Eriq Gardner / Hollywood Reporter : FOX NEWS SUES DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE
Courageous Muslim Reformer Raheel Raza Confronts Tariq Ramadan
Originally posted here:
Courageous Muslim Reformer Raheel Raza Confronts Tariq Ramadan
Justice Stephen Breyer: Burning the Koran May Not be Protected By the First Amendment (Even though burning the American Flag Is)
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said on ABC ‘s “Good Morning America” yesterday that he’s not prepared to conclude — in the internet age, particularly – that the First Amendment would protect the burning of the Koran , despite Supreme Court precedent that protects the burning of the American flag as free expression. This startling statement is very important because President Obama has said that Justice Breyer is his role model for the ideal kind of Supreme Court justice he would nominate. And, less than half way through his first term as President, Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices in Breyer’s mold, if not even more to the Left – Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Referring to a ninety year old First Amendment decision by Supreme Court Justice Holmes, in which Holmes said that the First Amendment doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, Breyer commented to the “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos: Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death? Stephanopoulos did not press Justice Breyer on this shocking statement. If Breyer goes on TV and introduces an idea with implications that could erode freedom of speech and press, why the silence from the mainstream media? Are they just plain dumb or do they harbor the view that any action which could be considered ‘Islamophobia’ should be struck down as out of bounds? I think it is a bit of both. Therefore , web sites like NewsReal B log will have to fill the information gap. First of all, Breyer distorted what Justice Holmes had actually said. Holmes wrote in Schenk v. United States: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Breyer conveniently left out the falsehood part. Shouting out a maliciously false scare of imminent danger to life and limb in a tightly packed environment with few exits, which is intended to cause life-threatening panic, cannot be compared to burning an object that symbolizes what a person believes stands for something evil , so long as it is done in a safe and secure manner. I am not saying that burning a Koran is a sensible thing to do. No doubt, burning the Koran is deeply offensive to Muslims. Along with many other non-Muslim Americans, I too think that burning the Koran is a needlessly offensive act. Likewise, burning the American flag is highlyoffensive to many Americans. But performing an offensive act safely with one’s own property to express one’s own belief – no matter how wrong-headed it may be - is protected free speech. The one recent exception to this First Amendment protection was the Supreme Court case of Virginia v. Black , in which the Court ruled that state laws could criminalize burning the cross – an act most closely associated with the KKK’s history of violence against African-Americans – so long as the cross burning was done for the purpose of intimidating African-Americans. Whether or not the Virginia v. Black case was correctly decided, it is not relevant here. Burning the Koran, while offensive, is not in itself an act of intimidation against Muslims. In fact, it can be more accurately described as a symbolic act condemning intimidation by radical Muslims who are inspired to commit violence against Americans at the drop of a hat in the name of Allah. They do not need a reason. Their modus operandi is violence against the ‘infidel’ non-believers. Whether it is a Danish cartoon lampooning Islam’s prophet Muhammad or any other expressive speech or conduct considered a “defamation” of Islam, there will always be a manufactured excuse by radical Muslims for their violence. Where do we draw the line? Justice Breyer advocates using international norms and foreign law to interpret the United States Constitution. What does that really mean? After all, the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council have passed numerous resolutions declaring that any free expression that “defames” religions – specifically Islam – is a violation of international law. In many countries – including in Europe – speech considered insulting to a religious group could be deemed hate speech in violation of their laws. Is that where Justice Breyer – President Obama’s role model for the ideal Supreme Court justice – wants to take our First Amendment? Apparently so. Joseph A. Klein is the author of a new book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.
Follow this link:
Justice Stephen Breyer: Burning the Koran May Not be Protected By the First Amendment (Even though burning the American Flag Is)
Burning The Koran Is Unconstitutional? Says Who? Only A Supreme Court Justice
We don’t live under the Constitution in this country anymore. Instead, we have conservative judges who follow the Constitution and liberal judges who take whatever position is currently fashionable on the Left, and then they call that Constitutional law. In other words, justice isn’t blind in this country, it’s random. If you want a great example of how it works, look at Stephen Breyer’s Koran comments , During an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor’s plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn’t convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future. “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told George Stephanopoulos during the GMA interview, referring to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in a 1919 Supreme Court decision that addressed Freedom of Speech. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” So, according to Breyer’s reasoning, can you burn a flag? Sure. It’s protected speech. A Bible? Sure. A Talmud? Yes. Copies of Atlas Shrugged ? Yeah, why not? But, a Koran: No, that might cause the cRaZY mUsLiMs to riot. Can’t have that! Continue reading at Right Wing News .
Originally posted here:
Burning The Koran Is Unconstitutional? Says Who? Only A Supreme Court Justice
Christine O’Donnell Wins Republican Nomination – Now Moves on to Fight the Republicans
Upon reading the reviews of Christine O’Donnell’s win over Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate primary, one could be forgiven for conjuring up images of monks (a la Monty Python) walking around in a circle, whacking themselves with boards and chanting “Woe, verily woe!” Ruth Marcus over at the Washington Post is scared and despondent : … I had thought the silver lining of this election year might be to produce a Senate with a more robust cadre of moderate Republicans. […] Now, it’s as plausible to envision a bolstered Jim DeMint caucus, following the disturbingly powerful junior senator from South Carolina: Sharron Angle (Nev.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ken Buck (Colo.) — plus the two other incumbent-slayers of the primary season, Mike Lee in Utah and in Joe Miller in Alaska. Scary. “Moderate” Republicans in Marcus’s world are Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Scott Brown. Lord knows the Senate will be deeply impoverished for lack of even more of such gelatinous types whose favorite color is plaid and never met a capitulation to the Progressive Democrats they couldn’t rationalize. Evan Sayet once asked how many foreign armies would have to march through the Arc de Triomphe before it would occur to someone to change the name. Exactly how many Arlen Specter’s do we have to send to Washington before the Republican Old Guard will realize that never works out well? Karl Rove, for one, doesn’t appear to have figured this one out yet. Now, I appreciate that Rove is called “the architect” by his admirers – possibly by virtue of transforming what should have been a walkover against an empty suit like John Kerry into a squeaker and meeting the attacks and slanders against the Bush administration with some of the most tepid and ineffectual responses in modern history (effectively surrendering the narrative to the Left) – but I’m sure this time he’s onto something.
See the original post here:
Christine O’Donnell Wins Republican Nomination – Now Moves on to Fight the Republicans
Jeffrey Goldberg and the Havana Hustle: Another fawning American intellectual bites the dust
Poor Atlantic columnist, Jeffrey Goldberg. Also, poor janitor at the Atlantic who had to clean up the floor last month when Goldberg was summoned to the feet of Fidel Castro and went into paroxysms of slobbering joy at the prospect of catching “a glimpse” of the “great man.” But I digress. I say poor Goldberg, because it seems he has emerged from that breathless audience with his idol looking a little sheepish – being as he eagerly ran home to announce that Castro had recanted the Marxist-Leninist “Cuban model,” never knowing that Uncle Fidel was just pulling his leg. How could this happen? Easy. Just read Goldberg’s recent column venerating Ground Zero Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf. It is excruciatingly clear that this man operates with a severely defective BS meter . Seriously, he might as well have a “Useful Idiot” sign taped to his back. Castro obviously took note and decided to have a little fun. I hear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah are fighting over who gets to be next. The sad part is that Goldberg, being Jewish, has an even more appalling loyalty deficiency. How could any Jew gush like he did about someone who recently capped decades of anti-Semitic behavior by calling the “swastika” Israel’s “banner?” No problem in Goldberg’s eyes. Especially when Castro went all soft and mushy about understanding Jews and their feelings and sensibilities and what they’ve been through. That BS meter should have been screaming by that point. But, amazingly, Goldberg ate it up — almost as if he knew nothing about this Castro statement: “The hatred felt by the state of Israel against the Palestinians is such that they would not hesitate to send the one and a half million men, women and children of that country to the crematoria where millions of Jews of all ages were exterminated by the Nazis.” Or this: “It would seem that the Fuehrer’s [Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's] swastika is today Israel’s banner,” the 83-year-old Castro declared in the latest of a series of articles dubbed ”reflections” in the communist-ruled island’s media. Sad and disgusting. Here is Goldberg, alleged journalist and alleged Jew, being played like a ukulele by a thuggish mass-murdering dictator who just weeks ago compared the descendants of Auschwitz with the Third Reich. Something that apparently didn’t offend Goldberg, who at one point even morphed into Castro’s messenger-boy, bearing a friendly missive for Israel regarding nuclear Iran: Disarm. Advice that I’m sure Benjamin Netanyahu will take under serious advisement. His message to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, he said, was simple: Israel will only have security if it gives up its nuclear arsenal, and the rest of the world’s nuclear powers will only have security if they, too, give up their weapons. Global and simultaneous nuclear disarmament is, of course, a worthy goal, but it is not, in the short term, realistic. Humberto Fontova recently wrote about this sorry episode, catapulting it into the realm of tragic irony. Here we have a Jewish-American journalist fawning over a sadistic, anti-Semitic, lying Caribbean Nazi, and it takes a Cuban exile – and gentile – to speak up for his murdered ancestors and the beleaguered Jewish state. Fontova wrote: However impolitic for Goldberg, the Atlantic ’s investigatory gumshoe/sleuth might have asked Castro why a scant two months ago he declared that, “the Fuhrer’s swastika is today Israel’s banner.” Or why Cuba co-sponsored the U.N.’s infamous “Zionism= Racism” resolution in 1975. Or why Castro sent Cuban “volunteers” to fight (and get creamed) against Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Or why he provided training basis for the PLO, Al Fatah and Carlos the Jackal, the most notorious terrorist of the 70’s. Or why Castro personally decorated Yasir Arafat with Cuba’s highest honor, the Bay of Pigs Medal, whereupon Arafat exulted that: “Comrade Fidel said that the Palestinian Revolution can count on the full support and aid of the Cuban Revolution! We are not alone!” Or why Cuba’s current Foreign minister declared that, “Zionists are the same as Hitler’s hordes who massacred millions of Jews!” Or why at the September 2001 United Nations “World Conference against Racism” conference in Durban, South Africa Castro denounced, “Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people!” Or why for decades the Cuban press ran cartoons worthy of Julius Streicher, such as these. He didn’t ask about any of those things. But it was no surprise. We got a hint that Goldberg was fixing to give one of the 20 th century’s most vicious tyrants a pass when the drooling began over the vaunted “glimpse of the great man.” … I was even more curious, however, to get a glimpse of the great man. Few people had seen him since he fell ill in 2006, and the state of his health has been a subject of much speculation. Goldberg could have meant “great” as in Castro’s capacity to employ a firing squad as some would a fly-swatter. Or “great” in terms of the misery and poverty he has visited on his countrymen. Or “great” as in how many souls have perished at sea trying to escape him. I especially agree that Castro is a “great man” if you measure greatness by the ability to bamboozle starry-eyed, fawning American journalists who should know better.
View post:
Jeffrey Goldberg and the Havana Hustle: Another fawning American intellectual bites the dust
From the Interviews of David Horowitz: September 15, 2010
Chuck Baldwin : There’s no doubt that you shaped the culture. In the book, I notice a picture of you with Ron Radosh and his daughter at Karl Marx’s tomb, High Gate Cemetery, London 1966. I take it that when that picture was taken you had quite an infatuation for Karl Marx. David Horowitz : Oh yeah, I was a Marxist. And I describe in the book how when I was in London I was approached by the KGB. This agent took me to lunch and eventually asked me to spy for the Soviet Union. He put money in my pocket and so forth. I happened to reject his advances. I had more ambitious goals for myself which was I guess to be the new Marx or something like that. But I saw him talking to a lot of other people on the “left” whom I knew. And I know, not only from personal experience, but from talking to people that there were many, many, there must have been hundreds maybe thousands of contacts between “new leftist” and the KGB and the Cuban Intelligence and Vietnamese Communist. I am the only one who has reported these incidents that I know about in Radical Son . That’s why my book, I think, would be very valuable for conservatives. It’s a vindication. Of those of you who are listening to this who have spent 50 years fighting to defend America’s freedoms and got nothing but scorn for it will get a lot of pleasure out of Radical Son . Because it vindicates the struggle that you waged, which was a noble struggle and a patriotic one. And it’s just too bad that patriotism is held in such low esteem in the liberal dominated culture that we live in. – Chuck Baldwin, June 6 1997 If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include: “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.) Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Read more here:
From the Interviews of David Horowitz: September 15, 2010
Obama is an Anti-Colonial Marxist – In Other News the Rebels Have Fired on Fort Sumter
I begin this offering with the odds-on favorite for the single stupidest sentence written in the last forty-eight hours (date range limited due to fierce competition): Fueling the myth mongering that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in a recent interview that the president may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. ~ Huffington Post (who else). Full article here . With this one assertion the author has achieved the hitherto impossible task of making Robert Gibbs appear profound. (It doesn’t help of course that Kleenex wringers like Michael Medved are lining up to denounce Gingrich based on his use of the words “Obama” and “Kenya” in the same sentence and the palpable inability of some to understand basic context, but I digress.) What seems to have touched off this random discharge is a recent article in Forbes by Dinesh D’Souza entitled How Obama Thinks . D’Souza’s thesis, which Gingrich for one finds “stunning”, is that Obama’s world-view and policies are driven by the anti-colonial ideology of his (anyone, anyone) Kenyan father. Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.” “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.” ~ NRO – Full article here . D’Souza’s jumping off point is Obama’s own book, Dreams from My Father : What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father. So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself. An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future. Hmmmm, Obama not only molded by a background surrounded by Marxists in his immediate and extended family, but doubly affected by the specter of his anti-colonialist father who had effectively abandoned him at a young age. Like some of you, I am experiencing an eerie sense of deja vu. Oh wait …
Read the original:
Obama is an Anti-Colonial Marxist – In Other News the Rebels Have Fired on Fort Sumter