The Greatest Threat

6
Share

Photo by Wikimedia

Ominous rise of protests threatens the nation

We all need to be aware of a threat that is more menacing than North Korea. The hard Left has made its mission to suppress—violently if necessary—forms of expression they disagree with. And it ain’t just Nazis. It started on campuses, where invited speakers: Heather Mac Donald, who wrote The War on Cops, Charles Murray, who wrote the Bell Curve, Condoleeza Rice, Breitbart writer, Milo Yiannopoulos and others were blocked from speaking by massive protests, some violent. Ben Shapiro recently spoke at Berkeley, but it cost the University $600,000 for security, and nine people were arrested for carrying banned weapons.

A number of the protests included masked non-students from violent anti-capitalist groups like Antifa, whose reasoning was, the speakers’ views voided their right to speak and justified the violence.

Localities using police action or inaction to silence speech

At Charlottesville, VA, a rally of reputed white supremacists, who had a court-ordered permit were prevented from speaking by the state police, after Governor McAuliffe, a Clinton pal, declared a state of emergency. The rally had drawn a large crowd of Antifa protesters, some of whom were carrying weapons, as were some of the attendees of the rally.

Although two secure pens that had been erected successfully walled off the two groups, the state police, according to witnesses, forced the rally group directly into the protest group outside the pens. Witnesses also said the police stood back and did nothing until after a woman was killed when a a man believed to be a supremacist allegedly drove his car into the crowd.

There were also allegations that the conflict was a false-flag operation. LA Key, a guest on a CNN show said protesters were “coming off the same bus with some wearing Black Lives Matter and some wearing the KKK shirts.”

The Leftist network

A vigil in Charlottesville was organized by “Indivisible Charlotte,” a local chapter of the huge leftist anti-Trump Indivisible group that wreaks organized havoc at GOP town hall meetings. Indivisible put out a “practical guide for resisting the Trump agenda,” and how to disrupt Republican town hall meetings. This sure looks a lot like sedition.

Discover the Networks reports that one of its founders, Angel Padilla is a former consultant to the  National Council of La Raza.

The Washington Times reveals that: “According to Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Capital Research Center at least three of the group’s five principals have direct ties to organizations funded by [George] Soros.” That includes Indivisible Guide’s secretary, Angel Padilla, works for the National Immigration Law Center, which is funded by Soros through his Open Society Foundations.”

Discover the Networks describes Indivisible as a “partner organization” with Organizing for Action, an Obama-era group that’s been retooled and expanded to oppose the Trump agenda. DTN reported that Obama himself told OFA allies: “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said, adding: “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy.”

Journalist Paul Sperry wrote in February 2017:

[Obama is] working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular ‘America First’ agenda. He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action.” At that point, OFA had 250 offices and 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Meanwhile, an additional 25,000 volunteers were in the process of being trained.
OFA has been a major participant in, and organizer of, the many anti-Trump protests that have taken place across the United States since the 2016 presidential election. As Paul Sperry writes: “OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across U.S. cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports.”

 

Left-jihadi partnership out to destroy America

It’s no surprise that immigration—particularly Muslim immigration—would be a central focus of these far-Left organizations. Discover the Networks says this on the topic:

“The Western socialist left detests the United States and its capitalist economic structure, and seeks to facilitate that structure’s downfall by any means necessary— including the formation of whatever alliances will further that ultimate objective. One seemingly unlikely alliance that the socialist left has forged is its alliance with radical, fundamentalist Islam.”

This, in spite of the jihadists’ utter rejection of everything the Left stands for. “They have been brought together by the one overriding trait they do share—their hatred for America; their belief that the U.S. is the very embodiment of evil on earth and must consequently be destroyed,” said DTN.

Carlos the Jackal, the infamous Marxist terrorist and Muslim convert who joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in his book Revolutionary Islam: “Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States.”

The War on the 1st Amendment

If the Left gets control over what is permitted speech under the First Amendment, they will seek to classify criticism of Islam as speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. That may well be the motive behind all this hyperbolic KKK outrage. It would only take one federal judge making an unconstitutional decision to silence America from sea to shining sea. But you can be sure several would make similar rulings, as they did with Trump’s EO. It would take time to reach the Supreme Court—if a Democratic president hadn’t reversed the SCOTUS balance by then.

‘Coincidentally,’ on April 5th, the Senate, led by Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Kamala Harris, and Dianne Feinstein, unanimously passed S.Res. 118: “A resolution condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”

This bill appears to be an attempt to implement UN Resolution 16/18, which Obama and Clinton worked to pass in 2011. It calls on all nations to …”[Adopt] measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” Speech meant to incite imminent lawless action is not protected speech, per Brandenburg v Ohio

But the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an organization of 56 Islamic states, seeks to broaden that decision. The OIC’s “Test of Consequences” theory could extend that prohibition to bar public criticism of Islam. Middle East expert Clare Lopez explained, in American Thinker:

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”  Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says—or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable. [Emphasis in the original.]
Antifa already uses that reasoning: if their violent protests are against someone they perceive to be racist or Islamophobic, that person is deemed responsible for the violence, not Antifa. The Media’s refusal to cover Antifa validates that warped theory.

S.Res. 118 is almost definitely the initial strike against First Amendment protection of speech critical of Islam. The bill must be defeated in the House, where it’s been introduced as H.Res.257. Read the bill here.

Note: on Page 3, it says:

Resolved, That the Senate—
~
(4) calls on Federal law enforcement officials, working with State and local officials—
(A) to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States; and
(B) to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring the perpetrators to justice…

“any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias” could include hate speech, which is protected speech in a public gathering. 4B notably instructs the DOJ to “hold the perpetrators of those…incidents…accountable.” [Emphasis added.]

An incident could be using a racial epithet in a speech…or cross burning. That last one seems pretty odious. But it can be protected speech.

Under R.A.V. v St. Paul, hate speech was protected under the First Amendment—even if  expressed by burning a cross on a black family’s lawn. Later, in Virginia v Black, the SCOTUS allowed prohibition of “cross-burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation,” wrote Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer, for WGBH News. Burning a cross on a black family’s lawn could be interpreted as intimidation, but burning it at a KKK rally would not.

“If the act was simply a declaration of racial prejudice and contempt, even if done in a public setting, it must be deemed constitutionally protected speech,” said Silverglate.

As you can see, the SCOTUS is constantly evolving on this issue. If an exception to these decisions were made, for criticism of a religion—proven by the fact that Muslims are offended, moved to violence—then all of America could be silenced on that topic.

Incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected speech, as noted above. But the line is fine indeed and using the bogus Test of Consequences could cross that line, in the Leftist courts. If we are not vigilant, this can and likely will leave us like Europe, where Geert Wilders was prosecuted and found guilty of “inciting discrimination against Dutch Moroccans,” said The Guardian.

He was charged for asking a crowd if they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans,” reported The Guardian, adding:

“The verdict comes three months before Dutch voters go to the polls in a general election in which Wilders has vowed to put migration and ‘Islamisation’ at the heart of the campaign.”

The idea is to punish those who advocate a commonsense assessment of immigration policies that have made Europe unsafe for women to walk the streets alone, and have generated a crime wave. Europeans have no right to criticize Islam, which certainly makes Islamization easier.

However, Americans do have this right—for now. Prepare to defend our most precious possession.

Share

6 COMMENTS

  1. Perhaps the only potentially good thing about the Rubio-backed bill is that an Imam preaching for the killing of infidels would be prohibited. Maybe this would enable us to convict and deport them.

    • Dear Jim,
      Sorry about the late response; I didn’t know your comment was here. Yes, I do remember the controversy about forbidding ritual slaughter, but it was in Denmark that I read about. I suppose there’s always a danger, when going after Islam that other religions could be affected. It would be a big help if it became common knowledge that the odious practices we read about are linked to the religion——something people like Obama, Clinton, and McMaster strive to conceal. That makes it much harder to defend against the encroachment of Islam, because anyone trying to do so is accused of attacking a religion.

      In the case of the Rubio-Harris bill, if it became law, I’m sure we’d find that it would be enforced only against those criticizing Islam, just as discrimination laws are being used against Christian bakers and florists, but we never hear of them being used against Muslims. The reason of course is that Christian merchants were deliberately targeted.

  2. First, a point on Geert Wilders. Many are encouraged in his zeal to fight against Islamic radicals but in that zeal he inadvertently, knowingly or unknowingly, went after the Jewish community. A number of European countries have legislated the manner in which animals are slaughtered, and Wilders agrees, in that he wanted halal meats banned by requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter. Apparently this is against Muslim tradition but Jewish Shechitah also forbids the stunning of an animal before slaughter. This stunning is generally done but shooting the animal in the head, strictly forbidden by Jewish law. Therefore when encroaching on Muslims all too often the Jew will be in the sights also.

    Once again Politicians are too foolish and ignorant to see the unintended consequences of their actions as this is.

    “any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias”

    Will a Jew be charged because the Tradition teaches it is forbidden to marry a non-Jew. Surely this is a bias. I can list countless examples. Now, what of other religions and their beliefs. Canada has already went down this road and Pastors and such are at the Government’s mercy.

    This is nothing more than posturing to make themselves “look” righteous in the public’s eye. Not one of them care about anyone else but their wealth and power and the possibility they may lose that power.

Comments are closed.