The Justice Department will likely not bring any civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer involved in the death of a black teenager, the New York Times reported Wednesday.
Mr. Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury last year of any charges in the altercation that led to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The announcement sent off waves of protests and riots, with accusations that the local prosecutors office had deliberately led the grand jury to return a no bill that didnt file any charges against the officer.
Many civil rights advocates had pinned their hopes on the Justice Departments own investigation, saying they wanted the agency to file some kind of charge against Mr. Wilson, who has since resigned from the Ferguson police force.
Now, it looks as if that wont happen, as The Times reported that federal prosecutors are drafting a memo that recommends no action be taken against Mr. Wilson.
Now how about the arrest and prosecution of the race racketeers who have tried to have Darren Wilson lynched for taking proper action against a thug who tried to take his gun and then, after attempting to flee the scene, turned around and charged the officer. After all, there are millions of dollars of property damage that is theie responsibility, and their demonstrably false claims about Darren Wilson have caused him immeasurable damage because of his race. Seems like there are great grounds for a civil rights prosecution against them.
I realize that the Dictator-in-Chief has no respect for the Constitution -- and certainly not for the other co-equal branches of government -- but his double-whammy attack on the Supreme Court and the First Amendment shows just how unfit he is to serve in any public office.
A day after snubbing liberal activists who were pushing for tougher campaign-finance regulations, President Obama took a swipe at the Supreme Court Wednesday for its wrong ruling five years ago on the issue.
Five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling allowed big companies including foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections, Mr. Obama said in a statement. The Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy.
I'm sorry -- I thought the First Amendment read as follows.
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.
Obama somehow got it into his head that this allows Congress to make laws limiting verbal or written communication on political matters or the use of money to facilitate engaging in such communication. The Supreme Court, looking at the text of the First Amendment, determined that said position is contrary to the clear meaning of that portion of the Bill of Rights. It is important to note that this came after the Obama Administration argued in court that the First Amendment gave the federal government the right to prohibit or punish the publication of books intended to influence the political views of Americans.
And let's not forget Obama's previous attack on the Citizens United decision -- and the malignant racism that was at the heart of Democrat advocacy of the practice of limiting political participation.
Justice Clarence Thomas is regularly attacked and denigrated by left-wingers who struggle with the notion that there can be an intelligent, educated black man who is capable of thinking for himself. Actually, I take that isn't quite right. I really ought to have put the period after "man". But so expansive is his knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and the history of both that he can pull this obscure point out of his judicial robes to point out just how pernicious the impulse to allow government to censor speech really is.He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation, Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as some sort of beatific action.
Yeah, that is right. Barack Obama stood before the people of the United States and praised legislation introduced by a fellow Democrat who preceded him in the US Senate, one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans to ever serve in the United States Senate, a despicable man who owed his election to public office to his participation in an armed assault upon a body of black soldiers during Reconstruction and the lynching of several of these soldiers, and a dangerous demagogue who was censured for his physical assault of another Senator on the floor of the US Senate and barred from the White House over the incident. Indeed, an honest observer could rightly refer to the Tillman Act, lauded today by Obama and his fellow enemies of free speech, as the "Shut Up The N*gger-Lovers Act of 1907". If I were to construct a case to demonstrate the fundamental evil of allowing government to censor and silence disfavored speech, this piece of legislation that successfully silenced the voices of those who supported constitutional rights for all Americans would stand as Exhibit A in that effort.
So today we stand at a crossroads, faced with the choice between listening to a respected jurist as he defends the First Amendment and an adjunct law school faculty member (speaking far beyond his pay grade) to defend a Jim Crow law he finds politically advantageous to support.
It can hardly be expected
that any Negro would
regret the death of
-- W.E.B. DuBois
What a pity that the first black man to sit in the Oval Office would use the occasion of his first State of the Union address to validate the life and work of a vile racist like "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman in an effort to undermine the Supreme Court and constrict the guarantee of free speech inserted into the Constitution at the very beginning of the Republic.
UPDATE: Here is the audio of Justice Thomas speaking on the Citizens United decision. His comments on the Tillman Act are at the very beginning. (H/T Lonely Conservative)
Obama has repeatedly shown that he has no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution. Thank God that two years from now there will be a new president in the White House -- and pray to God that it is a Republican who does respect the Constitution and the rights of Americans.
Id say it was unbelievable, were it not for the fact that those who support the surrender of liberty in the face of Islamic barbarism have been parroting this talking point for the last couple weeks.
In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a "clear and present danger" is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying "fire" in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.
If Charlie Hebdo's irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn't thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper's continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo's free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.
Now Wickham uses two old Supreme Court cases to support his argument but he fails to note that the justices have since restricted, limited or overruled elements of the decision. For example, never since the Chaplinsky decision has the fighting words doctrine been held to be a valid reason for respecting freedom of speech indeed, shortly thereafter in Terminiello v. City of Chicago the Court held that the purpose of free speech was to provoke and invite dispute, and that the angry response of those who opposed the message was not grounds for shutting down the speaker. Similarly, the Court rejected the fire in a crowded theater argument in Brandenburg v. Ohio, holding that only speech intended to and likely to incite violence loses First Amendment protection.
Now consider the Charlie Hebdo cartoons themselves. They are designed to invite dispute regarding religious sensitivities and provoke discussion over the degree to which religious believers have the right to impose their faiths rules on non-believers. The threat of violence comes from offended Muslims, not the magazine. Whats more, no reasonable person can argue that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are intended to incite violence. Wickhams argument fails all around.
But let me offer a different take on this, using the authors argument.
It is clear that the actual danger is not drawings or words that mock Islam and its sacred things. The actual danger is Islam itself and the belief that its followers are entitled to engage in mayhem and murder to force others to abide by the tenets of that faith. Therefore the clear and present danger is not the speech or the cartoons the actual clear and present danger is Islam itself. Maybe the time has come to ban Islam and the Quran in this country, and to close all the mosques in America as a threat to public order. After all, that would get to the real source of the violence and would be the least restrictive means of dealing with the problem of violent outbursts over Muhammad cartoons.
Sen. Rand Paul is planning to open a political office in Austin, tapping into Texas technology talent ahead of a likely presidential bid. The space is slated to open in spring or early summer, said Doug Stafford, Pauls chief political adviser. The Kentucky Republican is also opening a Silicon Valley office in the coming months. Austin is a rare haven for liberals in deep-red Texas, but its also a hot spot for start-ups and technology companies. The libertarian-leaning Paul has made overtures to the technology community even in Californias progressive Bay Area as he prepares for a 2016 campaign.
Pauls message is one that resonates well in the tech industry his father was quite popular among that segment as well. And Texas is a big source of GOP campaign funds, so having a Texas operation is a good idea from that point of view as well.
Of course, Rand Paul is also a Texas native with former leadership positions in conservative organizations in the state, and his father was a congressman from Texas. This may signal his interest in populating his presidential bid with long-time Texas political associates.
And interestingly enough, the terrorist in question is another follower of the peaceful religion that is for some unfathomable reason is frequently stereotyped as supportive of violence and terrorism.
An FBI operation foiled another plot to attack the U.S. Congress.
The video is convincing. Watch the man sitting in the front seat. Amine el Khalifi, subject of the sting, Ive thought about this a long time.
A hidden camera is rolling inside a car, Amine el Khalifi sounds like his minds made up.
El Khalifi can be heard saying, Listen, Im going to go it alone. Youre not going to go with me. Im going to put everything on my body and inside a real place. Maybe uh, Capitol or somewhere who with main people.
A rare, frightening look inside the mind of a would-be suicide bomber ready to strap on a vest with explosives and blow himself up at the U.S. Capitol. A lone wolf stopped by a FBI undercover sting.
When we keep seeing attacks and planned attacks in the name of one and only one religion, one has to ask what it is about that religion that has led to that disparity and whether or not the claims that said religion is peaceful and not supportive of terrorism are in fact a denial of reality.
By the way -- this jihadi swine is also an illegal alien, making him a member of two of Obama's favorite classes of human beings.
In tonights State of the Union, President Obama called for a congressional resolution authorizing his use of military force against the ISIS terrorist organization, which has seized control of large parts of Iraq and Syria. This is a step in the right direction, because US military intervention against ISIS amounts to a war that requires congressional authorization under the Constitution. A congressional AUMF might also prevent further violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for military actions abroad that last more than 60 days (as this one already has). Whether he intends it as such or not, the presidents request is at least an implicit acknowledgement that the president requires congressional approval to initiate wars.
Of course, one has to ask what happens if he does not get that authorization. Does he disengage from the conflict with ISIS? Or does he keep on fighting that quasi-war, despite the fact that Congress has rejected it? My guess is the latter, meaning he just wants the fig-leaf of congressional action.
But I still have to wonder why this conflict with ISIS at all. After all, in his speech Obama assured us that the problem is not Islam.
It's why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.
But wait doesnt an authorization of force against the Islamic State constitute an acknowledgement that Islam is a part of the problem, and that there are large numbers of Muslims who are properly treated as the enemy of America and its values? Isnt that offensive?
I raised that issue last night.
Senator Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, slammed the Obama administrations efforts to deter further sanctions against Iran.
I have to be honest with you: The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran, he said during a hearing on Wednesday. It feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin.
Obama has bent over backwards to placate the Iranians even as they have stalled and failed to negotiate in good faith. Obamas iran policy has failed but he wants to give it another go, in the hopes that maybe what has failed before will succeed this time around.
Of course, we know what it means when someone keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result.
The list of potential candidates for the presidency in 2016 is immense. The list of declared contenders, though, is nonexistent.
If the latest CBS News poll is any indication, Americans would like to see a number of potential candidates take the plunge -- but not all of them.
Now lets look at these numbers for a moment.
Mitt Romney is well-regarded. So is Jeb Bush though not so much as Romney. Mike Huckabee has a degree of support. But beyond that, only Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Ben Carson have positive numbers with these GOP primary voters. The rest of the field is in negative numbers though most of them have more undecided than anything else (Sarah Palin being the exception). We therefore have a top tier (Romney, Bush, and Huckabee), a middle tier (Rubio, Walker, and Carson), and a bottom tier of rejected wannabes that includes the bulk of Tea Party favorites.
From where I stand, heres how I would break down these groupings.
This leads me to some important observations.
Remember, my friends from the rise of the conservative movement in the GOP in 1964 to its success in capturing the presidency in 1980 was 16 years. In 1976 we saw the triumph of the establishment, but it was followed by the glory of conservative ascendancy in 1980. So while we would like the future to be now, we have to recognize that even an establishment victory in 2016 does not mean that our movement has failed.
H/T Hot Air
If you are responsible and actually save for your child's education, you will be taxed to pay for the children of the less responsible.
The administration wants to extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the administrations signature higher-education tax benefit thats scheduled to expire at the end of 2017, while making it more valuable to low-income students. Obama also wants to fix an issue in which those who join a government program that forgives student loan debt after borrowers make payments for 20 years can be socked with unexpected and big tax bills. Thats because the IRS considers forgiven debt to be equivalent to income and taxes it. Under the administrations plan, that would end. Other parts of the administrations plan would exempt Pell grants, which go to students from low-income families, from taxation.
The administration proposes to finance the breaks at least in part by taking away education breaks for the well-off. Details are thin, but the administration says it would limit upside-down education savings incentives by rolling back Section 529 education tax breaks created by President George W. Bush and repeal incentives for the Coverdell education savings program.
As I pointed out recently, there was no way that college was ever going to be free under Obama's plan -- the question was who would pay for it. Now we know the answer -- the folks who recognized that college costs money are going to foot the bill.
MSNBCs Alex Wagner had Arsalan Iftikhar, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com, on to discuss Gov. Jindals comments.
I think Governor Jindal is protesting a bit too much. He might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin as he runs to the right in a presidential bid, said Iftikhar.
Wagner didnt question his comment and the interview continued.
Could you imagine if that statement were made by a conservative on FoxNews? All hell would break loose. But since there is a freely acknowledged double standard on race when it comes to the left going after non-white conservatives...
Escalating his battle with congressional Republicans, President Obama will propose $320 billion in higher taxes in his State of the Union address, mostly by raising the rate on capital gains and closing tax loopholes for wealthier families, senior administration officials said Saturday.
* * *
The money raised would pay for a variety of the presidents domestic-spending proposals for the middle class, including an initiative for the government to pay all tuition for community-college students. A senior administration official said Mr. Obama intends to make a forceful case in his speech that the economy has recovered from the recession, and he wants to make sure this prosperity is shared by the middle class.
The problem with his logic, of course, is that if the middle class would already be benefiting from a recovery if there was one. The thing is, the middle class has not benefited -- the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten more government giveaways and we in the middle class have gotten screwed. Now Obama wants to pull out the class warfare card -- which tells me that things are the way he intended them to be all along. Now he wants to make the middle class into government dependents just like Democrats have done with the poor over the last three-quarters of a century. I say no -- I wish to remain free.
This matter seems like one of tolerance vs. intolerance. but there is good reason for Duke to refuse to allow the broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer over speakers on their campus.
Duke University canceled plans Thursday to begin a weekly Muslim call to prayer from the campus chapel this week, an initiative that had set off debate on social media. A school spokesman and a Duke Muslim leader said that a serious and credible security threat played a role in the decision.
The university had announced that Muslim students would chant the adhan, the call to a weekly prayer service, from the Duke University Chapel bell tower each Friday. The sound of the call to prayer in Muslim communities is a standard part of ritual life on Muslims main prayer day. Theologically, it reminds Muslims to worship God and serves as a reminder to serve our brothers and sisters in humanity, Imam Adeel Zeb, Muslim chaplain at Duke, said in a news release.
* * *
In discussing the change Thursday, Duke officials said the response to the decision was not what the university had expected.
Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students, said Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations, in a news release. However, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.
Schoenfeld said Thursday night that a serious and credible security threat was one of the reasons for the decision. University officials declined to elaborate.
Now there should have been no threats of violence against Muslims over the initial decision to allow the call to worship. But there also should have been no permission for its broadcast. After all, in an academic climate where we are constantly told there must be "trigger warnings" and the avoidance of "microagressions", there is no place for the broadcast of the battle cry of Islamic terror.
After all, the "adhan" begins and ends with the proclamation "Allahu Akbar," the very words used by jihadis around the world as a part of their terrorist attacks on Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even their fellow Muslims. To allow these words to be proclaimed in a public space is to raise the specter of jihadi violence against those who Islam deems to be infidels. Just as the school would never dream of permitting the scheduled weekly waiving of the Confederate flag on the campus quad and public broadcast of the Confederate anthem "Dixie" over a public address system because of the negative connotations of slavery and racism associated with them, neither should Duke be permitting the "adhan" with the terrorist battle cry. Those hearing the words "Allahu Akbar" have a credible a fear of jihadi violence -- after all, there have been some 20,000 incidents of jihadi terror committed worldwide since 9/11, as well as at least as many foiled plots to commit others.
Doesn't the right of the rest of the Duke Community to feel safe from terrorism trump any claim of privilege by the Muslims on campus have to use the speaker system to broadcast the words "Allahu Akbar"?
I like the take offered over at Sultan Knish. It tracks with my views, and I wish I had put it this eloquently in my own writings over the past week.
Blasphemy is the price we pay for not having a theocracy. Muslims are not only outraged but baffled by the Mohammed cartoons because they come from a world in which Islamic law dominates their countries and through its special place proclaims the superiority of Islam to all other religions.
* * *
In a multi-religious society, in which every religion has its own variant theological streams, the right to blaspheme is also the right to believe. Liberal theology can contrive interchangeable beliefs which do not contradict or claim special knowledge over any other religion. But traditionalist faiths are exclusive.
Do you want the right to believe -- or disbelieve -- as you choose? Then you cannot argue in favor of laws against "blasphemy" -- or laws against so-called "hate speech". After all, such laws make criminal the expression of officially disapproved beliefs. That is true whether the "blasphemous" or "hateful" words are deemed so by the devout followers of some deity or the radical secularists seeking to enforce their politically correct dogma.
A caller to Rush Limbaugh made this point.
The Obamacrats are adamant ADAMANT that Islamist Terrorists are not Islamic because Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism is un-Islamic. Therefore, they say, those who practice terrorism cannot really be Islamic.
And yet, when a terrorist is sent to GITMO, the administration bends over backwards to make sure they have access to Korans, prayer rugs, halal food all the things an observant Muslim requires.
Why do they do this, if the terrorists arent really Islamic?
Could it be that our government and media have lied to us, and that they are Muslim terrorists engaged in terrorism because their murderous deeds are completely in keeping with Islam?
We wouldn't want it to look like Muhammads crew are violent hatemongers, would we?
BOULDER - Two suspects were arrested for assaulting a man who refused to take off his yarmulke.
The assault happened in the 1100 block of Pearl Street in Boulder on Dec. 19, 2014.
The victim was at the Sundown Saloon with friends when three unknown males approached him. One of the males told the victim to remove his yarmulke, a skullcap traditionally worn by Jewish men.
The victim refused to take it off, saying he was Jewish. One of the men hit the victim in the head with a glass, knocking him down.
Police believe a second suspect kicked the victim.
The victim was taken to the hospital and treated for his injuries.
Bryan Jamsheed Tayefeh, 29, was arrested Dec. 19 and charged with second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime.
An arrest warrant was issued for Yotam Monjack, 27. He was out of the country and arrested Jan. 8 upon his return.
Interesting, isnt it, that it took a month to even bother reporting the incident? If it had been someone assaulting a Muslim over his/her faith or even expressing disapproval of that faith there would have been immediate coverage, complete with rallies and Justice Department intervention. But an attack on a Jew just isnt a big deal, I guess.
I teach American Government and I would love to see this required of my students.
Arizona became the first state in the nation on Thursday to enact a law requiring high school students to pass the U.S. citizenship test on civics before graduation, giving a boost to a growing nationwide effort to boost civics education.
Both the Arizona House and Senate quickly passed the legislation on just the fourth day of the legislative session, and newly elected Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed it into law Thursday evening.
The swift action in Arizona comes as states around the country take up similar measures. Arizona's law requires high school students to correctly answer 60 of 100 questions on the civics portion of the test new citizens must pass.
The test is being pushed nationally by the Arizona-based Joe Foss Institute, which has set a goal of having all 50 states adopt it by 2017, the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. The institute says legislatures in 15 states are expected to consider it this year.
Heres hoping the Texas legislature adopts this requirement this session. Unfortunately, there is no such proposal in any bill currently filed. Wont some legislator introduce this?
Since the 1990s, students from Mount Holyoke College, an all-women's school in Massachusetts, have staged an annual production of The Vagina Monologues. Not this year. The college is retiring the ritual over concerns that the playpenned by Eve Ensler in 1996 as a way to "celebrate the vagina" and women's sexualityis not inclusive enough.
In a school-wide email from Mount Holyoke's student-theater board, relayed by Campus Reform, student Erin Murphy explained that "at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman ... Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive."
Yeah -- the quaint notion made famous in Kindergarten Cop is now obsolete.
Now it is so much more complicated.
[T]he argument is premised on the idea that a) not all women have vaginas, and b) some men do have vaginas, because some trans individuals identify and live as a different gender than they were born without getting genital reconstructive surgery. Ergo, a trans women is a woman, full stop, but she may have a penis. A trans man is a man, full stop, but he may have a vagina. Fine. I get that. I'm cool with that. And, regardless, it doesn't matter if I'm cool with it, because how other people define their genders/bodies/sexualities is none of my concern. If you are a woman without a vagina, neat; there is totally room for all of our experiences in this great big, crazy world.
Sorry, but the logic there is totally absurd. It makes as much sense as this.
But hey -- if the crazy feminists at this bastion of irrationality want to accept the notion of "women without vaginas" in order to avoid cis-supremacist transphobia, so be it.
Dozens of House Democrats on Wednesday voted against a legislative proposal aimed at ensuring that illegal immigrants convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse or child abuse are a priority for deportation.
The vote suggests that immigration-related issues trump other traditional Democratic priorities, such as efforts to protect people from sex or violence-related crimes, especially against women.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) proposed the language as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill. He argued it was needed because Obamas executive action on immigration created different priorities for deportation that need to be adjusted.
For example, illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism or espionage or other felonies are top priorities for deportation. But illegal immigrants who are convicted of three or more misdemeanors, or one significant misdemeanor such as sexual abuse or domestic violence, are on a second tier priority for deportation.
On Wednesday, House Republicans put forward the DeSantis amendment to prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse or child abuse. But they were met by significant Democratic opposition, including from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is widely seen as a champion of womens issues.
Pelosi explained that she opposed the amendment because it was opposed by the National Catholic Conference of Bishops. That group said generally that it opposed all efforts to stop the Obama administration from implementing its immigration plan, and that it could somehow create obstacles to the reporting of domestic violence among immigrants.
While presented as a measure that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse, the group wrote, in a letter Pelosi read on the House floor.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) also explained that in many domestic violence cases involving illegal immigrants, police arrest both the abuser and the victim, and both can end up pleading to a misdemeanor just to speed up the process. This happens all the time, all around the country, she argued.
As a result, she said the GOP language could end up hurting victims as well as abusers.
Those arguments were met with disbelief from Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), who sponsored the amendment. DeSantis said he was perplexed why anyone would vote against the amendment.
Why would we have any tolerance for child molesters? Desalts said. If youre not in our country legally, and you get convicted of an offense like that, you should be gone. We shouldnt even be discussing this.
Id love to say Im stunned but given the fact that the Democrats have become the party of lawlessness and disorder, I guess I shouldnt be.
Sorry, folks protest outside the venue, but dont you dare try to get a government entity to break the agreement to rental agreement for the venue.
Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect, an event that asks Ready to defeat Islamophobia? is coming to the Dallas area Curtis Culwell Center on Saturday, January 17, 2015, at 6pm. Until recently, few knew anything about this conference and now that many more do, residents are not just upset about the event and its speakers, they are upset that it is being held on the publicly-owned property of the Garland Independent School District (ISD) in a facility that was built and paid for with property taxpayer funded school bonds.
Stand with the Prophet is described in its promotional materials as not an event. It is the beginning of a movement. A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.
According to ACT! for America Houston, the conference is a fundraiser to establish aStrategic Communication Center for the Muslim community, which will develop effective responses to anti-Islamic attacks, as well as to train young Muslims in media.
* * *
Julie Borik of the Garland Tea Party told CBS-11 that the issue with the Islamic conference was that she did not want it to be held on an ISD property, on what she called government property.
Stand With the Prophet in Garland will be bookended by identical events in Dayton, Ohio and Houston, Texas, neither of which will be held on publicly purchased property or in a public school district-owned facility.
I understand the outrage - but do we want government determining what political or religious speech is permissible? If we allow this conference to be cancelled, why not a ban on holding Tea Party events in that same facility? Why not let the school district pry into the theological beliefs of a religious organization seeking to rent a local school for worship services on the weekend so as to make sure that those with traditional views on marriage and homosexuality dont sully the building with their beliefs?
Either a school district rents its facilities in a manner that does not discriminate based upon point of view, or you allow the most vocal extremists in the community to silence the voices they dont like and it may be your point of view they target next. Allowing this conference to be held in the Garland ISD facility is a small price to pay for preserving YOUR freedom.
Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith.
Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.
But he said there were limits.
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.
"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."
Frankly, Bergoglios words offend me. Is that sufficient to justify me punching him out or maybe grabbing an AK and shooting up the Vatican? I think the answer is obvious and proves the lack of wisdom and discernment on the part of the unworthy successor of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. What would Urban II have to say about this papal capitulation to the Muslims? What would Jesus say about the rejection of the obligation to turn the other cheek?
Frankly, the Argentinian antipope makes me proud of my decision to part company with Rome.
Oh, wait thats New field director appointed for Battleground Texas. Same thing.
Battleground Texas, forging ahead after Democrats tough loss in November, is installing a new field director who grew up on the Texas border and handled the groups outreach in South and West Texas in 2014.
Danny Lucio will replace Victoria Zyp, a Rice University alum who before joining Battleground Texas was the leadership development director at Organizing for Action in Chicago and the Ohio training director for President Obamas 2012 re-election campaign.
I hope Lucio keeps up the groups good work. If he does, Democrat voters will be a thing of the past in Texas by the time the 2016 election rolls around.
The FBI has arrested an Ohio man for allegedly plotting an ISIS-inspired attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to ABC News.
The FBI said agents arrested Christopher Lee Cornell, 20, in Ohio as he allegedly was taking the final steps toward traveling to the nations capital to carry out the plan.
ABC reports that government documents show Cornell allegedly planned to detonate pipe bombs at the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. and open fire on lawmakers and other officials fleeing after the explosions.
In addition, Cornell allegedly posted statements, videos and other online content expressing support for the Islamic State the terrorist group also known as ISIS or ISIL that is wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.
Amazing, isnt it, that this only happens with one religion these days
Because if the president doesnt get what he wants on immigration, hes going to veto funding the DHS funding bill that includes his Secret Service protection.
On a call with reporters this afternoon, a White House aide warned that President Obamas security might be in jeopardy if Republicans failed to pass a full funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
Until a full funding bill has passed, the DHS and the Secret Service is not able to move forward with the recent recommendations from the report on White House complex security, Andrew Mayock from the Office of Management and Budget explained during the call.
Obama has vowed to veto the bill passed by the House this afternoon. Mayock said that the White House only supported the base bill, which funds the agency without limitations. The House version contains a number of amendments aimed at defunding Obamas executive amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Somebody needs to remind Obama that, as someone said in January of 2009, elections have consequences. The voters rejected the Democrats and their way of doing things in 2014, voting the Republicans control of the Senate and increasing their majority in the House. And since Obama and his policies were the issue in 2014, it seems quite clear that the Obama and his policy preferences have been rejected.
Now Obama has engaged in a two-pronged strategy. The first, which the Republicans are trying to undercut in this bill, is to rule by decree via executive orders that run contrary to the explicit mandates of existing law. The second, which is White House strategy here, is to veto bills supported by a majority of both houses of Congress and to then seek to blame the Congressional Republicans for Obamas obstruction of the legislative priorities of the American people.
This talking point from the White House is a perfect example of Obama doing in fact what he falsely accused the Republicans of doing back in 2013 engaging in behavior that constitutes hostage taking. The OMB staffer on the call has said that if Republicans dont give into Obamas demands, there is the potential that his hostage will be seriously injured or killed. But in this case, Obamas hostage is Obama himself he is effectively holding a gun to his own head and demanding that Republicans give him what he wants or he will blow his brains out all over the Oval Office carpet. Republicans need to stand back and allow him to pull the trigger.
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Hussein condemned as an "insult" a new cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed published on Wednesday by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
"This insult has hurt the feelings of nearly two billion Muslims all over the world. The cartoons and other slander damage relations between the followers of the (Abrahamic) faiths," he said in a statement.
The mufti, who oversees Jerusalem's Muslim sites including Islam's third holiest, the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, slammed the "publishing of cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, and the disregard for the feelings of Muslims."
Well, I and my fellow Christians are deeply offended and insulted every time you followers of the false prophet Muhammad and the demon who inspired his big book of blasphemy start claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God. Jews are offended and insulted every time you and your fellow death cultists claim that there is no connection between the Temple Mount and the Jewish people. So why dont you folks put a cork in it lest we find it necessary to take forceful action against the Religion of Terrorism to silence its blasphemy. After all, doesnt respect work both ways?
Today I rise, and the House rises, to support and defend our Constitution, Boehner began, saying there is no alternative . . . This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law, and to the Constitution itself.
What were dealing with is a president who has ignored the people, who has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements, the Speaker said proceeding to list 22 occasions where President Obama explained his own constitutional limitations on immigration reform.
To think that the President of the United States actually studied constitutional law is one thing, Boehner said, referring to the presidents time as a constitutional law scholar at Harvard. He didnt just learn constitutional law, he taught it as well. But now his actions suggest that hes forgotten what these words even mean. Enough is enough!
John Boehner has been under attack by my fellow conservatives for some time now. Many myself included would have preferred to see him not reelected as Speaker on the basis that there are others better suited to hold that gavel. But Ill part company with many of them when they say that Boehner is not a conservative he is, even if not as conservative as I would like him to be. This statement may herald a change in his approach to the job now that he has a Republican Senate to work with. Heres hoping that is the case.
The Texas senator, a 2016 presidential contender and (I hope) future Supreme Court justice had a brush with the law when in high school.
When Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was a teenager, he was caught doing teenage things, as revealed in documents obtained by BuzzFeed.
In his application to become Texas solicitor general, Cruz was required to list any prior convictions. That included one "guilty plea for minor in possession of alcohol."
Apparently when Cruz was a high school senior in 1987, authorities found an unopened case of beer in his vehicle. They gave him a ticket.
Really? Thats the most dirt they can find on the man? Given that Barack Obama and his Choom Gang were Hawaiis leading consumers of marijuana back in the day, Id say this makes Cruz look squeaky clean.
Or thats how her comments would have been interpreted if she were white.
On Tuesday, Glee star Naya Rivera made a guest appearance on ABCs The View and made some unusual comments about white people" and their bathing habits.
Speaking in response to co-host Nicolle Wallace saying that because she has dogs and a baby she has to shower three times a day, the Glee actress proclaimed that white people shower a lot more than ethnics.
Rivera, who herself is part Puerto Rican and African American, continued to argue that showering once a day, or every day, is such a white people thing.
Proof positive that entertainment figures are generally brain-dead as are the hosts of The View.
And proof that the racial offense lobby is more racist than the average person they accuse of racism because Riveras comments would have been career destroying if Rivera were not a minority herself.
For all of the statistical manipulation that has reduced our nations unemployment rate to a palatable level, the reality is that economy is not in good shape. Want proof? Look at this information on the health of businesses in this country.
In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.
Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls an underground earthquake that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
Lets get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses, writes Clifton.
Indeed, the numbers are striking. Contrary to the oft-cited 26 million businesses in America figure, Clifton says 20 million of these so-called businesses are merely companies on paper with zero workers, profits, customers, or sales. In reality, America has just 6 million businesses with one or more employers3.8 million of which have four or fewer employees. In total, these 6 million U.S. companies provide jobs for more than 100 million people in America.
Small and medium sized businesses are dying in America. Obamas recovery exists only on paper, and consists of big companies getting bigger. Thanks, Barry!
In the words of the immortal political commentator Bugs Bunny, What a maroon!
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, said on Monday that giving identification cards to illegal aliens allows them to feel like citizens and enjoy some of the same benefits as actual citizens.
"We don't want any of our fellow New Yorkers to feel like second-class citizens, de Blasio was quoted as saying in a National Public Radio website article. We don't want them to feel left out.
In de Blasios defense, he does get it partly right. Illegals should not feel like second-class citizens. But where he is wrong is in arguing that they should feel entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship instead they should be forced to confront their lack of citizenship and legal status so as to encourage them to leave.
I've been praising the response of the French government to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
But now comes something I wont praise in that response.
France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism, announcing Wednesday that 54 people had been arrested for those offenses since terror attacks left 20 dead in Paris last week, including three gunmen.
The order came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical newspaper that fronted the Prophet Muhammad anew on its cover.
France has been tightening security and searching for accomplices since the terror attacks began, but none of the 54 people have been linked to the attacks. That's raising questions about whether President Francois Hollande's Socialist government is impinging on the very freedom of speech that it so vigorously defends when it comes to Charlie Hebdo.
Among those detained was Dieudonne, a controversial, popular comic with repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism.
Let me reiterate what I said yesterday just as surely as Charlie Hebdo had the right to publish some pretty outrageous stuff about Muhammad, so too did it have the right to publish some material that was offensive to Jews and Christians.
That same right should also extend to the bulk of those arrested in France, including Dieudonne a comic whose Jew-hatred is notorious but who merits freedom from government oppression every bit as much as did those who died in the offices of Charlie Hebdo and those who carry on their work by publishing todays regularly scheduled issue of the satirical magazine.
Just as any number of American commentators (and the Obama Administration) have implicitly sided with the terrorists by declaring the work of Charlie Hebdo to be provocative, offensive, insulting, or irresponsible without facing legal consequences for their disturbing opposition to true freedom of speech, those who were arrested in France for arguing that the victims of terror in Paris deserved their fate and brought it upon themselves are equally deserving of the right to make their disgusting views known to the public at large.
Indeed, I lack sympathy and support only for those who are actually inciting imminent violent action. Those whose words create such a clear and present danger merit punishment but ugly thoughts and words are not by themselves enough to merit the abridgement of the fundamentally human right to speak freely. France disgraces the memory of last weeks martyrs by using their deaths as grounds for suppressing the very rights they themselves exercised.
The survivors of last week's massacre in Paris will thumb their noses at the Islamists with the post-attack cover.
It has, of course, already produced howls of outrage and fulminating declarations from the usual pro-terrorist sources.
Radical cleric Mr Choudary said "ridiculing" Mohammed is attacking his personality, and said these actions are "extremely serious", adding that if the "act of war" was to be tried in a Shariah Court it would carry capital punishment. "It's not just a cartoon, it's insulting, it's ridiculing, it's provoking," he said.
The lecturer in Shariah law, who was arrested in September as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism, added: "These things always have a history of coming back and biting them. People are not going to forget. Muslims will never forget what these people did.
"And I'm sure there's someone somewhere who will take the law into his own hands. It's inevitable.
"There will be repercussions. I think there will be someone somewhere who will retaliate."
That includes one of the leading clerics in the Arab world.
d the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Tuesday against publishing a new caricature of the Prophet Mohammad, saying it was a racist act that would incite hatred and upset Muslims around the world.
Charlie Hebdo is due to publish a front page on Wednesday showing a caricature of the Prophet in its first edition since Islamist gunmen attacked the weekly's offices in Paris last Wednesday, killing 12 people.
"This edition will cause a new wave of hatred in French and Western society in general and what the magazine is doing does not serve coexistence or a dialog between civilizations," the office of Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, one of the region's most influential Muslim clerics, said in a statement.
"This is an unwarranted provocation against the feelings of ... Muslims around the world."
To these two low-life followers of Islam's false prophet, I say "Suck it up, Buttercup!"
And may I point out something hidden in the cover art? Muhammad's face and turban are drawn to mimic a penis, as are his eyes and nose. It is therefore fair to say that the defiant staff of the satire magazine are saying "Muhammad is a dickhead!" Juvenile humor? Yeah -- but not anything the magazine had not done before and certainly not out of bounds following the actions committed in the name of Muhammad and Allah by their followers last week.
That is the only legitimate interpretation of this statement from White House spokesman Josh Earnest when asked if the White House stood by statements criticizing Charlie Hebdo magazine for publishing Muhammad cartoons in 2012.
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nations journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nations defenses forces, the White Houses press secretary said Jan. 12.
The president will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform whenever journalists work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White Houses daily briefing.
The unprecedented reversal of Americans civil-military relations, and of the presidents duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administrations opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
I noted yesterday that time and again we have seen the Obama Administration side with offended Muslims -- even those who engage in acts of terrorism and murder -- and against the exercise of the fundamental human right to speak and publish freely. Now, having been presented with the opportunity to repudiate that stance, the Obama Administration has doubled down. Is it any wonder that Obama stayed home from Paris? The march by world leaders and a million others was in direct opposition to Obama Administration policy!
The Muslim mayor of Rotterdam, Netherlands, didnt hold back last week in telling Islamist extremists to f off on live television.
Ahmed Aboutaleb appeared on live television just hours after two French Islamists gunned down 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, the Daily Mail reported.
It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom, he said on the Dutch program Nieuwsuur (Newshour). But if you dont like freedom, for heavens sake, pack your bags and leave.
If you do not like it here because some humorists you dont like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f off, Mr. Aboutaleb added. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.
Bravo, sir! Bravo!
And that goes for anyone of any faith who suggests that we need to stigmatize or ban speech that offends Muslims on the grounds that it is Islamophobic.
Muslim anger over the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the contributing causes of the kind of Islamist-inspired terrorism that claimed the lives of 20 people in France last week, former president Jimmy Carter told Jon Stewart of Comedy Centrals The Daily Show.
When asked what he thought were the factors that led to the killings, Carter replied: Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now whats being done to them. So I think thats part of it.
This isn't the first time that the worst president of my lifetime prior to 2009 has shown his Jew-hatred. Will this time result in the sort of public scorn that he merits?
Then again, maybe I'm being unfair in calling Carter the worst ex-president since John Tyler. After all, Tyler merely became an advocate of secession and a member of the Congress of the Confederate States after leaving office. Carter has become an apologist for terrorism and an advocate for Jew-hatred, which I would argue makes him infinitely worse.
As most of you know, within a few minutes of learning of the Charlie Hebdo massacre I had cobbled together an I am Charlie Hebdo graphic for my website and had made it my picture on both Facebook and Twitter. It was, I believe, the right thing to do. In the days since, I have steadfastly defended the magazine and the individual victims of the massacre. I have called them martyrs for the liberties that under-gird Western Civilization, and I believe that with my whole heart.
And yet this stand has not set well with everyone. For instance, last night I received a message from a friend a former elected official in my area whose conservative credentials and support for liberty are beyond question. She began with a condemnation of the terrorist attack in Paris, but raised the question of how much it was appropriate for a Christian to identify with Charlie Hebdo given some of the other images that the magazine had published images that most Christians would recognize to be sacrilegious, if not blasphemous, by the standards of our faith.
I think my response surprised her. I told her I was proud to identify with Charlie Hebdo despite being well aware of the magazines content which offends my faith and that of my Jewish brothers and sisters. I then went on to note that I dont agree with the content of those drawings, but I agree with knuckling under to the perpetually offended even less. Im therefore willing to suffer my faith and those things I hold sacred being skewered from time to time in order to defend the freedom to speak and publish freely. I closed by observing that my God is big enough and tough enough to take the mockery something that clearly cannot be said about the weak and puny deity followed by the murderous swine in Paris.
But my friend had a point. Do statements that some find blasphemous, exposing to ridicule the faith and sacred things of others, merit defense? Do those who speak or publish that which others deem sacrilegious merit a defense or deserve to be held up as heroes? After all, such things are certainly uncivil, and often lack much in the way of value in the eyes of those who are offended. Why not ban such words and images? Why not punish those who utter or publish them? And rather than lionize those who engage in them, why not condemn them?
The Paris murders answer those questions with exclamation points that resonate as sharply as the gunshots that ended the lives of who died at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. They merit defense because we cannot allow the most thin-skinned and violent to define the limits of our liberties. Civility, while a virtue of sorts, is oft overrated and used as an excuse to suppress the even more important virtues of honesty and forthrightness in the face of that which is false and evil. And while the penalties of social ostracism and public derision might be appropriate for incivility, neither incarceration nor death are merited for the crime of trampling on the religious feelings of others.
Indeed, the pluralistic nature of our modern society is such that the state is woefully unsuited to inflicting such punishments after all, to the ears of a Jew, the Christian claim that Christ is the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures is an offense. To the faithful Catholic, the Protestant rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation amounts to blasphemy against the body and blood of Christ. Muslims find the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to be blasphemy, while Muslim rejections of Jesuss divinity is blasphemy in the eyes of a Christian believer. Whose speech should be suppressed? Whose proclamation of faith should be deemed a criminal offense because it trespasses against the religious tenets of others? And more to the point, should the willingness of members of one faith to engage in a relentless campaign of violence and murder in response to religiously offensive speech be rewarded with state enforcement of their censorship demands?
Those who argue that mockery of others faith should be rejected as beyond the pale are notoriously inconsistent with their application of that standard. For example, we in Houston are just a week away from opening night of the award-winning musical The Book of Mormon, which mocks and belittles the faith of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Madonna is currently on tour, making big dollars for her performances despite a long history of making use of the religious symbols of various faiths in ways which some members of those faiths find sacrilegious. Bill Mahers shtick revolves around attacks on religion and religious believers. Nobody is suggesting that any of these performances or performers be banned nor is there any suggestion that they should be banned lest outraged believers engage in acts of violence in response.
Which brings us to this observation by Ross Douhat.
Must all deliberate offense-giving, in any context, be celebrated, honored, praised? I think not. But in the presence of the gun or, as in the darker chapters of my own faiths history, the rack or the stake both liberalism and liberty require that it be welcomed and defended.
Ill agree with Douhat that deliberately giving offense might, in some situations, be a negative thing. But at other times it is obligatory and the current situation in which billions of non-Muslims are being told by a subset of Muslims that any depiction of Muhammad will carry with it the penalty of death because such depictions violate the some real or imagined prohibition required by the Islamic faith is one of those times. Thats why Ive long identified with Charlie Hebdo and republished some of their controversial illustrations and even created a few of my own. I will continue to do so because it is my right (and the right of every human being) to do so. And if any Muslim believes that their false god and their putative prophet are not able to withstand such an indignity, Id like to offer them the chance to sit down and talk about a God who is impervious to that sort of assault and does not require the murder of others in response.
And so let me reiterate.