Category Archives: 1st Amendment

The Dreaded Reaching Hand of Legal Oppression – Extortionist Racism Charges

It is a crime to be racist. Therefore when racist charges are the subject, prison terms or worse are the predicate. Therefore, charges of racism are a menace to society, extortion to intimidate rivals into silence and compliance analogous to threats of blackballing from society, lynching or some other such thing. The only difference between despised minorities screaming racism and common people carrying pitchforks and torches is that the former have the entire state apparatus at their disposal to legitimize and carry out their vicious attacks. Any comments?

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.



Vote John McCain – And Donate Now!

My Friends,
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular – the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected – both voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – they will appoint activist judges. They will appoint judges who legislate from the bench.
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.
America needs a leader who recognizes that the people and the states should decide what’s best, not the courts. In order to be that leader, I need your financial support immediately.
Please follow this link to make an immediate donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 – any amount up to the legal limit of $4,600.
Thank you for your support.
John McCain
P.S. To date, my Democrat opponents have raised almost $450 million in their efforts to win the White House. Both Senators Clinton and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both Senators Clinton and Obama will nominate liberal, activist judges. As your president, I will ensure that the Supreme Court protects our values. Please follow this link right away to make your donation of any amount, up to the legal limit of $4,600. Every contribution, no matter how big or small, is crucial to our efforts. Thank you.

Theocracy on the 100-Year-Plan

By Paul Sperry | Tuesday, August 15, 2006

When President Bush said we’re at ‘war with Islamic fascists,’ he was referring to Osama bin Laden and his acolytes in London trying to blow U.S. airliners out of the Atlantic skies.

But America has its own ‘Islamic fascists’ right here at home. Once they amass the numbers, they secretly plan to nullify our Bill of Rights and religious freedoms and create their own Muslim state ruled by Islamic law. They’ve got a 100-year plan, but they’re already making inroads.

Astoundingly, some of them head the allegedly moderate Muslim groups who protested Bush’s use of the phrase ‘Islamic fascists.’

The Council on American-Islamic Relations whined that the term contributes to a rising level of hostility toward Islam. ‘The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as ‘Islamic fascists’ harms our nation’s image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world,’ the group said in a press release.

‘Our nation’? Please. CAIR really only cares about the interests of one nation — the nation of Islam — and its own leaders are on record stating their desire to replace our constitutional democracy with a fascist society (as we know it) represented by sharia law.

‘Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,’ CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad once told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Ca. ‘The Quran should be the highest authority in America.’

Lest anyone think he was misquoted, CAIR’s own spokesman, Dougie ‘Ibrahim’ Hooper, let it slip to the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he essentially wants the same thing: ‘I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.’

They aren’t alone:

* The former head of the American Muslim Council — supposedly the ‘most mainstream Muslim organization in America’ —  exhorted Muslims to turn t he U.S. into an Islamic nation ruled by Quranic law even if it takes ‘a hundred years,’ according to federal court records.

* Popular New York imam Siraj Wahhaj told his flock in a taped sermon available at his mosque: ‘In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.’

* Another so-called moderate cleric, Zaid Shakir, admitted in a recent interview with the New York Times: ‘I would like to see America become a Muslim country.’

These quislings aren’t part of the fringe. They represent the Muslim establishment in America. And they are on record wishing America would be ruled by Islamic law and not the Constitution.

Now they have the gall to publicly denounce Bush for associating Islam with everything they would let an emir establish in his place: rigid, one-party theocratic rule; forcible oppression of opposing views and beliefs; collectivism; mil itarism; sexism; chauvinism; and anti-Semitism.

The evidence is overwhelming. Everywhere it is codified and put into practice, sharia law results in brutal suppression of dissent, free will and individualism. Apostates face a death sentence in not only Pakistan, but even post-Taliban Afghanistan, the supposed model for ‘Islamic democracy’ in the Muslim world. Bibles are still confiscated and churches still banned in Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims working there must still use separate roads and facilities. One of the first decrees by new ‘reform-minded’ King Abdullah was banning photos of women and censoring any anti-Wahhabi stories in newspapers throughout the kingdom. If that’s not fascism, what is?

Across the Gulf is another religious police state — run by Shiites, but no less Muslim or hateful of Jews. Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and his goose-stepping army are big fans of Hitler, the fascist’s fascist. What a surprise.

Perhaps these regimes have swerved o ff the spiritual path and no longer really follow the tenets of their faith. Actually they follow them all too well. Sharia law is plucked directly from the Quran and sunna. That’s why we still see today barbarous 1,400-year-old Bedouin justice like beheadings, amputations and stonings. Sharia also sanctions polygamy, denies women basic rights and merges mosque and state. Make no mistake, all of this is scripturally supported.

And it’s essentially what even many of the supposedly ‘hip,’ ‘enlightened’ and ‘Westernized’ leaders in the American Muslim community want to bring to our shores, as Muhammad brought centuries ago to Medina. (The Muslim American Society even refers to this country as ‘The American Medina’ in its literature.)

Even after 9-11, they’ve won a number of concessions from cities with large Muslim communities. Mosques can now override noise ordinances and blare their calls to prayer five times a day, for example. And more Muslim kids can ditch public sc hool on Muslim holidays. They see 9-11 not as a setback for their cause but a chance to ‘educate’ Americans about Islam and gain wider acceptance and bigger footholds in our society. And they’re in no rush. Abdurahman Alamoudi, the godfather of their movement, counseled patience — an Islamic Republic of America, even if it takes 100 years.

Until that time, CAIR and other Muslim activists are steadily institutionalizing Islam at the local level, exploiting the very religious freedoms and tolerances they would ban. Here are some recent milestones:

* In North Seattle, Wash., a public pool agreed to set up a swim time for Muslim women in which men, even male lifeguards, are banned.

* In Hamtramck, Mich., officials amended a noise ordinance to let mosques broadcast calls to prayer over loudspeakers — despite complaints that the Arabic chants, repeated five times a day, are a nuisance.

* In Irvington, N.J., public schools agreed to close for Muslim holidays, joining schools in Paterson and Trenton, as well as ones in Dearborn, Mich., that have recognized Islamic holy days.

* In Fairfax, Va., public schools agreed to produce local TV announcements in Arabic and Farsi.

* In San Francisco, a federal appeals court gave its blessing to Muslim role-playing exercises in California public schools, even though the pro-Islamic lessons — written by Saudi-backed consultants — appear designed to promote the religion rather than simply teach its history.

* In Kansas City, airport officials agreed to install special wash basins in restrooms for Muslim taxi drivers who complained they couldn’t easily wash their feet before praying.

What if Muslim activists could realize their dream of overturning the entire U.S. system of government in favor of a religious police state for Allah? What then? Think Iran, think Saudi. And p icture the following:

* New York without Lady Liberty — the statue would be one of the first monuments destroyed. Even the Starbucks goddess would be scrubbed from the coffee chain’s logo, as was done in Saudi Arabia.

* Women covered from head to toe while in public, forbidden from baring their legs, arms, necks, hair and even ears except in the company of other women or their husbands or close male relatives.

* Legalized domestic violence, as per the Quran. (Husbands may beat their wives, but only after verbal warnings and a period of sexual denial fail to correct their disobedience.)

* Legalized polygyny — one man married to more than one wife — with up to four wives per man.

* Men divorcing their wives simply by orally declaring ‘I divorce you’ three times. (The split is then valid. The Quran doesn’t offer the same right to wives. Also, fathers would automat ically get custody of children.)

* Women barred from voting or driving.

* Two female witnesses required in court for every one male witness.

* Thieves with amputated right hands.

* Homosexuals put to death.

* Critics of Muhammad locked up (cartoonists included).

* Apostates executed.

* Liquor stores shut down. Beer and wine yanked from grocery store shelves, along with pork products and dog food (as dogs are barred from households under Islam). Napa out of business.

* Razed churches and synagogues. Bibles removed from all hotel rooms.

* Non-Muslims driving in separate lanes, using separate bathrooms.

* Playing cards and chips banned (since gambling is haram, forbidden, by Islam). Las Vegas bankrupt.

* ‘The Three Little Pigs’ burne d, along with Piglet dolls (as pigs are considered vile in Islam).

* Toilets facing away from Mecca (so as not to offend Allah).

* Mortgages, credit cards, savings accounts, life insurance and most retirement funds outlawed (because they’re based on interest, which also is forbidden by Islam). Wall Street shuttered.

* Industries dealing in alcohol, entertainment, pork products, conventional banking services and other so-called vices forbidden by the Quran also shut down. Economic depression.

* Birthday parties forbidden (because there is no evidence in the Quran that Muhammad celebrated his birthday, and devout Muslims strive to imitate their prophet’s life in every way).

* No more Thanksgiving (replaced by Ramadan) or Christmas (replaced by Eid).

* Museums and art galleries closed (as Islam bans human representation in art).

* Media critical of the emir of the White House censored.

* Arabic as the official language of America.

* ‘In Allah We Trust’ emblazoned on our currency.

Don’t laugh — especially you 49% who told Gallup you believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States. Given high Muslim immigration and birth rates, their dream could one day be within reach. Some sharia laws are already recognized in parts of Canada and Europe. And America is no less a target of a global Islamic movement to pressure Western society into abiding by Islamic laws.

The movement is driven by the militant Muslim Brotherhood and bankrolled by Arab governments. In addition to Saudi funding, CAIR just last month got an endowment from the United Arab Emirates (which already owns the deed to CAIR’s D.C. headquarters) to help launch a new $50 million campaign to mainstream Islam in America.

Part of that campaign involves stocking U.S. librari es — first in neighborhoods, then college campuses — with pro-Islamic propaganda. It also involves pressuring corporate America to accommodate Muslim religious customs in the workplace, such as giving Muslim employees time off to attend Friday mosque and letting them wear head scarves and beards even when it violates long-standing dress codes and presents safety and security issues.

CAIR plays the race card. If board members don’t accept the group’s ‘offer,’ it cries bigotry. It’s cultural extortion, and no one should give in to it. Those who do only help the Islamic fascists achieve their subversive goal of turning America into a mullahcracy.
Click Here to support
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. He can be conacted at


Former SDS, Communist Party, and Weather Underground Extremists Defame Critics of Khalil Gibran Academy;

They Join Prior Supporters, Such as Cop-Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, in Support of KGIA

For Immediate Release

Contact: Beth Gilinsky
(212) 726-1124 or

New York, New York April 4, 2008 — .   Once again, radical Islamist groups and their enablers are attempting to silence American citizens through boycotts, name-calling, threats of lawsuits, defamatory accusations and other forms of intimidation. 

 This time, as the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) finds itself under new fire from angry parents in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn who feel KGIA is being imposed on their elementary school,  hard Leftist KGIA supporters are attempting to bolster the failing “multi-cultural” experiment by defaming their critics.  In a letter this week to Mayor Bloomberg, KGIA supporters label those who have questioned the creation, purpose, affiliates, management, and other issues regarding the Arabic school “a small group of fear-mongering bigots.” 

Among those who signed the letter to Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein were a number of well- known former leaders of extremist Leftist organizations.  For example, as reported by the open source Wikipedia, William Ayers, who is now at the University of Illinois at Chicago, reportedly was “a Weather Underground member…. he became radicalized at the University of Michigan. During his years there, he became involved in the New Left and the SDS. Ayers went underground with several comrades after their co-conspirators’ bomb accidentally exploded on March 6, 1970, destroying a Greenwich Village townhouse and killing three members of the Weather Underground…. They avoided the police and FBI while bombing high-profile government buildings—including the United States Capitol (two bombs on March 1, 1970), The Pentagon (May 19, 1972), and the Harry S Truman Building which houses the United States Department of State (on January 29, 1975)—along with several banks, police department headquarters and precincts, state and federal courthouses, and state prison administrative offices. Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn raised two children, Zayd and Malik, underground before turning themselves in in 1981, when most charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives…. Ayers published his memoirs in 2001 with the book Fugitive Days. His interview with the New York Times to promote his book was published on September 11, 200…. In this interview, he… was quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”…. In the fall of 2006, Ayers was asked not to attend a progressive educators’ conference on the basis that the organizers did not want to risk an association of their movement with his violent past. ” 

Another of those defaming critics of KGIA is Michael Klonsky, of the Small Schools Workshop who, again according to the open source Wikipedia, “…helped organize the first chapter of Students for a Democratic Society in the area. He became active in national SDS early in 1967…. During his community organizing, Klonsky began developing a proto-Marxist ideology which emphasized community and worker organizing…. In late 1969, Klonsky founded the October League, a communist party which in 1977 became the Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist. He was elected the party’s chairman…. Klonsky made several trips to China beginning in July 1977, where he was warmly received by government and Communist Party of China officials and treated to state dinners… ”
Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition (STM) has filed Freedom of Information Law requests to obtain complete information concerning textbooks, lesson plans and design documents to be used at KGIA.  Because the DOE did not comply STM was forced to file an Article 78 petition in Manhattan Supreme Court. Not surprisingly the documents turned over pursuant to the FOIL requests substantiated STM concerns.  To date the school does not have proper textbooks, curricla, or lesson plans for teaching middle and high school Arabic language and culture. What was discovered from FOIL requests is that KGIA was poorly designed and poorly thought-out.   In recent months STM has stepped up its calls for immediate closure of KGIA, and expanded its fight nationwide to halt the imposition of radical Islamist agendas in curricula, Arab language programs, history classes, textbooks, teacher training, and charter schools.  STM does not oppose the teaching of Arabic language or Arabic culture in a balanced public school curriculum offering several languages and covering all cultures.

We will not be silenced and we stand in solidarity with others who have been defamed or targeted for exposing the dangers of Islamo-fasxism and jihadism.
#                      #                      #

Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition is a grassroots organization working to help parents and teachers investigate, expose and eliminate Islamist and other ideological influence on textbooks, curricula and courses. . For more information please visit

Religion, cartoons, and the law (Cal)

Legal scholar Robert Post says publication of Muhammad cartoons, while ‘a provocative act,’ should be protected

| 21 March 2007

Carsten Juste, the Danish newspaper editor who inflamed parts of the Muslim world by publishing 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in September 2005, offered this mea culpa to The New York Times the following January: “If I had known that the lives of Danish soldiers and civilians would be threatened, if I had known that, as my finger hovered one centimeter above the send button for publishing the drawings, would I have hit it? No. No responsible editor would have done.”

In fact, the consequences of pressing that button transcended mere threats: Beyond a fatwa on the cartoonists themselves, firings and even jailings of editors who chose to reprint their work, and the forced resignation of government ministers in Italy and Sweden, more than 100 people worldwide were killed in riots triggered by what some Islamic leaders called an outrage against their religion. Even in the United States, home of the First Amendment, most major news outlets declined to run the cartoons, either on ethical grounds or for fear of contributing to further violence.

Returning to campus last week as this year’s Una’s Lecturer, former Boalt Hall professor Robert Post, now David Boies Professor of Law at Yale University, said that while the decision to publish the cartoons was “in part a provocative act,” the cartoons themselves are “rather far, legally, from hate speech,” and thus deserving of protection under the laws of a democracy — including those in Europe, where the legal questions proved less cut-and-dried than they were here.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision to publish such images — or any speech deemed offensive by members of religious groups — the question he hoped to address, Post said, is “how the law ought to respond to this outrage.”

Post, whose talk fell on the same night as cosmologist Stephen Hawking’s sold-out performance at Zellerbach Hall, told a smaller but no less engaged audience that while he teaches law, “my love has always been the humanities.” (This year’s Una’s Lecture was presented in conjunction with the Townsend Center’s “Forum on the Humanities and the Public World.”) Indeed, much of his presentation featured slides of visual images — including the 12 cartoons at the heart of the controversy — and quotes from an analysis of the cartoons by Art Spiegelman, author of the graphic novel Maus, whose June 2006 piece in Harper’s Magazine assigned the images grades of one to four bombs in what he termed the “fatwa bomb meter.”

“The Jyllands-Posten — a newspaper with a history of anti-immigrant bias — seemed somewhat disingenuous when it wrapped itself in the mantle of free speech to invite cartoonists to throw pies at the face of Muhammad,” Spiegelman wrote. But he called most of the cartoons “banal and inoffensive,” and charged U.S. news outlets that refused to show them with “political correctness that smelled of hypocrisy and fear.”

As Post recounted, the genesis of the controversy was a complaint from the author of a biography of Muhammad, who said he was unable to find anyone willing to illustrate his book. That led the arts editor of the Danish paper to issue invitations to the Danish Cartoon Society to submit their visions of the man considered to be Islam’s founder.

In Post’s aesthetic judgment, the results ranged from “anodyne” to “a little bizarre.” By all accounts, the most explosive of the images featured a bearded figure — presumably meant to represent Muhammad — with a bomb for a turban. Spiegelman gave it a three-bombs rating, calling it “hackneyed.”

In the paper on which he based his lecture, Post himself deemed the cartoons “certainly a good deal less vicious and racist than the anti-Semitic cartoons that routinely appear in the Arab press.” During his presentation he offered selections from a contest held in Iran in the wake of the controversy to lampoon the Nazi Holocaust.

Iran’s response, he said, was intended to show the hypocrisy of those who defended the publication of anti-Muslim images. But while it’s true that a few European countries — notably France and Germany — outlaw “Holocaust denial,” most have no such prohibition. “The charge wouldn’t stick in Denmark” or in most other Western nations, he said. A number of images demonstrated the propensity of non-Muslim publications to caricature iconic figures of other religious traditions, including Judaism and Christianity.

“This theme that the secular West has a right to criticize religion — all religions, equally — becomes a major theme in the controversy,” he explained.

Pacing the front of Barrows Hall’s Lipman Room like a trial lawyer addressing a jury, Post argued the need to consider the issues raised by the cartoons’ publication “in light of a theory of democracy, and what sort of freedom of speech we need for democracy to function.”

In the United States — where the First Amendment allows most speech to be regulated only on the basis of a showing that it would cause imminent harm — there is “no issue whatever that these cartoons would be protected speech,” Post said. In Europe, by contrast, “there doesn’t have to be a clear and present danger” to warrant censorship by the state.

The difference, he suggested, is rooted in the differing roles speech plays in American and European democracies. When he was teaching in Paris last year, he said, he asked his students who they viewed as the sovereign in France. “And the answer they all gave was, ‘The nation is sovereign,'” Post reported. “No one in America would say that. They’d say the people are sovereign.”

In America, he explained, speech therefore “has to do more work” than in Europe to bind people to a government they might otherwise see as illegitimate. “I didn’t vote for this man,” Post said, referring to President Bush. “And yet he represents me.”

What he called “the legitimating function of speech” arises from Americans’ ability to identify with the government based on the premise that “the government is responding to public opinion, and we’re all free to try to influence public opinion.” While this isn’t by itself enough to ensure that we are “self-governing,” he added, it is a necessary precondition for self-governance.

The question of protection for offensive cartoons is thus “a slam dunk” in the U.S., but trickier in Europe, and especially for the European left, which believes “we have a right to blaspheme, but we don’t have the right to be racist.”

Much of the debate in Europe, he said has hinged on just that question. “Are these cartoons racist? Or are they anti-religious? And if they’re anti-religious, then of course they should be protected. And if they’re racist they should be suppressed.”

But even when speech is “likely to cause discrimination” against members of a particular religion, drawing the line between protection and suppression is “a difficult and complex issue,” Post said, adding that “the most obvious way” to decide the question is to rely on the distinction between hate speech and ordinary expression.

The cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten — and available for viewing, along with other images and background information, at — are “plainly about public issues,” Post concluded, and thus constitute fair criticism, no matter how offensive some people may find them.

“They take a position on issues of public moment,” he said, “but they do not advocate discrimination or oppression or violence; they do not threaten; they do not use racist epithets or names; they do not attack individuals; they do not perpetuate an obvious untruth; they do not portray Muslims as without human dignity.”

The images, said Post, “may exacerbate stereotypes and exaggerations, but that is not the same as hate speech. That is simply the nature of most ideas.”

Orwellian Hate Crimes Legislation (9-29-07)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Health Insurance Bill for Children (, which is packed in the current Defense Appropriations bill, is a segue to socialized medicine and therefore corrupted on its face. However, the hate crimes item – a provision that is more or less invisible to the naked eye – which is included in this bill, is a pernicious attempt by the left to silence dissent against alternative lifestyles.

Hate crimes amount to thought crimes, an Orwellian notion indeed. Hate crimes legislation essentially creates a double standard in the legal system such that whosoever is protected under the bill is actually more important than the rest of us. This contradicts the very principles upon which this Republic was founded. Every criminal act is one of personal prejudice; otherwise, one wouldn’t violate someone else’s rights to serve [oneself].

To understand the implications herein, one must first grasp the notion that laws are set up to protect persons and property. A crime is just that because it entails an act of transgression against another’s liberties. By extension, one man’s liberty is another man’s restraint.

To say that homosexuals are more important than heterosexuals (which is what this bill does in fact establish) is to say that homosexuals deserve a higher tier of justice than heterosexuals and are therefore morally superior. This violates the fundamental notion of all men being created equal, a natural law, which the Constitution and Bill of Rights documents were written atop, entitling every man to impartial justice.

Hate crimes legislation is preferential justice. An attack on a homosexual is just as wrong as an attack on an evangelical Christian. Precluding speech (which is what hate crimes intends), therefore, violates the First Amendment and is a harbinger of the totalitarian state.

For veracity, the Black Panthers, al Qaeda and the KKK can all speak freely under the First Amendment [of the Bill of Rights], as long as they gather peacefully in public and as long as they aren’t spreading death propaganda specifically aimed at persons to intimidate them or to conspire against them for the purposes of promoting their bodily harm or murder.

The rights of individuals, therefore, are already protected [equally] under the American Frame of Government. What this specific [hate crimes] bill and others like it do is to make the protection of persons preferential, which is a form of redistributive justice, as it were. One doesn’t need to feel prejudice against any certain group to acknowledge that establishing preferential justice [for the ostensible purpose of promoting equal justice] is an exercise in futility with drastically negative side effects.

First of all, if one were to target [homosexuals, e.g.] with criminal intent, one would be charged with a crime in the same manner as if one were to target heterosexuals with criminal intent. The aim of this type of legislation, therefore, is not ‘equal justice’, but insulation from criticism. Moreover, the implications of said insulation are suppressed insofar as this line item’s sleaze is obfuscated by an ostensibly unchallengeable moral cause (e.g., Children’s Health).

In the same vein that white [men’s] rights have been usurped by Kennedy and LBJ under the cover of an illicit war (e.g. Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity)*, Dems are smuggling in this hate crimes provision to silence Christians at the pulpit as well as in all spheres of the body politic. To be sure, making verbiage illegal is tantamount to rendering the thought of said verbiage illegal in substance, which is mind control. Moreover, for the purpose of making an inverted deduction to connect the notion of a physical attack to a verbal one, establishing hate crimes for homosexuals is a segue for making speech against their behavior illegal.

Make no mistake, this bill will make certain aspects of the Bible illegal to quote (e.g., referring to sex sin, and specifically, sodomy, as an ‘abomination’). Condemnation can be construed as an attack on a person’s character, which, in turn, may be interpreted as malicious intimidation with intent to harm. To be sure, there are provisions against libel and slander in our government documents already, but they apply to all persons equally.

Let’s put this argument in another light and take it to its logical conclusion: If a hate crime were provisioned for white men, a specific group in society, a recent NY Times advertisement slandering Gen. Petraeus would be punishable by law and George Soros would be going to jail for inciting hate and soliciting murder†.

The point of all this is that hate crimes legislation usurps individual freedom of speech in order to protect particular classes from criticism. This, in effect, will lead us to become intellectually guarded, which precludes open and honest debate about reality – i.e., the truth. In turn, this would render us impotent to govern ourselves as we would necessarily be shrouded in smoke reflected by mirrors. People who demand insulation from criticism aren’t accountable to their peers and as such, are incapable of living in a free society with said peers.

People who live in a free society are [independent of government mind control] because they are competent enough to make their own decisions. Once we agree to allow the government to take away our free speech (which invariably attends hate crime legislation), we then give up our rights to make our own decisions. After all, if we aren’t allowed the possibility to condemn specific behavior or a particular course of action, then we are relegated to accepting that behavior or specific course. In essence, this bill and others like it, notwithstanding the ostensibly good intentions, will enslave us to the will of an all-powerful bureaucracy.

We need to look no further than Europe to see the effects of hate crimes legislation. France, one of the most intellectually vital places on earth, has become a very intellectually guarded place, and concomitantly, a very dangerous place to live. Whatever you cannot condemn controls you. Moreover, based on the premise that behavioral norms are mutually exclusive, that which we cannot reject [by will or law] we must accept. In effect, hate crimes legislation imposes the character of the protected class on society-at-large.

Some people will enjoy the liberty [of others’ restraint], but others will be unduly affected in a negative way. It is unfair, therefore, to impose such restrictions on a society at the federal level. If particular municipalities or states want to issue hate crimes laws, then I suggest they try it out. This is in no way binding on other cities or states, but at least in the laboratories of individual localities, the merits of such legislation can be judged and compared.

This is a states’ rights issue††; if hate crimes are passed in one place, then the law should be upheld there. Moreover, in other localities, where there are no [hate crimes] laws, people who would otherwise benefit from said laws either need to accept that their behavioral norms aren’t universal, develop a thicker skin, change their lifestyle habits, or move to a locality with the legal protection in place to insulate them.

This hate crimes bill will serve the interests of those advocating alternative lifestyles at the expense of the body politic’s freedom of expression and religious liberties, the latter being the foundation upon which our Republic stands. Insofar as the stifling of free speech precludes dissemination of knowledge, this act impedes self-government.

Voltaire proclaimed, “I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” because of the self-evident truth that usurpation of free speech liberties is a slippery slope to mind control and therefore, tyranny. We cannot keep our Republic if individuals aren’t allowed to explore various options and ideas and if these individuals aren’t allowed to freely accept or condemn whatever ideas or options they choose. To that end, hate crimes legislation is a harbinger of doom for freedom, liberty and justice for all.

The antidote for deterring crimes against innocents is swift and just punishment for the same, not silencing dissenters against human behavior (or government influence for that matter).

Finally, to grasp the big picture and speak to the issues squarely, religious fundamentalists who denounce homosexuality are no less entitled to their opinions than anti-American apologists who denounce Pres. Bush. We have a very open, civic and libertarian culture here in America that rests upon enlightenment tradition; to that end, wooden interpretations of the OT will likely wreak as much havoc on this society as Wahabbi sharia. Ignorance, then, is the culprit of criminal acts targeted against gays and other innocent people†††, not free speech. And this social problem should be dealt with accordingly.

Here’s what my pastor says about sex sin:

“I think heterosexual sin is more acceptable in most church circles than homosexual sin. And that is wrong! Sexual sin is sexual sin. And we’ve got to be honest enough to admit that we tend to condemn sins we’re not committing. I call them lighting rod sins. We single out sins we don’t struggle with and we channel our condemnation towards them. So if I’m greedy I have a problem with gluttons or if I’m gluttonous I have a problem with greed. It’s disingenuous. And the truth of the matter is this—God hates moral pride more than homosexuality or adultery or pornography.

“Having said that let me say this: we live in a society where it is wrong to say something is wrong. And that’s wrong. And we need the moral courage to tactfully, thoughtfully, and gracefully speak the truth in love. We ought to be more concerned about being biblically correct than politically correct. So here is the biblical bottom line: sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex is a sacred covenant between a husband and a wife. Period,” (Mark Batterson, NCC, 912/07).