Posted by revkharma on May 8, 2015
OK, this is one of the things that has ground my gears for years.
The famous hoary old quote trotted out whenever the libs disagree with something a libertarian or conservative says in public that ”offends them”
Immediately they say,(harumph, harumph) “Well free speech is all well and good, and we all know that there is a First Amendment.
BUT….. We all know that YOU CAN’T YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER”
Then the speaker smiles smugly like the Church Lady, and sits back. The argument is over, and I win! So SHUT UP they explained.
OK, so the quote is not in any law, but was part of an introduction by Justice Holmes in a 1919 court ruling.( US. V Schenck) In that ruling they said a pamphlet against the draft that contained the phrases ‘Assert Your Rights” and ‘Do not submit to intimidation”
Pretty mild stuff, eh?
What is even more interesting is that the entire decision was OVERTURNED IN 1969!!!
(Brandenburg v. Ohio)
The ruling reversed a previous Supreme Court decision setting a new precedent for the “clear and present danger” standard in First Amendment cases. The Court now held that a person’s words were protected as free speech as long as they did not directly incite unlawful action
Court held that all speech,including inflammatory speech, such as in this case by the KKK, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The link must be there, the speech MUST directly result in the violent action.
So, next time someone says
Well, we ALL know you can’t shout Fire in a theater and gives that stupid look, the best reply is:
“Oh? What about Brandenburg v. Ohio?
Posted in Civil liberties, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, Politics | Tagged: Bill of Rights, Constitution, fire in a theater, First Amendment, Freedom, Government Power, Hate speech, Islam, Pamela Gellar, Politics, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brotherkharma on January 6, 2010
Warning – This is long (for me), meandering, and quite possibly incoherent. Please do not mistake this for an official White House briefing or proposed legislation.
It is amazing to me, although I thought I was finished being shocked by the left. I Googled the phrase “Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks” and it took me 10 minutes to find the actual remarks. I had to search Whitehouse.gov to find the text of the speech. All that came up on Google (at least the first 2 pages – which is all my attention span will allow me to look through) was the same silly blog being reposted all over the place. The blog was “Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks”. They claim the President was saying Guantanamo was a propaganda and recruiting tool, and that the right has begun to twist his words. The same way the head of Homeland Security had her words twisted by being quoted? Maybe the same way Supreme Court nominees have their words twisted, by repeating them in their entirety with contextual explanation? Now I’ll grant them that President Obama said:
“For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo…. There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. …. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”
The problem is he said that in May, 2009. What he said in January of 2010 was:
“But make no mistake: We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda. In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And, as I’ve always said, we will do so — we will close the prison in a manner that keeps the American people safe and secure.”
Now the phrase “explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda” seems to my untrained ears to mean the reason they are there. If he wanted to say Guantanamo helped them recruit or helped raise sympathy in the Islamic world, I think he would have said it like that. You know, the way he did in May. Both speeches do a lot to tell you his mind set in dealing with this threat. Following the “explicit rationale” comments, he went into detail on how he will address security. The President warns us that al Qaeda is “constantly evolving and adapting their efforts to strike us”. The White House site also says what I hope is a typo: “As they refine our tactics, we’ll enhance our defenses”. People tell me I am overly critical of the President on this issue, so here I am going to rush to his side. He did not mean that al Qaeda is refining our tactics! They are not wondering into the White House, uninvited, and offering their opinions. I mean, no one gets in there like that! The President promises us “smarter screening and security at airports, and investing in the technologies that might have detected the kind of explosives used on Christmas”. Well, I am willing to help my country. I have an old laptop that is kind of slow, a little buggy, and needs an external keyboard attached to it, but it can run e-mail, a web browser, and word. I will happily provide this 21st Century anti-terror technology to the TSA so they can see if someone on multiple watch lists, buying a one way ticket in cash the day of the flight without a valid passport should be searched as thoroughly as I was the 3rd time I flew round trip from Philly to Colorado Springs in the same month.
In May, he really laid down the gauntlet. In that speech he stated “We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates”. Hoo-rah! (Can’t you just hear R. Lee screaming that out maggot?) He followed it up with the caution on how to prosecute this war. “But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.” Hoo-hah!
I don’t recall FDR demanding lawyers and checks and balances to combat the Nazi threat. I do not recall a stirring speech to Congress promising to bring Admiral Yamamoto to justice. I have spoken to many WWII vets, none of whom have ever issued a Miranda warning on the battlefield. But wait, he leans on some quasi historical precedent. “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions…” . Can anyone tell me what war the US waged with a reliance on “our legal traditions and time-tested institutions”? The American Revoloution? No. Civil War? Hmmmm, nope. Either World War? Don’t think so. Wait! I have it. The closest we came was in Vietnam. That’s the model we want to follow, right?
Well, if that didn’t strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, they did it today. They revoked the Visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who tried to blow up 300 people on Christmas day. 12 days later, they revoked his visa. The Administration is sending a STRONG Clear statement! If you are a failed terrorist, we don’t want you here! And Gitmo, which of course is the main reason that al-Qaeda flourishes on the Arabian Peninsula, will ABSOLUTELY be closed! Sometime. Soon. Probably. We think, just don’t send them to Yemen. Or to Illinois because we can’t afford to buy lights and a new fence at the vacant state prison – fiscal responsibility is part of the new change in Washington remember!
Now there are some who will point to the cooperation of the Yemen government as evidence that Obama is gaining support around the world. It might seem like the approach to this as a legal issue and closure of Gitmo has garnered support in the Middle East. However, let’s take a deeper look. Since 2001, US military, not prosecutors, have driven the Taliban into the mountains. They have ripped Saddam from power and wrought havoc on the terror organizations that attempted to move into Iraq. The war was pushed away from our shores and towards the heart of Islamofascism. But why the sudden support of Yemen? There has also been support of the Saudis, who have launched air strikes against al-Qaeda on the Saudi/Yemeni border. In August of 2009, for the first time in decades, there was an attempted assassination of a member of the Saudi Royal Family. Al-Qaeda sent a suicide bomber tried to kill Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant interior minister for security affairs, in his palace in Jeddah. Somehow I think this is far more likely to cause Saudi and Yemeni cooperation than a guarantee that someday Gitmo will close and the threat to deport every failed terrorist.
BTW – if anyone is still reading this, I feel sorry for you but wanted you to know one more thing. The reason I gave it the title I did was to hopefully get it in the mix of those other brain dead blogs that made me go on this rant. Have a nice day and go J-E-T-S-Jets Jets JETS!!!!
Posted in administrative power, Afghanistan, chaos, Christianity, deception, Democrats, fascism, Freedom, Homeland Security, International, Iraq, Iraq Victory, Islam, Just talking, Justice, laws, Middle East, Military, Napolitano, Obama, Obama Administration, Oil, Pelosi, Political parties, Politics, Russia, Tea Parties, Terrorism, Torture, US Army, US Navy, USMC, White house | Tagged: al-Qaeda, Arabian Peninsula, assassination, Bin Laden, bloggers, deception, Democrats, gitmo, Government Power, Guantanamo, Homeland Security, Hoo-Rah, Islam, islamofascism, Jets, liberals, liberty, media coverage, New York Jets, Obama, Obama Administration, Obama Gitmo, Obama Guantanamo al-Qaeda remarks, Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Royal Family, society terrorism, Tea Parties, White house, Yemen | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on July 26, 2009
Over the last few years we have heard increasing debate as to the status of the United States of America as a ‘Christian Nation’. While touring the world and apologizing to sundry nations and aggrieved groups for the behavior of America throughout history. In his speech in Turkey in April President Obama stated flatly that
“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
He “carefully calibrated” his language, but clearly has internalized the recent academic ideals that the First Amendment bars all religion rather than preventing the Federal Government from banning them. While this has been debated, other events have transpired around the nation. The steady and incremental creep of Muslim Sharia has made strong and decisive advances into all areas of American society. Killings of young women have been deemed ‘ Honor Killings’, a terrifying combination of words which should defy understanding. Various universities across the country are using state and student funds to install ‘ritual footbaths’ to allow Muslim students to perform explicitly religious acts funded by the Universities. In a startling contrast, Minneapolis Community and Technical College has plans to install such foot washing stations, while at the same time it prohibited campus coffee carts from playing Christmas Music. The New York Times detailed the foot bath issue in 2007.
Recently there was a coordinated move in March of that same year in Target Stores. It seems that groups of devout Muslim workers in Target stores began to refuse to process orders with merchandise containing pork. Target switched those workers to other jobs so as not to force even a small conflict with their professed beliefs. Likewise, cab drivers in Minneapolis who were of Somali Muslim origin were refusing to allow passengers in their cabs who they believed to be carrying liquor.
In each of these cases we see a creeping accommodation to the beliefs of Muslims and thier expressed religious beliefs.
With all this as a backdrop comes news from New York that a devout Catholic nurse, with her objections previously on file in writing was coerced into participating in an abortion at Mt. Sinai hospital. The New York Post has details here. It clearly is not difficult to see the contrast. The act of permitting someone to purchase pork products is not the same as being forced to consume them. Allowing someone to carry a bottle of whisky is not the same as drinking it. Abortion has become a fundamental issue to Roman Catholics, and participation in the procedure is a grave moral issue to believers. Yet the Obama administration has moved to dilute and overturn previously established ‘conscience clauses’ which provided protection for health workers who for reasons of faith refuse to engage in certain practices.
No, Mr. Obama is correct. The USA is no longer an explicitly Christian nation. We no longer draw our moral guidance from the principals of the Founders. While not all were devout Christians, they never the less drew guidance from ‘ Nature’s God’ and the Creator. Certainly they were not motivated by the ‘ pillars of Islam’. However, increasingly throughout the country, due to an overdone sensitivity to offending, we are allowing those who practice Islam to establish themselves and their faith and it’s rules in a preferred place in our culture. No, we are not a Christian nation. But absent someone paying attention and making an effort, we will slide slowly and unerringly into becoming a Muslim Nation. The Communists often were quoted as saying that the capitalists would sell the rope used to hang them. Well, we are becoming so solicitous of those who would destroy our culture that we are willingly dismantling it for them.
Posted in Abortion, Christianity, Faith, First Amendment, Founders, Freedom of Religion, Islam | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, Christian Nation, Founders, Islam, Obama, Sharia | 2 Comments »
Posted by revkharma on May 6, 2009
Consider Ms. Carrie Prejean who, by all accounts is a beautiful young woman, driven and focused to win. Her chosen venue is various competitions, Beauty Pageants. She won the title of Miss California in March of this year. These contests, while playing up the angle of question and answer, community activity and involvement are still dedicated to finding and promoting physically attractive women.Certainly there are personality and intellect requirements in the modern era, as the contestants now are thrust into a media whirlwind as soon as their names are disclosed. They choose this life for themselves. The attention, pressure and constant scrutiny are a given, and any woman who cannot take such focus will not long survive.
There was a tempest stirred up when one of the judges of the 2009 Miss USA contest asked her a question about her views on homosexual marriage.
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?
Note of course that Mr. Hilton is known as a gay rights activist. (We will not discuss here if it makes sense that a gay man should be a judge of a female beauty contest) Miss Prejean gave a carefully worded reply which reflected her personal opinion:
Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.
Let’s be clear here: This was a question in the “Personality” competition section of a beauty contest. She was asked a question by a celebrity judge, one who brought his personal baggage to bear in his judgements and influence. Miss Prejean gave a personal opinion as an answer, hedged her response carefully allowing that anyone could make their own choice, and moved on. Mr. Hilton however, would have none of it. On his personal blog, immediately after that exchange used a coarse term to refer to her, and stated later that he would have ‘ripped the tiara off her’ had she won. He also told ABC news that before that question she was the front runner, but afterward there was no way she would win
Clearly she was penalized for her spoken views. She made no mention of intent to force others to accept her views, to make them law, nor to prevent others from acting or legislating anything different. She has subsequently been the focus of attacks and a campaign to discredit her. All this because of her spoken words on a televised program in the United States
Consider also radio talk host, Michael Savage. He is a man of varied background and experience. He published several books under the name of Michael Weiner he has several degrees, including a PhD in something called “Nutritional Ethnomedicine.” His radio persona, Michael Savage, host of the “Savage Nation” rails on various topics, focused upon a mantra of ” Borders, Language, Culture.” He attacks liberals, and those he believes are destroying the historic culture of America. He surely does not sugar coat his views, and his show has grown to be among the top five radio talk shows in the nation. His language is blunt, his opinions are fiercely held, and he simply will not allow dissenting callers to win. Particularly since the 9/11 attacks, he has sharpened the stick he uses to poke into the eye of his opponents. He uses what his detractors call offensive terms to demonize Islamic terrorists, democrats and liberals in government, and essentially anyone who disagrees with him. His intent to offend and bring on attacks was clearly demonstrated by the title of his NY Times best selling book ” Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder”. He clearly relishes the controversy.
Yesterday the British Government published a list of “Named and Shamed” people who would not be permitted to enter Britain. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary published a list of names, stating that those named were barred from entry under a law introduced in 2005. The most famous application of the law was the prohibition of a Dutch member of Parliament, Geert Wilders,who had been invited by the British Parliment to present a short film about the dangers of radical Islamic terrorists. The reason given by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was that his entry might incite others to violence, due to his record of anti Islamic remarks and the film he was invited to present to the British Parliament.
On that new list just released is none other than Michael Savage. It seems the land which gave the Magna Carta to the world now gives blacklists due to ‘offensive topics.’ Mr. Savage has announced plans to sue. England, which has libel laws which are quite different than those in the US, will provide a venue which makes his victory quite likely. Unless, of course he is prevented from suing because of his offensive views.
We live in a time which is turning concepts of civilization inside out. Those who advocate for the destruction of our societies and government are given protected status. Those who speak against them are demonized and pushed aside, their views labeled as ‘too shocking’ to be permitted. Dissent is only allowed on one side of the debate. Political issues are supposed to be the area of free wheeling and open debate. Now, in the two nations which blazed the path of freedom and open societies, minority opinions are the only opinions permitted.
We are being pulled along on a path to disintegration by an increasingly militant left which is abetted by activist courts and compliant legislators. The Federal Government is expanding scope and influence and crushing the liberty of individuals and the states which originally formed the nation. Politicians no longer stand on principle, or ideas, they run simply to obtain, and maintain a seat at the table of power. This was amply demonstrated by Senator Specter’s shift to the donkey party from the elephants. He made no attempt to disguise his reasons, he has openly said he knew he would lose his primary this year, and changed parties to keep his seat in the US Senate. In the past, this would have subjected him to rage and a demand that he resign. Now it is greeted with a shrug from his constituents, and a pat on the back from his media allies and his new party cronies.
There must be a way for Americans who revere the founding principles of this nation to regain the momentum. We who believe that the Constitution was created to protect us from intrusive and oppressive government must find a way to restore that balance. We must look again to Thomas Jefferson:
“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”- Thomas Jefferson
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Banned from England, Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Civil liberties, Constitution, Democrats, First Amendment, Founders, Free Speech, Freedom, Government Power, Islam, liberal court, Michael Savage, Political parties, Politics, Senate, State Supremacy, transnational law | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, British Home Secretary, Carrie Prejean, Constitution, democracy, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, government, Government Power, Islam, Leviathan, liberty, Michael Savage, Perez hilton, rights, society | 1 Comment »
Posted by revkharma on March 30, 2008
You’ve seen some writings here regarding Islam, and the dangers I believe the western world faces from the militant sections, and the constant drive to expand, convert and defeat the western World.
Canada has shown the way to Islamicization is easy. Merely surrender. Provide government agencies to oppress those who disagree, and push hard. Eventually all who disagree will be fined, imprisoned, or both. Got your head scarf ready?
I’m going to link here to something that says this much better than I could ever do by myself. I encourage you to read it, and explore some of the cases referenced. I am most familiar with that of Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. His story is quite disturbing.
Read on, from Ezra Levant.
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Islam, Politics | Tagged: Canada, Christianity, Islam, Islam vs Christianity, Islamicization, Mark Steyn, western world | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on December 17, 2007
Sometimes I wonder about how this will all play out. Why for instance have there not been loud and furious protests by the ACLU over the obvious accommodations made to Islam? Why is the Federal Government permitting so many states to take steps to allow Islamic practices while restricting virtually all other faiths?
Is it a fear of backlash? Does our government just surrender to prevent violence here? That seems likely, but appearances can hide deeper truths. After all, since 9/11 we have unprecedented restrictions on our freedoms to protect us against ‘terrorists’ presumably, since all were Islamic, from Islamic terrorists. But, we have taken pains to stress that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Most Muslims are good people”.
Is it merely an inordinate love of ‘Diversity”? The mantra of “Diversity is Good” has permeated our government and popular institutions over time so it has become a semi-official state religion.
As Mr. Clyde Wilson(http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=414) has noted, flattening all religions can have the effect of creating a government religion. All are good and equal, means none are correct. If none are correct, than any may be controlled and/or suppressed.
Notice that for the last generation, the courts have ruled over and over that the state may not even respect any religion, unless all are equally represented. A Christmas display is ok, so long as a Menorah is present. We can have an invocation as long it is ‘non-denominational or completely non religious. We can have a ‘minute of silence’ but not a moment of prayer. By equating all religions, we dismiss them all as mere superstitions. This has been a goal of such groups as the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for years.
The mainline religions have understood this concept of a “Naked Public Square” to mean that all may practice their faith unmolested. The new kid on the block, Islam has taken it to be an open field, and begun to run to the goal line. By seizing the mantle of Civil Rights, the Islamists have eroded the wall, and earned a preferred place at the table. The anger within other groups has begun to simmer. As the Islamists continue to press forward against a continuously yielding establishment, the Christian and Jewish groups will continue to boil. The Islamic groups learn quickly that taking offense at any slight earns large rewards, and will continue the cry of victimhood, as they press their claim to be the legitimate religion, and eventually the legitimate legal system in the Western world.
The predictable backlash will be sudden and fierce. Those who previously were the majority will resist and with strength and skill learned over the years. The fury of centuries of perceived repression will burst forth from Islamic groups, bringing about a dangerous and violent clash.
Watch for the resultant crackdown against ALL religious groups by a newly fearful and strengthened Federal Government. The US regime will strike back at ‘rioters, looters and insurrectionists’ imposing penalties, restrictions and outright suspensions on civil and constitutional rights. The very crisis set into motion by the inaction and misdirection of the established regime will be the reasons used to justify the later imposition of more repressive rules designed to entrench a stronger, more restrictive government than we have seen in generations.
This is certainly speculative, and absolutely not provable. If you disagree… tell me so, and why. Do you trust those in power to use restraint, when they have not done so ever before?
Keep the Faith!
Posted in Islam, Politics | Tagged: , Christianity, civil rights, Federal Government, freedom of religion, Islam | 1 Comment »
Posted by revkharma on December 13, 2007
I know I’m not the first to discuss this, but it needs to be publicized everywhere.
Each of these US Representatives to Congress voted in October in favor of a resolution to recognize the “commencement of Ramadan” [H.RES.635.IH]
Rep. Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Rep. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Rep. Diane DeGette (Colo.), Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.), Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), Rep. Robert Scott (Va.), Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)
All of these representatives also voted AGAINST a resolution recognizing the importance of Christmas, on December 11. ( HR 1143)
In addition to the above, the following Representatives voted “Present” to the Christmas resolution:
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), Rep. Rush Holt (N.J.), Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.), Rep. Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Rep. Peter Welch (Vt.) and Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)
These representatives have all shown themselves to be clearly opposed to Christmas while on record as supporting Ramadan. Were the two holidays and their respective legislative actions reversed, we would now be hearing unholy caterwauling calling for boycotts, and legal action to punish the “Islamophobic offenders” and to coerce the offending congressional representatives to undergo appropriate ‘sensitivity training’ and thought control until they embraced Islam and Ramadan, and rejected the “Crusader faith” and punished Christianity.
This is no longer a matter of slight concern. We are seeing a clear and careful attack, attempting to put Islam into a preferred place in our culture and legal system,while undermining all traces of Christianity, or Judaism, or any faith for that matter that is NOT Islam
WAKE UP People. It is quite nearly too late.
Posted in Islam, Politics | Tagged: Christianity, Congress, Crusader, Democrats, hypocracy, Islam, Islamophobia | 1 Comment »