HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA


You do realize Left Wing Multiculturalist thinking has hampered Counterjihad writers and/or organizations to utilize proper legal protections for their brand, right? Well, that might actually be ending soon.

Simon Shiao Tam won his appellate case that will force the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register trademarks for organizations that may have a name that a race or group of people may find offensive. In Mr. Tam’s case it was to register the trademark “Slant” as representative of his Asian-American dance rock band. A whole slew of Conservative civil rights organizations joined Mr. Tam’s suit because the outcome affected many others denied a trademark by the USPTO under a Federal Law prohibiting trademarked names to include disparaging words as defined by the government.

One of those beneficiaries of the suit won by Tam was Pamela Geller who was a bit miffed when the USPTO rejected the SIOA and AFDI registered trademark names fighting the civil rights abuses that Islam’s Sharia Law does to Western Rights and the American Constitution in particular. Below is Geller’s victory dance post celebrating the Tam decision in a Federal Circuit Court.

JRH 12/24/15 (Hat Tip: Marlene of Out Spoken Patriots Google + Group)

Please Support NCCR

**************************

HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA: Federal Circuit Court Reverses 70-Year “Unconstitutional”

By Pamela Geller

December 22, 2015

PamelaGeller.comAtlas Shrugs

Longtime Atlas readers are quite familiar with our First Amendment trademark case. We have been fighting to trademark SIOA (Stop Islamization of America) but were repeatedly refused because it considered “disparaging” to Muslims. It was, in effect, an application of sharia law (‘do not criticize Islam.’)

Today we had a big victory against this fascist-style ban. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed 70 years of holdings that said there is no First Amendment protection in trademark cases. In reversing, it held as unconstitutional the “disparaging” prohibition, citing SIOA first and frequently.

What a wonderful Christmas miracle 🙂

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional.

The USPTO had rejected AFDI’s trademark application [bad link] based on the following analysis:

“Islamisation” means converting to Islam or “to make Islamic;” and (2), “Stop” would be understood to mean that “action must be taken to cease, or put an end to, converting or making people in America conform to Islam.” Thus, the trademark, according to the “Office Action” ruling, disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (AFLC)

The court concludes that “Stop the Islamization of America” mark, as used by its promoters, is likely to be understood as “disparaging to a substantial composite” of Muslims, whether “Islamization” refers to conversion to Islam or to “a political movement to replace man-made laws with the religious laws of Islam.”

Now that Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has held as “unconstitutional” the disparaging prohibition we are going to move forward with getting our trademark.

government enacted this law—and defends it today— because it disapproves of the messages conveyed by disparaging marks. It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys. That principle governs even when the government’s message-discriminatory penalty is less than a prohibition.

Courts have been slow to appreciate the expressive power of trademarks. Words—even a single word—can be powerful. Mr. Simon Shiao Tam named his band THE SLANTS to make a statement about racial and cultural issues in this country. With his band name, Mr. Tam conveys more about our society than many volumes of undisputedly protected speech. Another rejected mark, STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA, proclaims that Islamisation is undesirable and should be stopped. Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communi- ties. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the gov- ernment has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech.

This is a big case – and it won’t only affect us but the Washington Redskins, the rock band

Here are some of the salient pssages in the finding:

Importantly, every time the PTO refuses to register a mark under § 2(a), it does so because it believes the mark conveys an expressive message—a message that is dis- paraging to certain groups. STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA is expressive. In refusing to register the mark, the Board explained that the “mark’s admonition to ‘STOP’ Islamisation in America ‘sets a negative tone and signals that Islamization is undesirable and is something that must be brought to an end in America.’” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1361.

We limit our holding in this case to the constitu- tionality of the § 2(a) disparagement provision. Recogniz- ing, however, that other portions of § 2 may likewise constitute government regulation of expression based on message, such as the exclusions of immoral or scandalous marks, we leave to future panels the consideration of the § 2 provisions other than the disparagement provision at issue here. To be clear, we overrule In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981), and other precedent insofar as they could be argued to prevent a future panel from considering the constitutionality of other portions of § 2 in light of the present decision.

A disparaging mark is a mark which “dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison.” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358 (alterations omitted). To deter- mine if a mark is disparaging under § 2(a), a trademark examiner of the PTO considers:

Trademark Manual of Exam. Proc. (“TMEP”) § 1203.03(b)(i) (Jan. 2015 ed.) (citing Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358). If the examiner “make[s] a prima facie showing that a substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group would find the proposed mark, as used on or in connection with the relevant goods or services, to be disparaging in the context of contempo- rary attitudes,” the burden shifts to the applicant for rebuttal. Id. If the applicant fails to rebut the prima facie case of disparagement, the examiner refuses to register the mark. The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure does not require an examiner who finds a mark disparaging to consult her supervisor or take any further steps to ensure the provision is applied fairly and consist- ently across the agency. Compare TMEP § 1203.03 (no discussion of action to take if examiner finds mark dis- paraging), with TMEP § 1203.01 (requiring examiner who finds a mark scandalous or immoral to consult his super- visor). A single examiner, with no input from her super- visor, can reject a mark as disparaging by determining that it would be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.

Second, the disparagement provision at issue is view- point discriminatory on its face. The PTO rejects marks under § 2(a) when it finds the marks refer to a group in a negative way, but it permits the registration of marks that refer to a group in a positive, non-disparaging man- ner. In this case the PTO refused to register Mr. Tam’s mark because it found the mark “disparaging” and “objec- tionable” to people of Asian descent. Tam, 2013 WL 5498164, at *6. But the PTO has registered marks that refer positively to people of Asian descent. See, e.g., CELEBRASIANS, ASIAN EFFICIENCY. Similarly, the PTO has prohibited the registration of marks that it found disparaged other groups. See, e.g., Pro-Football, 2015 WL 4096277 (affirming cancellation of REDSKINS); Geller, 751 F.3d 1355 (affirming rejection of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA); Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (refusing to register KHORAN for wine); Heeb Media, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (refusing to register HEEB); Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1264 (refusing to register SQUAW VALLEY for one class of goods, but registering it for another). Yet the government registers marks that refer to particular ethnic groups or religions in positive or neutral ways—for example,

NAACP, THINK ISLAM, NEW MUSLIM COOL, MORMON SAVINGS, JEWISHSTAR, and PROUD 2 B CATHOLIC.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on First Amendment Protection on Trademarks by Pamela Geller

[Blog Editor: The above link is to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision entitled, “Federal Circuit en banc opinion In re Simon Shao Tam rejecting 2(a) trademark disparagement”. Below is the embed from Scribd of that decision.]

 

In re Tam Fed Circuit en Banc Opinion by Jennifer Elgin

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/293858228/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-O7jMDbriKAQhSbs24JVn&show_recommendations=true

UPDATE: Here’s our law firm’s take:

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Finds First Amendment Applies to Trademarks and Rules that “Disparaging” Cannot Be Used to Deny Expressive Trademarks Like “Stop Islamisation of America”

As a kind of Christmas present to liberty and the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc (the entire court), today reversed more than 30-years of jurisprudence by holding that trademark registration under the Lanham Act deserves First Amendment protection. The import of this holding is that trademarks may no longer be rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) just because the USPTO believes the mark to be disparaging.

In the case In re Tam, the federal court, which specializes in patent and trademark cases, found that the USPTO’s rejection of the musical group name “The Slants” because it disparaged Asians was unconstitutional because there was no “compelling state interest” to censure the viewpoint of the trademark owner. As a result, Simon Tam will now be able to register his band name as a federal trademark, thus allowing him to protect the name and products and services sold using that name against encroachers and counterfeiters.

What made this decision possible was the recent litigation waged by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) on behalf of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to register their trademark, “Stop the Islamisation of America” (“SIOA”). Like the Slants trademark, the USPTO rejected the SIOA trademark on the ground that it disparaged Muslims and even Islamists by suggesting they should be “stopped.” AFLC argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court, which upheld the USPTO ruling of disparagement.

However, on the heels of the SIOA decision, by the time the Slants case found its way to the important Federal Circuit Court, the appellate judges were apparently ready to reverse their prior rulings which rejected any First Amendment arguments. Indeed, the court’s opinion starts off referencing the USPTO’s rejection of the SIOA trademark as a rejection aimed improperly at censuring important expressive speech. The court went on to reference SIOA, and the underlying case of In re Geller, no less than seven times.

 

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, noted:

 

“This demonstrates an important adage about good lawfare and good lawyering.  Even when you lose initially you may still ultimately prevail because good, hard-fought lawfare has a way of exposing bad law and bad judgments.  This is one of those rare instances where a federal court has emphatically and quite properly reversed itself.  You can be certain that our clients will now proudly seek federal trademark registration.”

 

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, added:

 

“At the end of the day, this was a complete victory for the First Amendment and an absolute defeat for political correctness.  Our SIOA trademark case paved the way for this important decision, reaffirming that hard work, determination, and some good lawyering can create a favorable sea change in the law.”

 

___________________________

Pamela Geller Biography

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American ThinkerBreitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and to the consequent arrests of jihadists in several states.

 

Geller has also led awareness campaigns in READ THE REST

 

Contribute to the fight!

Activist Courts Continue to Abuse 1st Amendment


VIDEO: Rally for police captain draws demonstrators

 

John R. Houk

© October 16, 2014

 

The Tulsa Police Department (TPD) under the management of Police Chief Charles (Chuck) Jordan punished TPD Captain Paul Fields for refusing to attend a mock/deceptive Law Enforcement Appreciation Day at one of the most radicalized Mosques in the United States of America. I have been following since about 2011 when this heinous breech of First Amendment rights of Religious Freedom began to occur.

 

Captain Fields has sued for this punishment and infringement of the First Amendment BUT every level of Court so far has come down on the side of the TPD. A combination of limiting the scope of evidence and misrepresentations by Tulsa City Attorneys has worked against Captain Fields. Ergo, unfortunately Left oriented Judges and Appellate Justices have chosen the multiculturalist approach to favor the TPD and the Radical Mosque (See Also HERE) ruling that there was no breech against Captain Fields’ First Amendment rights and that the Islamic Society of Tulsa (a radical Muslim network of ISNA) was providing a harmless inter-faith community service activity because the TPD was providing protection from hate-threats against the Mosque and Islam.

 

The American Freedom Law Center discusses the Federal case:

 

On February 17, 2011, Captain Fields received an email from his immediate supervisor at the Riverside Division, Major Julie Harris.  This email had the subject line, “Tour of Mosque – March 4,” and stated, in relevant part, “We are directed by [Deputy Chief of Police] Webster to have representatives from each shift—2nd, 3rd, and 4th to attend [the Islamic event].”  This email also contained the directive from Webster, which was pasted into the text of the email.  Webster, with the approval of Chief of Police Jordan, who is also a defendant in this lawsuit, was now ordering officers to attend the Islamic event.  It was no longer voluntary.

 

After receiving the email from Major Harris, Captain Fields met with her to discuss the order from Webster.  He advised Major Harris of his belief that the order was unlawful.  Captain Fields correctly believes that City police officials do not have a right to order police officers to attend an Islamic event against the officers’ personal religious beliefs and convictions.

 

Captain Fields also responded to the order by email.  In his email response, Captain Fields stated that he believed that the order directing officers to attend the Islamic event was “an unlawful order, as it is in direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking.”  Captain Fields concluded his email by stating, “Please consider this email my official notification to the Tulsa Police Department and the City of Tulsa that I intend not to follow this directive, nor require any of my subordinates to do so if they share similar religious convictions.”

 

On February 18, 2011, Webster sent a three-page interoffice correspondence to Captain Fields by email that affirmed the order and requested Captain Fields to reconsider his position.  Captain Fields again refused based on his religious beliefs, convictions, and conscience.

 

As a result of Captain Fields’s refusal to compromise his religious beliefs and convictions and violate his conscience, Webster ordered Captain Fields to appear in Jordan’s conference room on Monday, February 21, 2011.

 

During this meeting with Jordan and Webster, Captain Fields again explained that he believed the order was unlawful and that he could not, in good conscience, obey the order nor force the officers under his charge to obey it.

 

At the conclusion of this meeting, Captain Fields was served with a pre-prepared order transferring him to the Mingo Valley Division, as well as a notification that the police department was initiating an internal investigation of him for allegedly violating Rule 6 of the Tulsa Police Department Rules and Regulations (“Duty to be Truthful and Obedient”).  The transfer order stated, “This action is taken in reference to an Internal Affairs administrative investigation regarding the refusal to follow a direct order.”

 

Prior to being transferred for his refusal to violate his personal religious beliefs and those of the officers under his charge, Captain Fields was the shift commander for 26 officers and 5 supervisors.  As a result of this transfer, which is now a permanent part of his personnel record, Captain Fields was stripped of his command and his stellar reputation as a police officer was irreparably tarnished.

 

On March 10, 2011, Captain Fields received an official notification via email stating, “You are hereby notified that Chief Chuck Jordan has requested IA [Internal Affairs] to conduct an administrative investigation in regards to your refusal to attend and refusal to assign officers from your shift, who shared your religious beliefs, to attend the ‘Law Enforcement Appreciation Day’ on March 4, 2011, at the Tulsa Peace Academy [a.k.a. Islamic Society].

 

READ ENTIRETY (Captain Paul Fields v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma; American Freedom Law Center, H/T Noisy Room 3/25/14)

 

I actually stand by the TPD in providing protection for the Radical Mosque. No matter how much I or some extreme-minded Right Wingers may consider the IST Mosque to be a threat to American Constitutional government or as an anti-Christ religion; until the IST Mosque can get caught red-handed offering material support to Islamic terrorists, act as a front for homegrown Islamic terrorists or as an operational source placing into action the hate-rhetoric spewing from the Muslim equivalent of a pulpit then the IST Mosque itself has First Amendment rights of both Religious Freedom and Free Speech.

 

But when the TPD feels that not enough police volunteered to participate in the IST Mosque’s Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and then orders precinct Captains to participate along with chosen Police Officers; then the violation of Religious Freedom works toward the Officers so ordered.

 

Here are some of the blog posts from SlantRight 2.0 posted about this warped infringement of an individual American citizen Captain Paul Fields:

 

o   What if it was a synagogue?

 

o   Tulsa Police Chief Supports Radical Islamic Mosque

 

o   Stand With Paul Fields August 30

 

o   Tulsa Police Chief Targeted Paul Fields 1st Amendment Rights

 

o   ISNA Radical – OK Local ISNA Chapters Radical – Alton Nolan Radical

 

The only way Christians in America are going to reverse Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture is if WE begin to be as vocal as Leftist and Muslims are anti-Christian.

 

As long as WE Christians trust in Leftist lies that the U.S. Constitution says there is a Wall of Separation keeping Christian Churches from supporting political candidates that represent Christian ethics and morals then Leftists will be allowed to falsely proclaim that anti-Christian morality is moral with reckless impunity our cultural American Exceptionalism will continue to evaporate.

 

In the same vein, as long as Islam is given an accommodation for Muslims to practice the unconstitutional portions of Sharia then the Liberty and Freedom enshrined in our Constitution will be rendered irrelevant.

 

What is unconstitutional with Sharia?

 

Islam is a theocratic political terrorist regime that hides behind the mask of religion to accomplish its mission of a worldwide caliphate. What most Americans don’t understand is that it is a totalitarian “theo-political” belief system and a social doctrine (the two go hand in hand) based on the Quran, Sirah and Hadith, what Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam aptly coins the “Trilogy of Islam.” It has mandates on every single aspect of life and those mandates are enforced and regulated by the barbaric criminal and civil code known as Sharia Law.

 

 

… In case you are not familiar with some of the condoned atrocities of Islam and Sharia law . . . are you aware that women are stoned to death for committing adultery and that gay men are actually hung? Or that the genitals of little girls are mutilated in order to protect her virginity and that children may be murdered in the name of family honor?

 

 

Understand that Sharia is very complex and it’s derived from multiple Islamic sources. The Quran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists over the years and so-called reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia. Together they constitute Islam’s theological core and they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslims (kafirs and infidels).

 

… Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam. … Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, not to mention the severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.

 

… (Islam and Sharia: Deadly Facts You Should Know; By Kevin A. Lehmann via Catch Kevin; Letting Freedom Ring; 1/25/12)

 

A PDF document from the Center for Security Policy (CSP) that shows the specifics of Sharia contradictions to the U.S. Constitution:

 

Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

Center for Security Policy

 

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

 

Constitution: Article VI: “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”

 

Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

 

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

 

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

 

Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. (o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

 

First Amendment: Freedom of speech

 

Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”

 

Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

 

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

 

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

 

Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

 

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

 

Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

 

Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

 

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment

 

Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

 

Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

 

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process

 

Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “

 

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

 

For more information on Shariah law vs. the Constitution:

 

Shariah: The Threat to America in paperback or kindle at amazon.com, or free download at www.shariahthethreat.com

___________________

Original bullet marks edited out

 

AND YET the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city government of Tulsa, OK can violate the First Amendment Religious Freedom rights.

 

Here’s another thing I have a problem with. Although Tulsa changed the election law for candidates to run without a Political Party affiliation he has ran for all political Offices as a Republican. In Oklahoma if you are a Republican you are a Christian Right Conservative (even if you are a Roman Catholic). Instead of standing up for a Tulsa citizen who chose to not to attend a radicalized Mosque as the Islamic Society of Tulsa; Mayor Bartlett not only has not rebuked the TPD and its dhimmi Chief Chuck Jordan, Deputy Chief A. Daryl Webster and Major Julie Harris the Mayor did nothing to stop the Tulsa City response to being sued. I don’t care how you spin that but that means Mayor Bartlett is a supporter of the kind of Radical Islam that is spewed from the Islamic Society of Tulsa. If Dewey Bartlett runs for any Office as a Republican/Conservative – local, State or Federal – I will never vote for him!

 

Perhaps a deluge of electronic messages using the City of Tulsa contact page will let Mayor Dewey Bartlett may have a precarious political future in the State of Oklahoma by sending complaints. To use that contact page CLICK HERE.

 

On October 13 Jim Kouri wrote about the injustice being done to Captain Paul Fields at the Examiner.com. I was going to cross post it but I sense I ran out of space. Kouri gives an excellent synopsis of local government successfully abusing the First Amendment with the help of the U.S. Judiciary system. You should read Kouri’s article.

 

Since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) supported same-sex marriage by refusing to look at the Tenth Circuit Appellate Court’s recent ruling throwing out the voters of several States, I am not expecting too much constitutional Original Intent pertaining to Paul Fields. I pray in the Name of Jesus Christ that I am incorrect on that thought and that SCOTUS not only looks at Captain Fields’ violation of the First Amendment but rules in his favor.

 

JRH 10/16/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Fed Judge Blasts CAIR in “Muslim Mafia” Case


LooneyTunesCAIR_01

 

The CAIR/Muslim Mafia litigation is a classic example of Lawfare/Legal Jihad utilized by Muslims in an attempt to silence those exposing the dark side of Islam. The book “Muslim Mafia – Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America” exposes the nefarious agenda of CAIR with its connection to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. Since CAIR attempts to bill itself as Muslim human rights organization in America the truth tarnishes their reputation and credibility.

 

Here we are in 2013 and this litigation initiated by CAIR circa 2009 is still going on. Finally though there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel for the authors of the Muslim Mafia because the Federal Judge adjudicating the lawsuit has delivered a legal defeat to CAIR by ruling against an extension on the ludicrous continuation of needless discovery by the CAIR legal team. Creeping Sharia has the story.

 

JRH 2/14/13

Please Support NCCR

 

Muslim Mafia bk jacket