwise, why didnt Hillary Clinton voters just vote for Hillary even though Obama was on the ticket? Why did republicans vote for 'the maverick' when he was far from what folks wanted in a conservative republican?
Because thats who was SELECTED for us to vote on. We have taken a nasty turn, and there is NOBODY around for us to SELECT as a replacement for the merry band of circus clowns that are currently embarassing us on a global stage.
Are we going to select the fat guy from jersey?
...or the indignant woman from new york thats really from Arkansas?
...or what about the guy with the huge forehead that looks like herman Munster?
Surely there is someone that can get us on the right track?
...or not.
Hell, maybe we should get al Franken to run with Jon Stewart as his running mate. At least that way when the government behaves like B-list comedians we wont feel so cheated.
Just my two cents. Maybe I am wrong.
Peregrino
06-05-2013, 16:51
------------ Maybe I am wrong.
I'm not betting against you.
It will be ok, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
That's reassuring...I feel safe now...
It appears roughly 2000 locals who attended aren’t having any of it, and they just possibly made the IRS list…
The Not-So-Veiled Threat to Non-Muslims in Tennessee
By Janet Levy
June 7, 2013
The attempted snow job by the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) of Tennessee which sponsored the joint Department of Justice/FBI event, "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society," Tuesday night in Manchester, Tennessee, did not work with the 2,000 attendees. Claims that American Muslims are loyal citizens, partners in counterterrorism investigations, part of radicalization prevention efforts, and an integral part of American society for centuries fell flat, especially coming from the host organization that was formed only two years ago in response to anti-shariah legislation in the Volunteer State.
A well-informed crowd responded with calls of "taqiyyah" when members of AMAC, a group that bills itself as "a bridge between the Muslim community and law enforcement," touted Muslim contributions to U.S. society and their dedication to upholding American values. (Taqiyyah doctrine obligates Muslims to deceive infidels as part the required effort or jihad to institute Islamic doctrine or shariah). In actuality, Muslim organizations have specifically instructed Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement and have demanded that all counterterrorism-training materials be expunged of critical references to Islam and Muslims, as well the training instructors fired or retrained who fail to follow along.
When it became clear at Tuesday's event that the promulgation of lies was falling on deaf ears, one AMAC speaker resorted to shaming the audience for their alleged rudeness and intolerance. In the crowd's defense, the passionate response was one of righteous anger against a doctrine that increasingly threatens Western civilization and values in the wake of the Boston bombings and the murder and beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby. That indignation was also a response to the hypocrisy of a program designed to falsely portray Muslims as victims of prejudice in dire need of special civil rights protection from hate crimes. No mention was made of jihadist acts, honor killings, demands for special accommodations, and the Muslim disinclination to assimilate to American cultural norms.
To further insult the crowd, the AMAC speaker showed a condensed version of the video "Welcome to Shelbyville" in which Tennesseans were portrayed as ignorant, bigoted rednecks. The rejection of the Muslim presence in Tennessee was explained away by previous resistance to integrating blacks and Hispanics. The situation was addressed as one of racism and fear of the unknown rather than a very real fear of what Islamic doctrine requires Muslims to do. This was an educated crowd well aware that Islamic doctrine clearly states that Muslims must not befriend non-Muslims and are required to wage jihad to establish a global Islamic government under shariah. Attendees appeared very familiar with the enemy threat doctrine, Muslim aspirations to replace the Constitution with shariah, and ubiquitous calls from Muslims for "death to America" and "death to Christians and Jews."
It is particularly telling that no other group in the United States has been the focus of such a degree of attention and outreach, although FBI religious hate crime statistics from 2009 indicate that Jews are more than eight times more likely to be victims of religious hate crimes than Muslims. Yet there is no special protection afforded to Jews, no events announcing the prosecution of individuals who post material offensive to Jews, nor outreach programs to the American Jewish community to better serve their interests. When it comes to Jews and Christians, offensive remarks and portrayals are permitted under the First Amendment.
It is truly remarkable that the mission of an entire government agency, NASA, was reconfigured from space exploration and aerospace technology to Muslim outreach by the Obama administration in 2009. At that time, Obama required NASA to reach out to Muslims and help them "feel good about their historic contributions to science, math, and engineering."
Recently, Obama announced that he was launching the Muslim Outreach Summit to elicit feedback from American Muslims on how the government can better serve them. It is unprecedented for any group in the U.S. to receive this level of special consideration.
Following the Benghazi attack, Obama went to the UN and announced, "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and that "Intolerance is a form of violence." He didn't reference the desecrations of images of Jesus Christ and churches or voice concern about Holocaust denial. He mentioned only the criticism of Islam as a cause for concern and a reason to curtail free speech rights. Let us not forget that in the "Audacity of Hope," Obama avowed, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
DOJ attorney Bill Killian addressed the crowd by reading statutes verbatim from PowerPoint slides that defined hate crimes, civil rights violations, and federally prescribed violations and penalties. Prior to the event, he had released this statement: "This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion.... This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are." However, the DOJ and FBI have not scheduled meetings addressing the concerns of any other group but Muslims. Twelve such outreach sessions are planned for Tennessee alone.
FBI Special Agent Kenneth Moore ridiculed the idea that the evening was intended to threaten citizens with the possibility of prosecution and imprisonment for offending Muslims. He pointed out that despite the raucous conduct exhibited during the event and the protests, no one would be arrested that evening as evidence of the government's commitment to the First Amendment. However, the crowd remained unconvinced that their free speech rights were not in jeopardy at some future point as part of the government's program to accommodate the demands of Muslim and Islamic doctrine.
The event presented messages on two levels. Overtly, Muslims attempted to airbrush their image in America as having nothing to do with supremacy, triumphalism, and terrorism. A few hijabed members of the AMAC even sported T-shirts with messages supporting the First Amendment to apocryphally showcase their dedication to American principles and laws.
As for government officials, they ostensibly conducted an informational session on legal statutes related to offensive statements and reassured the crowd that arrests would not take place. But the covert message was clear: This event was held to reinforce the supremacy of Muslims and their civil rights as no other group has been afforded this level of deference or accommodation. It was a veiled threat to non-Muslims that Muslims and Muslims alone will receive special protection by the government and hate crime prosecutions are on the table at some future point. Americans beware.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_not-so-veiled_threat_to_non-muslims_in_tennessee.html
Here is the problem...
Politicians are not E-lected they are SE-lected. It is party politics that decides who "gets to run".
We get to vote for a ballot that has the names of a few individuals who have been SELECTED to represent the 'party' in the election.
Because thats who was SELECTED for us to vote on. We have taken a nasty turn, and there is NOBODY around for us to SELECT as a replacement for the merry band of circus clowns that are currently embarassing us on a global stage.
Hell, maybe we should get al Franken to run with Jon Stewart as his running mate. At least that way when the government behaves like B-list comedians we wont feel so cheated.
Just my two cents. Maybe I am wrong.
To me, I perceive corruption in the US system as the mirror image of corruption in the 3rd world.
In the 3rd world, you gain economic power after you've gained political power and abused it.
In the US, you gain political power after you're gained economic power and abused it(special interest money shaping politics).
I believe you are right.
NO ONE with lasting integrity seems to be allowed anywhere near the chance to gain influential political office to effect positive change on behalf of the citizens they represent. They get filtered out, I believe, because they cannot be as effectively influenced/controlled.
Those who make it through the filters have likely compromised themselves in some way.
Look at Eliot Spitzer. He started making noises about going after Wall Street as nothing of substance was being done(and still isn't) at the federal level.
Bang......hooker scandal.
Did Eliot Spitzer screw up by banging hookers? Absolutely!
But who initiated the investigation and why?
WOULD Eliot Spitzer have made it past the filters unless he had knowingly compromised himself in some shape or form?
That's the trillion dollar question.
Go Devil
06-09-2013, 08:11
Here is the problem...
Politicians are not E-lected they are SE-lected. It is party politics that decides who "gets to run".
We get to vote for a ballot that has the names of a few individuals who have been SELECTED to represent the 'party' in the election. otherwise, why didnt Hillary Clinton voters just vote for Hillary even though Obama was on the ticket? Why did republicans vote for 'the maverick' when he was far from what folks wanted in a conservative republican?
Because thats who was SELECTED for us to vote on. We have taken a nasty turn, and there is NOBODY around for us to SELECT as a replacement for the merry band of circus clowns that are currently embarassing us on a global stage.
Are we going to select the fat guy from jersey?
...or the indignant woman from new york thats really from Arkansas?
...or what about the guy with the huge forehead that looks like herman Munster?
Surely there is someone that can get us on the right track?
...or not.
Hell, maybe we should get al Franken to run with Jon Stewart as his running mate. At least that way when the government behaves like B-list comedians we wont feel so cheated.
Just my two cents. Maybe I am wrong.
I don't believe that you could be more accurate.
At this point in American history, I believe those that are selected should be targeted for ruin as well as those who manipulate the selectee.
They are an insult to sensibility.
Rumblyguts
06-09-2013, 08:58
Here is the problem...
Politicians are not E-lected they are SE-lected. It is party politics that decides who "gets to run".
We get to vote for a ballot that has the names of a few individuals who have been SELECTED to represent the 'party' in the election. otherwise, why didnt Hillary Clinton voters just vote for Hillary even though Obama was on the ticket? Why did republicans vote for 'the maverick' when he was far from what folks wanted in a conservative republican?
Because thats who was SELECTED for us to vote on. We have taken a nasty turn, and there is NOBODY around for us to SELECT as a replacement for the merry band of circus clowns that are currently embarassing us on a global stage.
Are we going to select the fat guy from jersey?
...or the indignant woman from new york thats really from Arkansas?
...or what about the guy with the huge forehead that looks like herman Munster?
Surely there is someone that can get us on the right track?
...or not.
Hell, maybe we should get al Franken to run with Jon Stewart as his running mate. At least that way when the government behaves like B-list comedians we wont feel so cheated.
Just my two cents. Maybe I am wrong.
Actually, you've written what was taught to me in a Poli Sci class about 7 years ago. The political system was set up by the Elite to keep the Elite in power. Voting is just the way to offer nominal control to the public, and any changes that they want still need to move -slowly- through the Elites. If an Elite is voted out of position, another is there to take the place.
Yes, an Average Joe, can make it in, but to do so, Joe must move up through the ranks of Elites (social, economic, or political), and thus be groomed and approved.
I believe that Dye's text "The Irony of Democracy" was dead on. It's in Google Books if one wants to read it.