Freedom of speech no longer exists...

[BoogyMan]

Bill Whittle has some thought provoking comments in the video below about the death of free speech in America.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amu7VB0Xstw&feature=youtu.be

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bill Whittle has some thought provoking comments in the video below about the death of free speech in America.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amu7VB0Xstw&feature=youtu.be

Absolutely, positively the most accurate and revealing example of what has happened to this nation since the 1960's. With the most severe aspects coming about in the last 6 years with just so happens to also coincide with Obama's presidential term.
Strange how that works out, isn't it??--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

What the hell is he talking about? Political risk insurance has nothing to do with being controversial.
Freedom of speech died during the Dubya years and has yet to be revived.

http://www.aig.com/political-risk_3171_418000.html

[Noir]

The First amendment is a protection (or "insurance") to limit the government, not other citizens.

[jimnyc]

Freedom of speech died during the Dubya years and has yet to be revived.

Examples/citations/data/links?

Odd, considering you marched, protested... Even brought a place to a standstill. Does that sound like your FOS was limited? I'll wait for your examples and such...

[jimnyc]

The First amendment is a protection (or "insurance") to limit the government, not other citizens.

When talking about FOS, and the government - it means they cannot "abridge" the freedom of speech, nor can they "infringe" on the freedom of press. They cannot "interfere" with a right to peacefully assemble, and they cannot "prohibit" the petitioning for a government redress of grievances, "impeding" free exercise of religion, and prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.

This is part of the "bill of rights". While you are correct in the way you state it - this does spell out the rights of Americans. While this dictates what the government cannot do to the FOS, it also tells us what our rights are. In other words...

1- We have the right to freedom of the press
2- We have the right to peacefully assemble
3- We have the right to petition the government for redress
4- We have the right to free exercise of religion

[BoogyMan]

What the hell is he talking about? Political risk insurance has nothing to do with being controversial.
Freedom of speech died during the Dubya years and has yet to be revived.

http://www.aig.com/political-risk_3171_418000.html

Does he need to use smaller words? He was VERY clear and if you cannot understand the point it is likely due to your blind partisan hatred not due to anything Whittle didn't elucidate properly.

[BoogyMan]

The First amendment is a protection (or "insurance") to limit the government, not other citizens.

Whittle's concern stems from the fact that he is a political commentator and that he nearly lost his office space due to the fact that his insurance was cancelled BECAUSE of his chosen profession. He nearly lost his office space due to his excise of the right of free speech that the left in America seems so bent upon curtailing.

We actually have a radical left wing in the Senate today that is desperate to modify the first amendment such that acceptable speech is designed by government bureaucrats and not the people. America was built upon the ideas of men who had been through oppressive governmental intrusion and wanted to build a nation free of it. Free speech is simply the right to express ones belief's without ANY form of governmental interference.

[revelarts]

It's BI-partisan.
why do u guys ALWAYS make it about left and right?
whether it's a left boot or a right boot on your rights it doesn't matter


here's exhibit B on the loss of freedoms
FREE SPEECH ZONES (when it used to be that the whole Country was a FREE SPEECH ZONE)
from wiki...

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Democratic_National_Convention), the city of Atlanta, Georgia set up a "designated protest zone"[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-5) so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Operation_Rescue) group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-6) "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-7)
Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-8)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/WTO_protests.jpg/220px-WTO_protests.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTO_protests.jpg) Police on Union Street in Seattle during the 1999 WTO conference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activit y). The WTO protests catalyzed a number of changes in the way law enforcement deals with protesters.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-Boghosian-9)


WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activit y) saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. "The [National Lawyers] Guild (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lawyers_Guild), which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization) meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-Boghosian-9) In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits... But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights."[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-10)
Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray)".[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-11) "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-12) A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-Muzzle-13) However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-14)
Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activi ty) represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places — building vestibules, parking garages, or vans — and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-15) Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_Center_for_the_Protection_of_Free _Expression), "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#cite_note-Muzzle-13)...



in the 60's there were no "permits" to march. you just did it.
today you need PERMISSION to do what was understood to be a natural freedom or right.

any time you have to get permission for something you once could do without one, it seems to me you LOST a freedom.
And even if you GET permission the police have arrested harassed and pepper sprayed people ANYWAY.
because they were "rude" or "disrespectful" or "did not obey quick enough" or "were dancing". or some other unbearable offense.

[BoogyMan]

The urge to make it about left or right tends to coincide directly with whatever party's politicritter is infesting the halls of power in DC.

[red state]

You are RIGHT, Rev....when you are forced to ask and await PERMISSION, you only have the permission to be FREE. Same goes for our 2nd Amendment. I consider the 2nd Amendment my personal RIGHT to conceal carry or any other type of carry. We've gone a long way as frogs while the kettle heats up slowly and "un-noticeably" by many Americans. We must get permission to speak (CORRECTLY and without offending CERTAIN groups), we must have permission to protect ourselves and we even have to get permission to hunt, fish and in some cases raise our own veggies. We most certainly gone FAR from our founding.

[red state]

BoogyMan, I'm glad you mentioned that. The BI in the Bipartisan issue is in the pretenders/rhinos who are as evil and twisted in their views toward and interpretation of our RIGHTS. They are nothing but accomplices of the LEFT and are, in my opinion, my enemy. Hopefully we can slowly grow more AMERICAN politicians within the Republican Party.

[aboutime]

IF Freedom of Speech no longer existed. There would be no DEBATE POLICY Forum. And not one of us would be able to READ what I am typing here.

[BoogyMan]

IF Freedom of Speech no longer existed. There would be no DEBATE POLICY Forum. And not one of us would be able to READ what I am typing here.

It is being attacked from all sides, open your eyes before it is too late.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It is being attacked from all sides, open your eyes before it is too late.
The frog is being boiled, just doesn't know it yet and the plan is
for the frog to find out after its been cooked...
All going according to plan as of right now IMHO..
The muzzies are making major headway in the American politics arena and its being kept very low key for now.
The Federal government is already deeply infiltrated by the America hating vermin. Fact. ----Tyr

[revelarts]

The frog is being boiled, just doesn't know it yet and the plan is
for the frog to find out after its been cooked...
All going according to plan as of right now IMHO..
The muzzies are making major headway in the American politics arena and its being kept very low key for now.
The Federal government is already deeply infiltrated by the America hating vermin. Fact. ----Tyr

Tyr c'mon man.
thats BS and you know I'll give an honest hearing to conspiracy ideas.
But the MUSLIMS are behind the FREE SPEECH ZONES? really?
the Muslims are behind the Patriot act? the Muslims are behind Obamas AND BUSH's executive orders and muzzling leaks and jailing whistle blowers, threatening reporters? behind BS Pat down and searches at airports. behind Arm troops door to door in Boston? really?
No, the Neo-con, the Neo-Libs, the good ol boys and fat cats have MUCH MORE to do with this than the Muslims.
the Muslims are the EXCUSE.

I just don't get the mentality that It's ALL the Muslims Fault and Obama is a SECRET Muslim Manchurian candidate working the final strokes to americas death. c'mon.
Look IF Hillary wins the PLAN GOES ON. She's not going to restore ONE freedom or reverse 1 executive order. Is she a Muslum Too? And Neither will any of the prospective R candidates. the establishment politicians are keeping the power away from the people. and If Romney were Prez he'd be doing the same things, HE PROMISED to be "tough" and make sure we "are secure", and was all for shutting down freedoms and increasing the power of the executive.

the Muslims dood it is a lame twisted excuse for the 40 years of soft slide and the last 15 years of hard slide away from the constitution.
911 was been the crow bar that's ripped the constitution off it's hinges and most republicans were cheering when Bush was working the last hinges and handed the bar over to Obama to continue the job.

Tyr the next president won't be "muzzy" and i'll bet you $50 NOTHING will change in policy, or in movement BACK toward the constitutional freedoms mentioned here.

the voting public has a Pollyanna vision of U.S. politics, and people trust their parties far to much to see past them and honestly and work for real change or even believe we seriously need it.
"just put the Rs back in again, that'll make it better! " yeah right.:rolleyes:
"Just put the D's back in power, they'll CHANGE things." sure right :rolleyes:.
Neither party wants to change JACK.
the waters boiling and were voting who turns up the dial this year,
while believing a LIE that our guy really wants to turn it down.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr c'mon man.
thats BS and you know I'll give an honest hearing to conspiracy ideas.
But the MUSLIMS are behind the FREE SPEECH ZONES? really?
the Muslims are behind the Patriot act? the Muslims are behind Obamas AND BUSH's executive orders and muzzling leaks and jailing whistle blowers, threatening reporters? behind BS Pat down and searches at airports. behind Arm troops door to door in Boston? really?
No, the Neo-con, the Neo-Libs, the good ol boys and fat cats have MUCH MORE to do with this than the Muslims.
the Muslims are the EXCUSE.

I just don't get the mentality that It's ALL the Muslims Fault and Obama is a SECRET Muslim Manchurian candidate working the final strokes to americas death. c'mon.
Look IF Hillary wins the PLAN GOES ON. She's not going to restore ONE freedom or reverse 1 executive order. Is she a Muslum Too? And Neither will any of the prospective R candidates. the establishment politicians are keeping the power away from the people. and If Romney were Prez he'd be doing the same things, HE PROMISED to be "tough" and make sure we "are secure", and was all for shutting down freedoms and increasing the power of the executive.

the Muslims dood it is a lame twisted excuse for the 40 years of soft slide and the last 15 years of hard slide away from the constitution.
911 was been the crow bar that's ripped the constitution off it's hinges and most republicans were cheering when Bush was working the last hinges and handed the bar over to Obama to continue the job.

Tyr the next president won't be "muzzy" and i'll bet you $50 NOTHING will change in policy, or in movement BACK toward the constitutional freedoms mentioned here.

the voting public has a Pollyanna vision of U.S. politics, and people trust their parties far to much to see past them and honestly and work for real change or even believe we seriously need it.
"just put the Rs back in again, that'll make it better! " yeah right.:rolleyes:
"Just put the D's back in power, they'll CHANGE things." sure right :rolleyes:.
Neither party wants to change JACK.
the waters boiling and were voting who turns up the dial this year,
while believing a LIE that our guy really wants to turn it down.


Tyr c'mon man.
thats BS and you know I'll give an honest hearing to conspiracy ideas.
But the MUSLIMS are behind the FREE SPEECH ZONES? really?
the Muslims are behind the Patriot act? the Muslims are behind Obamas AND BUSH's executive orders and muzzling leaks and jailing whistle blowers, threatening reporters? behind BS Pat down and searches at airports. behind Arm troops door to door in Boston? really?
No, the Neo-con, the Neo-Libs, the good ol boys and fat cats have MUCH MORE to do with this than the Muslims.
the Muslims are the EXCUSE.

^^^^ Never stated the ffing muzzies were behind free speech zones.
I did state the muzzies are deep into politics here and do have a deep alliance with the dem party.

I do not know if you simply did not comprehend my post or else just tossed out a straw man to get in your points.

I speak often of the leftist/dem /muslim alliance--for they all work to undermine and destroy this nation.

Next time ask for clarification.. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

I did state the muzzies are deep into politics here and do have a deep alliance with the dem party.

Which American faction supports Muslim extremists more than anyone? None other than BIG OIL.
Even after the 9-11 attacks, Big Oil continued to do business with countries that openly supported and sponsored terrorism.
And who is the party of Big Oil? One guess. And it isn't the Democrats.
Saudi Arabia housed and sponsored 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet our previous president kissed Saudi butt.

[BoogyMan]

Which American faction supports Muslim extremists more than anyone? None other than BIG OIL.
Even after the 9-11 attacks, Big Oil continued to do business with countries that openly supported and sponsored terrorism.
And who is the party of Big Oil? One guess. And it isn't the Democrats.
Saudi Arabia housed and sponsored 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet our previous president kissed Saudi butt.

Straying from the topic into more hyper-partisan stupidity from both sides of the aisle. Gabs your party is just as guilty as the Reps in the erosion of free speech so put the snake oil away and try to add something to the discussion for once.

[tailfins]

What the hell is he talking about? Political risk insurance has nothing to do with being controversial.
Freedom of speech died during the Dubya years and has yet to be revived.

http://www.aig.com/political-risk_3171_418000.html

People won't take you seriously if you make such facile statements. Freedom of Speech was under attack long before GWB became President.

[revelarts]

^^^^ Never stated the ffing muzzies were behind free speech zones.
I did state the muzzies are deep into politics here and do have a deep alliance with the dem party.

I do not know if you simply did not comprehend my post or else just tossed out a straw man to get in your points.

I speak often of the leftist/dem /muslim alliance--for they all work to undermine and destroy this nation.

Next time ask for clarification.. -Tyr

sorry Tyr
you just kinda went off talking about the Muslims when you quoted someone commenting specifically on free speech under attack.
I may have assumed to much, but I think i made an honest connection that you were implicating Muslims in the FreeSpeech problem or else why did you bring them up here?

[aboutime]

It is being attacked from all sides, open your eyes before it is too late.


I didn't say it wasn't being attacked BoogyMan. I said it is still in effect here on DP. No question it is being attacked. None at all. But All of us here on DP are using our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS Now. So...FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES "STILL" EXIST.

[BoogyMan]

I didn't say it wasn't being attacked BoogyMan. I said it is still in effect here on DP. No question it is being attacked. None at all. But All of us here on DP are using our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS Now. So...FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES "STILL" EXIST.

I see what you mean now. Cheers.

[jimnyc]

Which American faction supports Muslim extremists more than anyone? None other than BIG OIL.
Even after the 9-11 attacks, Big Oil continued to do business with countries that openly supported and sponsored terrorism.
And who is the party of Big Oil? One guess. And it isn't the Democrats.
Saudi Arabia housed and sponsored 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet our previous president kissed Saudi butt.

Compared to Obama BOWING to the Saudi King? :lol:

http://www.think-israel.org/mar09pix/obama-bows-to-saudi-king1.jpg

[aboutime]

Compared to Obama BOWING to the Saudi King? :lol:

http://www.think-israel.org/mar09pix/obama-bows-to-saudi-king1.jpg



Gabby just happens to IGNORE information that turns her accusations on their ear. Like this link:http://spectator.org/articles/43159/big-oil-democrats

[gabosaurus]

I never stated that Obama was not as guilty as Bush. But Obama didn't whitewash the 9-11 Report just to curry favor. Nor did he help author and approve the Patriot Act.

[jimnyc]

Which American faction supports Muslim extremists more than anyone? None other than BIG OIL.
Even after the 9-11 attacks, Big Oil continued to do business with countries that openly supported and sponsored terrorism.
And who is the party of Big Oil? One guess. And it isn't the Democrats.
Saudi Arabia housed and sponsored 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet our previous president kissed Saudi butt.


I never stated that Obama was not as guilty as Bush. But Obama didn't whitewash the 9-11 Report just to curry favor. Nor did he help author and approve the Patriot Act.

He added things to and extended the patriot act, the last in 2011 - which included wiretaps, searches & surveillance.

Obama didn't vote in 2001.

Obama voted FOR in 2005, Obama voted FOR in 2008 - and of course signed into law the rest since then, including the extension in 2011. He is NO different. And yet as usual, you want to point fingers at the prior president and ignore the reality of what we face this very moment. You try to absolve him from something you don't like, the PA - and yet he himself signed it into law. That's not helping approve the law? :dunno:

[Gunny]

It's BI-partisan.
why do u guys ALWAYS make it about left and right?
whether it's a left boot or a right boot on your rights it doesn't matter


here's exhibit B on the loss of freedoms
FREE SPEECH ZONES (when it used to be that the whole Country was a FREE SPEECH ZONE)
from wiki...


in the 60's there were no "permits" to march. you just did it.
today you need PERMISSION to do what was understood to be a natural freedom or right.

any time you have to get permission for something you once could do without one, it seems to me you LOST a freedom.
And even if you GET permission the police have arrested harassed and pepper sprayed people ANYWAY.
because they were "rude" or "disrespectful" or "did not obey quick enough" or "were dancing". or some other unbearable offense.

Individual rights do not supercede the rights of the collective. There are more than a couple of reasons why a permit is, and should be required.

When you want to block off an entire city street because you think anyone gives a damn what you think and I want to get home from work, it's probably a lot safer or YOU if I know in advance. Rather than draw attention to your cause, which I could give a f*ck less about when I've had a hard day at work, all you REALLY do is draw attention to what an inconsiderate jacka*ss you are, excercising your right to squawk about some stupid crap at the expense of MY rights. When you're willing to trample mine so freely, I don't give a damn about yours.

Second, and in line with the above, the city is going to ensure you aren't blocking a main thoroughfare during rush hour if they can help it. Because when the road-ragers start mowing your asses down, which is a distinct possibility, you're overburdening the city's emergency response system -- probably depriving someone who REALLY needs help of getting any.

Then, there's opposition, depending on the topic. Your little whiny butt may need Big Brother -- probably the one you're whining about -- to come protect you from the counter-protestors.

This of course, is all at taxpayer and/or the city's expense. So pay for damned permit and STFU.

NOT that I have an opinion on the matter. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

sorry Tyr
you just kinda went off talking about the Muslims when you quoted someone commenting specifically on free speech under attack.
I may have assumed to much, but I think i made an honest connection that you were implicating Muslims in the FreeSpeech problem or else why did you bring them up here?

Thanks. I bring them up because they are allied with the dem party and starting to move into it in a bigger way than the previous low-keyed under the table buying of politicians they have been doing for a few decades. Or didn't you know they gave millions to Hillary's campaign coffers? And so did the Muslim Brotherhood..
The Clintons sold out to every big foreign buyer they could--didn't matter if it was friend or foe of America. Fact..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Individual rights do not supercede the rights of the collective. There are more than a couple of reasons why a permit is, and should be required.

When you want to block off an entire city street because you think anyone gives a damn what you think and I want to get home from work, it's probably a lot safer or YOU if I know in advance. Rather than draw attention to your cause, which I could give a f*ck less about when I've had a hard day at work, all you REALLY do is draw attention to what an inconsiderate jacka*ss you are, excercising your right to squawk about some stupid crap at the expense of MY rights. When you're willing to trample mine so freely, I don't give a damn about yours.

Second, and in line with the above, the city is going to ensure you aren't blocking a main thoroughfare during rush hour if they can help it. Because when the road-ragers start mowing your asses down, which is a distinct possibility, you're overburdening the city's emergency response system -- probably depriving someone who REALLY needs help of getting any.

Then, there's opposition, depending on the topic. Your little whiny butt may need Big Brother -- probably the one you're whining about -- to come protect you from the counter-protestors.

This of course, is all at taxpayer and/or the city's expense. So pay for damned permit and STFU.

NOT that I have an opinion on the matter. :)

Muslims did not get any permits to block city streets doing this!!

They do this in many, many large cities in America and across the world as an expression of Islam's dominance.
Guess what-- every place they are allowed to break the law and nobody arrests them. No permit required if you are a damn stinking muslim !

First link is a youtube.com video showing how outrageously the flaunt the law and stick up their stinking middle finger to New York and America!-Tyr


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu2U6MprDM4

--------------------------------------------------------


http://victoriajackson.com/11539/muslims-protest-pray-nashville-city-street

Muslims Protest and Pray on Nashville City Street

Posted by Victoria Jackson on July 20, 2014 at 11:49 pm

Daily Roll Call reports today, “…What looked like a scene from the U.K, the local Muslim community in Nashville took to the streets on Friday July 18 in what has been described as an angry and intimidating pro-Palestine demonstration. Led by local activist Drost Kokoye, Muslims lined the street screaming “not a nickel not a dime, we wont pay for U.S crimes” and “brick by brick, wall by wall, Israeli apartheid has to fall”. But there seemed to be some deception and purposeful confusion by the group as some women dressed in full burqas held signs calling for peace, while others held signs stating “Stop Funding Israel.” As vehicles came to a stop at the traffic light, they were urged to honk if they wanted peace, but many were not aware it was a pro-Palestine/Hamas protest, so horns honked away…”




“…It seems apparent this (protest) group wanted to make sure you knew they were Muslims. At 4:43pm, it just so happened the demonstration fell at the same time Asr (late afternoon prayer) fell. A local Imam called the group to prayer as rush hour traffic slowed to a crawl to witness the group praying on a busy city street. Clearly this was to show the public they will pray wherever they wish.”

Read more at http://victoriajackson.com/11539/muslims-protest-pray-nashville-city-street
--------------------------------------------------------

http://pamelageller.com/2010/06/muslims-illegally-occupying-streets-of-paris-to-pray-muslim-militia-blocks-the-streets.html/

Muslim militia blocks the streets. Not even the slightest clue about what they are doing and why some may find it a little disturbing.(annotations with translations coming soon)Since a few years, some muslims illegally occupy streets of Paris each Friday to pray towards mecca. According to them, this is to protest the fact that these poor souls don't have enough mosques, they indeed don't have one in this district. What they forget is that French government does not finance any religion or religious building whatsoever. They are totally free to buy some space and build a mosque. Yet they complain about French government being mean to them because they "don't have the right to have a mosque". Go figure. So they block the streets every Friday between 3 and 5 PM to pray towards mecca. Several mild aggressions have been reported about people trying to go to their home since they inhabit the street. But having them walking was disturbing the prayer. Some women have been insulted for not being veiled. - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2010/06/muslims-illegally-occupying-streets-of-paris-to-pray-muslim-militia-blocks-the-streets.html/#sthash.coGeAtz9.dpuf

[revelarts]

Thanks. I bring them up because they are allied with the dem party and starting to move into it in a bigger way than the previous low-keyed under the table buying of politicians they have been doing for a few decades. Or didn't you know they gave millions to Hillary's campaign coffers? And so did the Muslim Brotherhood..
The Clintons sold out to every big foreign buyer they could--didn't matter if it was friend or foe of America. Fact..-Tyr
TYR, you seem a bit obessed with them though. And you seem to play down the real effect NOW of the right wings hands in destroying constitutional rights.
And instead you speak of a potential and imagined growing muslim problems. While there' a REAL problem front in center NOT caused by the Muslums. It's both D and R CiCs and congress people pissing on the constitution for the past 15yrs and Not giving any HINT of stopping.


but concerning the Clintons.
the Clinton have had help from Turks, the Chinese, Tyson Chicken, Bank of America, Goldman Sacks, CItiGroup, AIG, (and drug money)
see another list Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019).
the corporate sponsors have both parties on a leash, much more than "the Muslims". FACT

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

TYR, you seem a bit obessed with them though. And you seem to play down the real effect NOW of the right wings hands in destroying constitutional rights.
And instead you speak of a potential and imagined growing muslim problems. While there' a REAL problem front in center NOT caused by the Muslums. It's both D and R CiCs and congress people pissing on the constitution for the past 15yrs and Not giving any HINT of stopping.


but concerning the Clintons.
the Clinton have had help from Turks, the Chinese, Tyson Chicken, Bank of America, Goldman Sacks, CItiGroup, AIG, (and drug money)
see another list Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019).
the corporate sponsors have both parties on a leash, much more than "the Muslims". FACT
I do not discount all of that.
True, I concentrate more on the immediate threat of the muslims because it is a serious cancer. You do remember 9/11 don't you?
You do know they are getting nukes in Iran, a regime that will definitely use them? They are about to take over Britain and are already heavily infiltrated into our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
And these are the people that are fanatical about first destroying "LITTLE SATAN" Israel and then next "BIG SATAN" America...
I think we pay more attention to those that have attacked our homeland and whose soul committed purpose is our nation's destruction.
By the way-they- are also allied with one major group here that seeks to destroy and fundamentally change this nation- the ffing dems!

I know it is you and others that are missing the bigger picture ...
ISLAM is the greatest threat this nation faces. And Islam is worldwide, fanatically committed and well funded. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Well i can remember when communism used to be the "greatest threat to America and mankind"
and had to be crushed everywhere or we're all gonna die or live as slaves.
Seems there was more (or less) to that story than we were told then as well.

fool me once.

[jimnyc]

Well i can remember when communism used to be the "greatest threat to America and mankind"
and had to be crushed everywhere or we're all gonna die or live as slaves.
Seems there was more (or less) to that story than we were told then as well.

fool me once.

Sure would be grand if we lived in a world today, dominated by communism! Maybe even the "communist states of America".

Personally, I think it was good that it was taken seriously, and that it's not gaining a stronghold around the world. Unless of course you admire China and North Korea. :)

[revelarts]

Sure would be grand if we lived in a world today, dominated by communism! Maybe even the "communist states of America".

Personally, I think it was good that it was taken seriously, and that it's not gaining a stronghold around the world. Unless of course you admire China and North Korea. :)
Taken seriously sure. but used as an excuse to attack podunk South American countries, and Vietnam,
and then there's the issue of U.S. corporate support in building the Soviet war machine.
As i said, there more to the story, and personally i don't like our gov't lying to us building a blind war fever to suit it desires.

However the Soviets was a real threat through an organized state and solid army, air force, navy and 1000s of nukes.
AQ, Isis and etc are just a bunch of gangsters and thugs with spare rocket launchers.
with a bit of state support... from where? hmmm.

[Drummond]

Taken seriously sure. but used as an excuse to attack podunk South American countries, and Vietnam,
and then there's the issue of U.S. corporate support in building the Soviet war machine.
As i said, there more to the story, and personally i don't like our gov't lying to us building a blind war fever to suit it desires.

However the Soviets was a real threat through an organized state and solid army, air force, navy and 1000s of nukes.
AQ, Isis and etc are just a bunch of gangsters and thugs with spare rocket launchers.
with a bit of state support... from where? hmmm.

Another bog standard dose of Leftieism. Again, your theme seems to be one of the West's 'hypocrisy', with the moral we're expected to draw from it is that 'we' don't have the moral fortitude entitling us to take on adversarial regimes and creeds. Yes ?

This argumentation leads .. where ? To the conclusion that America is 'required' to slink off home, never again straying beyond her borders when future threats are perceived. Yes ?

And when the next unprepared-for '9/11' happens, AS IT WILL if all of America's proactivity in the world scales right down ... who'd going to be crying 'foul' the very loudest ?

Hopefully ... not YOU, Revelarts ....