Video: Most intellectually vacant Congressman wants Constitutional Amendment to control Freedom of Speech

In 2010, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed a concern that if the island of Guam became overly populated that it might 'capsize' and 'tip over'. In 2012, he's now on record as making the charge that the private sector is taking over the government and that the private sector is "privatizing every aspect of our lives, as we know it."

Johnson's solution? A constitutional amendment that puts controls on the First amendment.

Note, too, how Johnson bemoans the racial division that exists in this country four years after Barack Obama was elected (such irony is apparently lost on people who think islands float).

Whack. Freakin'. Job.

Via MRC:



Remember this? Imagine that in Johnson's world, expressing fear that an island might capsize would be protected speech while expressing other positions would be subjected to restrictions. If ANY speech did meet the test of being right for suppression, it would be this absurdity enunciated by Johnson. Luckily, we'd like him to keep talking.



Question for Mr. Johnson: If the people on Guam have less freedom of speech rights, does that increase or decrease the chances of that island tipping over?

Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather

Obama administration called out on Benghazi narrative by... CNN?

The issue of whether the attack on our Benghazi consulate was the spontaneous result of the anti-Muhammad film or a planned terrorist attack has all but been put to bed. The issue that hasn't been put to bed is why the Obama administration chose to enunciate the false talk track and not the true one - that it was indeed a terrorist attack.

Reports are in abundance that the CIA knew the truth within 24 hours. Yet, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows 120 hours after the attack and repeatedly pushed the notion that it was spawned by the video.

CNN, the network that brought us the contents of Ambassador Christopher Stevens' diary seems to be asking some tough questions. In the exchange below, between Erin Burnett and her network's foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott, we learn that Labott's intelligence contacts told her the CIA knew within 24 hours that the attack on the consulate was coordinated. Yet, somehow the CIA is being expected to take the fall for Rice's comments several days later?

Burnett also asks a very prescient question toward the end of this exchange. Specifically, why wasn't Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the one making the rounds on the 9/16/12 Sunday shows instead of Rice? After all, Stevens was Hillary's employee and the consulate where he was housed was an extension of the State Department, which is out of Rice's purview. Labott essentially says that Hillary's political seasoning and experience likely told her that telling the lie was untenable, she knew it, and someone other than her needed to push it.

On a side note, using the mainstream media's standards for conservatives, why isn't it considered racist to protect Hillary by sending Rice, who happens to be black, out to lie when it was Hillary's lie to tell?

Instead, the buck stops with the... U.N. Ambassador?

Via CNN (h/t Hot Air):



Rice's role in this particular instance is reminiscent of Jim Carrey's role with Globodyne. Sent out to spin the un-spinnable, Carrey takes the fall in much the same way Rice seems to be doing.

Ignore Ralph Nader... if you can.



Now that the lie about the Benghazi attacks being the spontaneous result of an anti-Muhammad film has become all but proven, another question that must be answered is why it was told in the first place. There very well may be several reasons, like spiking the bin Laden football at the DNC, five days before the attack but there's a more nefarious possibility - the same motive the Muslim world has for telling the same lie.

Attacking our first amendment right of free speech.

Let's not forget this exchange between Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General over the Civil Rights division, back in July. I've posted this before but in light of Rice's words being demonstrably false, coupled with their being congruent with the Muslim Brotherhood's narrative that the video was responsible, this exchange is perhaps a bit more timely:

Victory for First Amendment; Press gets administration to admit the truth about Benghazi

With all the talk about whether any speech against Islam should be criminalized, perhaps we should look at the upside of freedom of speech and possibly one of the reasons it rankles the Obama administration. That would be freedom of the press. For more than a week after the act of war committed against a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed - including our ambassador to that country - White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted that the attack was the result of a crudely made video in the United States.

Here is a montage of Carney's responses to questions about the attack. These excerpts take place between 9/12/12 - 9/19/12.

Via Right Newz:



Freedom of speech in general - and freedom of the press in particular - obviously dogged Carney and the administration. It helped force both to admit the truth.

That truth?

The attack on our consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack. On Air Force One - at the end of the above video - Carney admitted to a press gaggle that very thing, saying it was "self evident". Even NBC news had to report that because it came straight from the administration's mouthpiece.

Without freedom of the press, the Obama administration could have continued to further the lie that the attacks were spawned by an anti-Muhammad video. That could lead to shifts in policy that actually serve to further an anti-free speech agenda, which many leaders in the Muslim world have. Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and Turkey's Foreign Minister seem to share in that agenda.

Can you imagine a press corps. challenging the likes of Mursi over such matters?

The Obama administration is likely quite roiled at the fact it has egg on its face as a result. Had it been allowed to let such a lie take root as fact, the first amendment to the Constitution they all took an oath to protect and defend would have been in even greater danger; the conditions for policies that could potentially criminalize criticism of Islam would become even more ripe.

The irony is that as frustrated as administration officials may be at the press for dragging them to the truth, in so doing, the press actually helped to protect the first amendment rights of those same administration officials.

Accountability is uncomfortable but that doesn't make it any less right.

Obama Administration and Muslim Brotherhood; why the same narrative about the movie?

In the days after the September 11th attacks of 2012, practically every senior member of the Obama administration insisted that the reason for the riots / attacks could be traced back to a 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible' video that the Muslim world found insulting. As they say, the dam has broken on that narrative.

Via CNS News:

As more senior administration officials use the word “terrorism” in describing the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s repeated insistence five days later that the incident was a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure anti-Islam video continues to draw scrutiny and criticism.

Fox News reports that administration officials knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was terrorism.

Since we now know that President Barack Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House spokesman Jay Carney all lied about the crudely produced Innocence of Muslims video being responsible for riots, we deserve to know why.

Charles Krauthammer makes the very credible case that the reason for the deception had to do with the fact that five days prior to 9/11, at the Democratic National Convention, the President's party spiked the football repeatedly on the Obama administration's crowning achievement - the killing of bin Laden.

Consider another reason, whether exclusive or in conjunction with what Krauthammer charges. Does the administration embrace the idea of blaming the video for the same reason the leaders in the Muslim world do - to attack free speech? It's quite clear through a litany of examples that when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, this administration sees it as an obstacle and if there is one thing that is standing in its way, being called out on its lies is definitely front and center.

We already know why the Muslim world is blaming the video. The Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi, told us while at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) this week.

It's about going after Americans' first amendment right of free speech.

So, the Obama administration lied about the video being responsible. By adopting that lie in the first place, it aligned itself with the likes of Mursi and the radical elements of the Muslim world.

Again, why would the Obama administration lie while taking the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of that lie?

One of the many elephants in the room here is Mursi's connection to the mother of Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin. Mursi's wife (Najla Mahmoud) and Huma's mother (Saleha Abedin) represent two of the 63 leaders within the Muslim Sisterhood. This is relevant for at least two reasons. First, we know the administration - to include Hillary Clinton herself - lied about the video being responsible for the attacks. Second, it was the same lie being pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Again, in committing this egregious lie, the administration aligned itself with the Brotherhood on yet another issue.

Why, why, why?

Here is Mursi's not so subtle suggestion that Americans should not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.

Via GWP:

Innocence of Muslims producer arrested by the Feds

Folks, the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for violating his parole may seem like a victory for Muslim and leftist forces who want to squash our First Amendment right of free speech but, as they say, things aren't at all what they seem. Early indications are that his arrest is indeed a victory for the good guys.

Via the Smoking Gun:

The producer of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has been arrested for violating terms of his probation and is set for an appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Christina Snyder, who sentenced him in June 2010 following a bank fraud conviction.

Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the “Innocence of Muslim” production is central to the government's new charge.

Nakoula (seen above) was sentenced to 21 months in prison to be followed by six months in a halfway house. Upon completion of the custodial term, he was placed on probation for five years.

Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”

While producing “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula repeatedly used the alias “Sam Bacile” (and other variants) in communications, online postings, and dealings with cast and crew working on the film.

Nakoula has a history of criminal behavior and has been on parole ever since he was convicted for his role in a bank fraud scheme back in 2010. That's why he was arrested, not because he made an anti-Muhammad film. The narrative being pushed by the mainstream media, in fact, has been that Nakoula is a Coptic Christian.

In reality, according to Shoebat, Nakoula gave an interview in Arabic in which he admitted that he is neither Christian nor Jew.

Moreover, the crimes he was found guilty of committing were done in conjunction with a man named Eiad Salameh, a Muslim fundamentalist who hates Christians and Jews.

In short, the arrest of Nakoula should be cheered by conservatives, Christians, and Jews. He broke the law and quite possibly scammed everyone who was even remotely involved in the production of the film.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi speaks at Clinton Global Initiative

Yesterday, I posted about Mitt Romney's misguided decision to speak at Clinton Global Initiative annual conference. It appears that decision was more misguided than previously thought because in addition to Romney's speech, one was given by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Mursi. Here is the relevant excerpt Via GWP:

“Demonstrations and clashes recently broke out in a large number of Arab and Islamic countries in response to an incident in response to the defamation. We must acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression. We must also recognize that such freedom comes with responsibilities especially when it has serious implications for international peace.”

Here's the video:



Again, need we be reminded that Mursi's wife and the mother of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin are colleagues in their roles as two of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood?

Video: White House pushing same false narrative as Sharia law proponents

The 9/11/12 attacks on our embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, were coordinated and planned ahead of time. The narrative that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible is not just one that proponents of Sharia law wanted pushed after the fact. It is now obvious that it is a narrative the White House wanted to push as well. The Obama administration did so while knowing the narrative was false.

Why would it do so unless it agreed with the motivations of those Sharia law proponents, which include a usurpation of our first amendment rights?

Here is video of Catherine Herridge on Fox News explaining her find.

Via GWP:

Hillary won't explain her Mormon/Muslim double standard but Lawrence O'Donnell did

One could argue that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has directed more anger at the anti-Muhammad film that the administration has pointed to for rioting and murder in the Middle East, than toward the rioters and murderers of the Middle East. In fact, Clinton called the film "disgusting and reprehensible" but seemed to give the rioters a parental-like scolding.

So the standard is set, right? Criticizing religion is reprehensible and disgusting in the eyes of Hillary Clinton.

Uh, not so much.

The Wall Street Journal reported on her appearance last year at a Broadway musical that essentially shredded a different religion - Mormonism:

'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? I can't tell you, because it's unprintable in a family newspaper.

On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.

The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

Ok, so why the double standard? Don't hold your breath waiting for Hillary to tell you. She has an entire historical slew of things she can't explain - and doesn't attempt to.

However, perhaps MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell can tell us. Actually, he did just that during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt in 2007. Here is a transcript of the relevant exchange via NewsBusters (audio follows):

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. [...]

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

O’DONNELL: I agree.

HEWITT: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

CLICK HERE and fast forward to the 18:00 mark to hear the exchange.

By the way, O'Donnell's admission that he would like to criticize Islam but won't might be perceived by Muslims as 'hate thought'.

On a semi-related note, it would appear that we have another in a long line of opportunities for Mitt Romney to take the gloves off but... we also have a long line of squandered opportunities by Mitt to do so because, well, he's so concerned about those 5%-10% of independents who don't know what they want.

Saudi Grand Mufti reveals what Embassy attacks really all about

The U.S. Embassy attacks were not about a film; they were about an attack on one of the most basic rights guaranteed to Americans - the freedom to criticize with speech. It would appear that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has all but confirmed that.

Via CNS News:

Six months after declaring that all churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called at the weekend for a global ban on insults targeting all religious “prophets and messengers,” a category that, from a Muslim perspective, includes Jesus Christ.

Saturday’s demand by Saudi grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh came on the same day that another of Sunni Islam’s most prominent figures, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University grand imam Ahmed el-Tayyeb, made a similar appeal.

Both men were reacting to an amateur video satirizing Mohammed, whose emergence on the Internet has been blamed for protests targeting American diplomatic missions across the Islamic world. According to wire services at least 12 deaths have been linked to the protests since Thursday, with deaths reported in Tunisia, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt.

The two clerics’ calls are a new salvo in an unremitting campaign by Islamic political and religious leaders, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to pressure non-Muslims to treat Islam with deference.

It would seem that this Mufti has told us the reason for the attacks.

Obama Administration pushed 'Religious Intolerance' Resolution

Those attacks on U.S. embassies are not only looking more like a Middle Eastern nudge toward suppression of free speech but also an attempt to make the Obama administration follow through on a U.N. Resolution it supported last year. In a sane world, this might be considered an unintended consequence but under Obama, very few consequences are unintended.

Via CNS News from December of 2011:

The U.N. General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”

No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, which was as a result adopted “by consensus.”

The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.

Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling.

Critics regard the measure as an attempt to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home.

Gee, I wonder how many figures in the Muslim world decided to try to "implement" the resolution by attacking U.S. Embassies on 9/11.

h/t GWP

Aren't our Generals supposed to DEFEND the Constitution?

I realize that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey is to follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief but whether he picked up the phone and called Florida pastor Terry Jones to chill first amendment rights on his own or at the behest of the President makes little difference. Not only isn't it Dempsey's place to do so but his first priority is to defend the rights of all Americans NOT to have their rights chilled at all.

That apparently didn't stop him from picking up the phone and calling Jones.

Via Al Arabiya News:

The U.S. military’s top officer has urged a controversial Christian pastor to disavow a film that has ignited violent protests over its portrayal of the Islamic faith, a spokesman said Wednesday.

A day after a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi possibly sparked by the movie, General Martin Dempsey made a direct appeal to Pastor Terry Jones to reject the film to defuse tensions.

“In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” his spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said in an email.

“He asked Mr Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film,” he said.

What kind of message does this send to the Arab world? Note the news source that ran this story.

Moreover, apparently taking a cue from the actions of Dempsey is USA Today writer, Anthea Butler, who is actually siding with Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi by calling for the arrest of the man responsible for making the film that has allegedly so enflamed the Arab world. While doing so, Butler cites Dempsey.

Via USA Today:

My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment. My tweets reflected my exasperation that as a religion professor, it is difficult to teach the facts when movies such as Bacile's Innocence of Muslims are taken as both truth and propaganda, and used against innocent Americans.

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film's actors say they were duped.

Butler then argues that the difference between Bacile's film and The Last Temptation of Christ, which was insulting to Christianity is that Muslims reacted differently than Christians did. Therefore, Bacile should be responsible.

IT'S DELUSIONAL THINKING!

Here is where we get to the realm of unintended consequences on Dempsey's part; Butler uses his actions to attempt to make her case:

Bacile's movie does not excuse the rioting in Libya and Egypt, or the murder of Americans. That is deplorable. Unfortunately, people like Bacile and Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who provoked international controversy by burning copies of the Quran, have a tremendous impact on religious tolerance and U.S. foreign policy.

Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile's film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.

Essentially, Butler is saying Islam's problem with our freedom of speech should become our problem.

That's like saying players who lose a championship game should be held to account for the angry fans rioting in the streets.

Assistant Attorney General blatantly avoids defense of First Amendment

Two very important names here. First, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is one of the five Congressmen who signed five separate letters to various IG's. Those letters call for investigations into the potential of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. Second, Thomas E. Perez is the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

At what appears to be a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Franks asked Perez a very simple question about whether the latter would pledge to never move forward any policy that would criminalize criticism of any religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment (note: there is a movement afoot to criminalize criticism of Islam). Believe it or not, Perez would not answer the question, a reality that should send chills down your spine (not a tingle up your leg).

Perez has an interesting history but first, this video is a must-see (h/t WZ):



If you remember the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voting rights case from 2008, Thomas Perez was at the center of it. J. Christian Adams actually resigned his position as an Attorney at the Voting Rights Section back in 2010, in large part because of the actions of Perez. Check out this interview he gave to Fox's Megyn Kelly two years ago. Pay attention at the 1:30 mark where Adams implies (without saying it) that he resigned when it became obvious that Perez was going to commit perjury.

For the record, the NBPP is a Muslim organization.

In December of 2009, Perez spoke at the Muslim Public Affairs Council's (MPAC) National Conference in Long Beach, CA. Yes, MPAC is linked to CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group whose leader (Nihad Awad) expressed support for Hamas.

Here are some excerpts from Perez's speech to MPAC:

As‐Salamu Alaykum to all of you. Thank you, Salam, for that introduction and for your dedication and your hard work leading MPAC. MPAC is an organization that represents not just the best of the American Muslim Community, but the best of America.

Really? How about CAIR, Mr. Perez? How about this?

Today, I am here to assure you that as the Muslim‐American community continues to fight against forces of bigotry, fear and hate that are far too prevalent in our nation, you have the power of the United States Government behind you.

That is truly a scary statement in light of the exchange between Perez and Franks. As for bigotry and hate, the founder of MPAC (Salam al-Marayati) suggested that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks and he did so on the same day they took place. Leader / Board Member Mahdi Bray has consistently expressed anti-Semitic positions and helped to raise money for Hamas in a Florida mosque. Does Perez not see Hamas as bigoted or hateful?

Perez also talked about the Fort Hood massacre, which had taken place only weeks before...

For the last few weeks, we as a nation have been grieving the loss of thirteen brave men and women at Fort Hood, and are praying for the swift recovery of the wounded. I know that Muslim Americans are not only grieving, but are also fearful of irrational and unjustifiable acts of misplaced vengeance. Since the day of the tragedy, the Civil Rights Division has kept in close contact with the community to insure that we act swiftly against any incidents of backlash.

As we now know, this type of thinking is what prevented Nidal Malik Hasan from being dealt with prior to his bloody Jihad.

On a side note, Perez's name was at the top of the lawsuit filed against Joe Arpaio back in 2010.

Here is Rep. Franks' website.

Catholic Bishops preparing for Civil Disobedience

It's pretty safe to say that any administration that agitates the Catholic Church to this degree is showing reckless disregard for the first amendment and is intolerant.

Via CNS News:

Having organized 43 plaintiffs—including the archdioceses of New York and Washington and the University of Notre Dame—to file 12 different lawsuits against the Obama administration last Monday alleging the administration is violating the religious freedom of Catholics, the Catholic bishops of the United States are now preparing Catholics for what may be the most massive campaign of civil disobedience in this country since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and early 1960s.

“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” the bishops state in a document developed to be inserted into church bulletins in Catholic parishes around the country in June.

“Every effort must be made to repeal them,” the bishops say in the document, which is already posted on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”

The bulletin insert reminds Catholic parishioners that the bishops have called for “A Fortnight of Freedom”—which they have described as “a special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action”—to take place from June 21 to July 4.

The elites always seem to twist themselves into pretzels to avoid calling the west's war with Islam a religious war. Meanwhile, we have a religious war right here, being waged by the Barack Obama administration against the Catholic Church.

Catholic Bishops hitting the Streets over Contraception, in June

Catholic Bishops penned strong letters expressing their disapproval of Obama's HHS contraception mandate earlier this year. Though there has been a consistent murmur of disagreement since, there has been little action. That is all set to change on June 21st, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be taking their righteous anger to the streets.

Via Newsmax:

The protests, dubbed “A Fortnight for Freedom” will be an “unprecedented, aggressive attack” against policies that church leaders see as an assault on religious freedom, said Catholic Advocate chairman Deal Hudson.

“The bishops are seeing – rightly – a pattern of emerging of hostility towards the Catholic faith for upholding protection of the life of the unborn and because of its position on contraception,” said Hudson.

And Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League pointed out to Newsmax that the protests will come around the time the Supreme Court issues its judgment on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Unless the justices throw the act out completely, the protests could not be timed better, he said.

“If the individual mandate falls and the rest stands it will be more important than ever for Catholics to step forward and get involved,” said Donohue. “We will have to make the point that we are not going anywhere.”

Donohue said the mandate to make insurance companies cover not only contraceptives but abortion-inducing drugs is the key, he said. “It was done on purpose as a wedge to open the door. If we don’t fight it the next step is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion facilities,” he said.

“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me want to reach for the vomit bag.”

Donohue praised the bishops for their proactive stance “if for no other reason than to make the point that they are furious,” he said.

“Over the years there have been times when the resolve of the bishops wasn’t quite what we wanted it to be. Today that resolve is extremely strong,” he said.

The two weeks of protest has been called by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “That is not the type of body that goes out of its way to pick a fight,” Catholic Advocate’s Hudson pointed out.

“That is precisely what makes this so unusual a moment. The bishops have been provoked to such a degree that they will go to this extreme. They would prefer quiet negotiations leading to a principled compromise, instead they are talking about the probability of civil disobedience.”

The article goes on to make the point that Catholic Bishops in robes being put in handcuffs all across the country would be an extremely powerful visual for Obama to have to deal with. OWS'rs love to portray themselves as victims of overzealous police officers; it's why they're so provocative. That said, their tactics have grown tiresome.

If you're Catholic, call your priest or Bishop and ask about how they're participating.

Read it all.

Video: Muslim Judge in Pennsylvania on CNN

Consider this guy busted. His name is Mark Martin and he is a Muslim Judge from Pennsylvania. He presided over a case in which an atheist named Ernest Perce was allegedly assaulted by a Muslim bystander during a Halloween parade. Perce was dressed as a "Muhammad Zombie" and his Muslim assailant was so offended and so nervous that he dialed 9-4-4 instead of 9-1-1 in an attempt to report Perce for doing something illegal (dressing up as a Muhammad Zombie is not illegal).

According to an article by Pamela Geller at American Thinker, Martin has denied that he's a Muslim, despite his confession to the contrary, which can be heard on the audio recording of the trial; it was released by Perce on YouTube and can be heard HERE.

Today, Martin - who is clearly on defense now - appeared on CNN and was interviewed by Soledad O'Brien about his ruling, which was for the Muslim assailant. As Martin issued his ruling, it sounded more like a defense of Islam than of the U.S. Constitution. Perce was chastised and called a "doofus" by Martin, who ultimately ruled in favor of the Muslim defendant.

Anyway, here is Martin's appearance on CNN. Pay particularly close attention at the end as Martin actually compares Perce to the KKK while making the argument that just because the Klan had the first amendment right to wear sheets didn't mean that it was right.

Uh, Mr. Muslim Judge, the KKK dressed in white sheets before they went on killing sprees that likely began with assaults. In this case, the guy you compare to the KKK wasn't looking to hurt anyone. In fact, he was the one assaulted.

Lame-O



h/t Shoebat via Hot Air

Video: Democrat says "We're not looking at the Constitution..." on Contraception Mandate

I'd say that this is unprecedented but it's really not. However, it does peel back another layer of the hidden Democratic agenda. Back in April of 2010, Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) told Adam Sharp of Sharp Elbows that he "doesn't worry about the Constitution" during a town hall meeting at which he defended Obamacare.

Fast forward to just this week at another town hall. This time, the speaker is Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and the subject is the HHS mandate that says religious providers must offer insurance to its employees that covers contraception. While Obamacare was primarily about the Individual mandate relative to the commerce clause, this mandate has to do with the very first amendment to the constitution. When Hochul was called on it, she had the same response as Hare.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:



For grins, here is then Rep. Phil Hare in April of 2010:

The President Impeached for Lying wants Truth Squad to Police Internet

The palpably laughable irony just keeps rolling along. President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. No one commits the act better. Remember his definition of the word 'is?' Clinton also suggested that this government currently being led by the oh, so extremely transparent Obama administration should create such an entity. If not the U.S. government, how about the United Nations? After all, they have an excellent record when it comes to transparency.

Via POLITICO:

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

“Let’s say the U.S. did it, it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn’t think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out,” Clinton said.

When you stop laughing at that, how about this? As an example of what he has in mind, Clinton points to liberal lapdog media entities like NPR or the BBC:

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

Gee, I wonder if this has anything with the controversy over Common reciting poetry at the White House. The cop killer Common reveres so much - Assata Shakur - was sprung from prison by none other than Susan Rosenberg, a Weather Underground member whom Bill Clinton pardoned in 2001.

I didn't learn that on NPR or BBC. I learned it courtesy of Al Gore's invention.

Read it all.

Pennsylvania Court uses Sharia Law in Decision on Will

Plant this story firmly in the 'Creeping Sharia' category. At first blush it might not look that bad but remember, those who want Islamic law in the United States push it incrementally. This is a prime example and the court's decision sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine if a man leaves a will that says 1/8 of his estate is to go to each of his sons and 1/16 of that estate is to go to each of his daughters. Assuming he was of sound mind when he wrote the will, one would think those wishes should be honored. Though they appear sexist, that's why they call it a 'will.'

Now, suppose a Muslim male simply states in his will that his estate is to be divided among his family according to Sharia Law, which calls for distribution of that estate in the same 1/8 and 1/16 manner. Does the U.S. Constitution allow for a judge to rule in such a way? The short answer is no.

Here is the relevant part of the will of Abbas Alkafaji via Volokh:

(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, ... after reducing all costs associated with the house.... [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia....

(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”

Aside from precedent that states American courts cannot rule on religious law, this case highlights exactly why Sharia Law is not a First Amendment issue; it is an Article VI issue, which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This judge should have distributed the man's will according to American law and let his beneficiaries duke it out on the back end. Period.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Videos: Rabid Mob Attempts to Attack Terry Jones in Dearborn, MI

Last week, Florida Pastor Terry Jones was in Dearbornistan, MI to protest in front of a mosque. A quick trial was called and it was not only ruled that he could not conduct that protest but that he couldn't go anywhere near the mosque for three years. One week later, Jones was in Dearborn to protest in front of City Hall. His group was easily outnumbered by counter-protesters. The only things separating the two were barricades and four lanes of traffic. The counter-protesters broke through the barricades and crossed all four lanes, ostensibly to do physical harm. The only thing stopping them were riot police.

Via Click On Detroit:

DEARBORN, Mich. -- Florida pastor Terry Jones was outside Dearborn's City Hall for his planned 5 p.m. protest, drawing a crowd of hundreds.

"We're glad to be back," he told reporters. "We're going to talk about a number of issues. Of course Sharia, jihad, what happened last week and we're even going to be talking about president Obama's reelection."

Counter-protesters lined Michigan Avenue across the street from City Hall. About an hour into the protest, the crowds broke the barricades and a police line. They rushed the street but were quickly contained by riot police crews.

The crowd was throwing water bottles and shoes at supporters of Jones. Police worked to push the crowd back across Michigan Avenue.

At least one arrest was made.

There are several videos available at Click On Detroit. Here is an on-the-ground news report - with shots from above via helicopter - as the barricades fell. Take note as the reporter speaks of a few local Muslim leaders who were helping police discourage counter-protester behavior. Make no mistake, that is not because they agree with Jones or even because they necessarily agree with his right to speak. Instead, they understand optics and knew the counter-protesters' behavior was bad for business.

Those counter-protesters kinda remind you of the Tea Party, right? Puhlease.

Here is another angle (from the side of the counter-protesters):



h/t Weasel Zippers