If Muslims Can Express Free Speech Rhetoric, so Can Christians


MB-Hamas terrori network USA

John R. Houk
© December 6, 2014
 
Muslim terrorists have infiltrated American Universities. These sly devils don’t openly practice Islamic terrorism on American soil (anyway, not yet). Rather via Professors and university student activists they foment the Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred inherent in the Quran. A part of this hatred is to propagandize Muslim students and idiotic Left leaning students that America is the great satan and that Israel is the little satan.
 
The propaganda comes from foreign sources pulling the strings to undermine the USA. Those foreign agents of propaganda originate from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas.
 
The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to establish a global caliphate reminiscent in power of the bloody ruthless days of conquest that brought the initial cancer to spread across the world that began to metastasize in the early 600s AD (that’s right Anno Domini – year of the Lord, not CE – Common or Christian Era).
 
Hamas is a wing of the MB embedded in Gaza that agrees with the MB agenda but is dedicated to destroy Israel and kill Jews pretending to be a non-existent people called Palestinians.
 
This network of radical Muslims foment the destruction of U.S. Constitutional rights while using the very same rights to do so. The U.S. government allows this out of the self-destructive concepts of political correctness, diverse multiculturalism and the vagueness in defining the width and depth of the First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Religious Freedom.
 
The universality of Free Speech rights in the First Amendment has left the courts to try and define what the extent of Free Speech should be. For most of the U.S. history the courts erred on the side of allowing government-Congress to define the line not to be crossed in Free Speech. Erring on the side of the government defining the limits of Free Speech began during WWI with the head of the American Socialist Party convicted in breaking the Espionage Act by printing pamphlets to resist the draft into the Army.
 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the 1919 SCOTUS decision defining the limits of Free Speech is measured by how it is or is not a Clear and Present Danger to nation (as in National Security) and the public good. In this way SCOTUS effectively amended the First Amendment to bring a narrower grasp of the extent of the First Amendment.
 
Although the Clear and Present Danger doctrine established by SCOTUS rather than the Amendment process brought new legal challenges. It turns out there is a lack of definition to the context of the meaning to a Clear and Present Danger.
 
Between 1919 and 1969 SCOTUS struggled to pin down the parameters of a Clear and Present Danger.
 
The great break came in the Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. There the Court said the government could not take action against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who said, among other things, “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengence taken.” The speaker did not explicitly advocate illegal acts or illegal violence. But in its decision, the Court announced a broad principle, ruling that the right to free speech does “not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (Bold Emphasis Mine – Is Violent Speech a Right? By Cass Sunstein; The American Prospect; 12/19/01)
 
This Brandenburg v. Ohio decision provided a little more clarity in getting a grasp on judging a Clear and Present Danger. This refined Clear and Present Danger legal doctrine runs like this according Cass Sunstein:
 
First, the speaker must promote not just any lawless action but “imminent” lawless action. Second, the imminent lawless action must be “likely” to occur. Third, the speaker must intend to produce imminent lawless action (“directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”). (Ibid.)
 
There still is leeway in pushing the envelope on what is legal and what is illegal. An example from I read from Sunstein is Civil Disobedience. Obviously if Civil Disobedience in non-violent in its nature one would think there would be no Clear and Present Danger to the public good. But what if the peaceful Civil Disobedience advocated by speech or print are acts that might be illegal. For example a march without city permission down a street, 18-wheeler trucks are advocated to block traffic on a busy Inter-State, a city ordinance requires Preachers to turn in a copy of their sermons to city government for speech approval and the preachers refuse and so on scenarios.
 
Those acts of Civil Disobedience are illegal by at least statute. Does promoting an illegal activity constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the public good?
 
No the KKK dude managed a Free Speech victory the 1969 SCOTUS:
 
We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengence taken.
 
I am fairly convinced that alluding that “revengence” could be taken if the three branches of the Federal government suppress White Supremacist ideology. A “revengence” act is an act of violence.
 
As a Christian Right political blogger I often call on readers to stand up to the government on restricting where and when Christians can practice their Religious Freedom. Am I inciting violence?
 
When I advocate Christians and Americans to stand up against Muslims in America promoting the destruction of the USA in favor of a Sharia based Caliphate, am I inciting violence?
 
When I advocate Christians to understand that Islam’s revered writings is full of Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred, am I inciting violence?
 
If I call for Americans – especially college age Americans – to protest Islamic hatred on American campuses, would I be inciting violence? After all the modern history of Islam shows that Muslims enter into crazy violence when non-Muslims have the courage to protest Muslim-hate ideology pertaining to Jews, Christians, Israel and American constitutional Liberty (because Sharia Law elements run counter to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights).
 
I ask these questions because the reading of the Quran, Hadith and Sunna enlists me to tell you that Islam is no religion of peace and spiritual fulfillment. The Quran specifically calls for the death of all people who refuse to submit to Islam. The evidence of this is the FACT that over the last 1400 years of Islamic history Muslim conquests have resulted in 270 MILLION non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus and more) killed in the name of Jihad to spread Islam around the globe. Obviously these 270 MILLION people refused to submit to Islam and lost their lives for it.
 
When hear, read about or see Muslims expressing this hate ideology on American campuses, it is this Islamic Superiority mentality of Jihad that killed 270 MILLION people.
 
 
Published by forbidislam
Published: Nov 16, 2010
 
This vid consolidates the points in Frontpage’s interview with Bill Warner “Islam: 270 Million Bodies in 1400 Years”.

May every kafir wake up and smell the coffee.

Islam is aids. Whoever in bed with it will be infected and die eventually. I used to say Islam is cancer, every muslim is a cancer cell in our society. Though some cancer cells may not or never spread, but once it does, it kills you. Now I found cancer is better than islam, at least cancer is not contagious.

Since EVERY Muslim supports jihad through the even division of their zakat, the mosque offering/tax, EVERY Muslim’s hands are full of innocent blood! Remember, 270 million died under the sword of Islam so that Muslims were able to enter Allah’s paradise full of beautiful virgin sex slaves!

In more than 1400 years, muslims have killed much much more than 270 million people:

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html [Blog Editor: The Masada 2000 website (Wikipedia) has had a history of trouble to exist. This link may be dead. Webhosts tend to get complaints because of a controversial “S.H.I.T. LIST” which points toward Leftist Jews and I am guessing Muslim apologists. The website always seems to pop up again under another Webhost.]

Studies show that at least every three minutes is a Christian is tortured in the Muslim world and that in 2009 alone, more than 165,000 Christians have been killed, mainly in Muslim countries due to their Christian faith.

There are a number of organizations that report about this, but the cases are still greatly hampered by the power of the lefti’s journalistic elite, that READ THE REST

 
I want so badly to condemn the ideology of the haters of Islam, but I am choosing to err on the side of Free Speech. Muslim Apologists and Leftists could very easily come after me for hate-speech for exposing the true nature of Islam or for saying Biblical Morality trumps the legalization homosexual normalizing.
 
So those morons do have a right to express their moronic ideology. HOWEVER, that means I also have the right to upbraid anything that diminishes Christianity and the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. Shutting me up violates my First Amendment Rights as much as forcing Radical Muslims to shut up.
 
On the other hand as a free society Institutions, organizations, business owners have the right to decide whose interests to support. So Universities that allow Muslims to express violent hatred toward Israel, Jews and Americans that want nothing to do with Sharia-hatred of Constitutional Liberty should – rather MUST – must have the freedom to shut down the hate.
 
In the case of Public Universities voters actually have the power to focus on the hate spewing from Muslims in racist overtones. Most sovereign States in America have an initiative process in which voters can legislate where state congresses fear to tread.
 
So embark on your own Civil Disobedience and protest those haters of Israel, Jews, Christians and American Constitutional Liberties!
 
JRH 12/6/14 (Hat Tip: Stop Islam Facebook Closed Group)

Please Support NCCR

**************************************
 
 
Published by Hamas On Campus
Published: Sep 30, 2014
 
The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is Hamas on Campus. An organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.

Find out how the The SJP was created to be Hamas on Campus and work in tandem with the Muslim Brotherhood proxy, the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

______________________________
If Muslims Can Express Free Speech Rhetoric, so Can Christians
John R. Houk
© December 6, 2014
_____________________________
 
HamasOnCampus.org was set up by a group of students and alumni from different campuses across the USA and Canada. We represent both Jews and non-Jews, left and right, liberal and conservative. We value freedom of speech, women’s rights and human rights. For this reason we are disturbed by the increasingly radical behaviour and rhetoric by Hamas supporting organizations on campus.
 
In particular, we are concerned by the activities of the MSA (Muslim Students Association) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine).  Both share anti-Israel and anti-democratic values.  We are most concerned about the SJP. It declares itself to be secular in nature but in fact, supports the values and deeds of Hamas. The SJP is financially connected to Hamas via a network of organizations including the MSA, CAIR and the AMP.
 
Please join us in exposing the SJP, also known as Hamas On Campus.
 
 

Author: oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

4 thoughts on “If Muslims Can Express Free Speech Rhetoric, so Can Christians”

  1. Reblogged this on Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back and commented:
    Barring radical change, Masada 2000 contains disturbing images of sorts commonly held to be offensive. Reader discretion advised if you seek to go there.

    Do not lose sight of the fact that ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, proscribe Islam by law because of the content of its canonical texts which deny human rights to kuffar, incite violence, promote war & genocide.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s