Destruction of the American Democracy

The first amendment to the United States Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The American democracy depends on a free press. Donald Trump continuously attacks the press. His favorite words are “fake news” whenever the press reports something that puts him in a bad light.

His admiration for Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), Saddam Hussein (deceased dictator of Iraq), Moammar Gaddafi (deceased dictator of Libya), Xi Jinping (president of China), and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (President of Turkey) to name just a few tells us what kind of presidency Trump wants in the United States. All of these government leaders have one thing in common. They have or had no opposition. There is no press to report on their misbehavior. That is Trump’s dream.

The National Review, a conservative publication, posted the following on its website
Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority.

The ACLU says we must defend free speech even when we disagree with the speaker. That organization did defend the KKK when it wanted to march through Skokie Illinois, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago.

There was no free press in Nazi Germany. There is no free press in China, Russia and Turkey today. Donald Trump’s war on the press is the first steps to end our democracy. CNN’s “This is an Apple” campaign is an effort to tell all viewers that they will defend their right to report the facts. Everyone should be applauding their efforts.

We must all join hands to defend freedom of the press or soon there will be no free press. The day there is no free press a dictator will be on the rise.

Are boycotts against Israel anti-Semitism or free speech?

Free speech in America means saying what you want to say no matter who is offended. That translates to the KKK and other extremist groups having the right to hold rallies in public places. That results in demonstrations in big cities by groups wanting to express their demands or frustrations.

Thus the above question posted on KPCC, the large audience NPR, FM station, in Los Angeles. following is their explanation of a proposed law in the California legislature. Although the intent might be pleasing to some people, the proposed law strikes me as unconstitutional. At the end of the article on KPCC’s web site there were comments both for and against the law.

—
A California state bill that would punish companies participating in the boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel recently passed the California state Senate Judiciary Committee.

The controversial movement calls on individuals and companies to boycott Israel until it ends occupying “all Arab lands.” Rather than punish boycotts directly, AB 2844 targets “violations of existing anti-discrimination laws that take place under the pretext of a boycott or other ‘policy’ aimed at ‘any sovereign nation or people recognized by the government of the United States, including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,’” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial. It also requires those seeking state government contracts to certify that they haven’t engaged in discrimination through such a policy.

There is disagreement about the strength of the current bill, as language directly referencing BDS has been removed in favor of more general assertions that reference the existing Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This has not mitigated the controversy surrounding the legislation.

Proponents of the bill seek to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic. Dillon Hosier, senior political adviser for the nonprofit advocacy organization Israeli-American Nexus, said that it has created an insidious anti-Jewish environment across California.

“Californians are being targeted who have zero connection to the government of Israel,” Hosier said. “What BDS has become is not ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions,’ [but rather] ‘bigotry, discrimination and anti-Semitism.’”

Opponents of the legislation argue the bill violates the First Amendment.

Estee Chandler is a founding member of the Los Angeles Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization that seeks to end Israel’s presence in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. She finds the California legislature’s actions against BDS “deeply troubling,” saying she sees what the Legislature is doing as punishing political speech.

“From the start, AB 2844 was introduced to single out, stigmatize and suppress the political speech of Californians who criticized … Israeli and U.S. policies,” Chandler said. “Denying state business to an otherwise qualified contractor based solely on their views about Israel and their participation in a legal boycott … goes beyond government exercising its speech, and it impedes on our constitutional rights.”

AB 2844 passed an initial vote in the Assembly, and last week it passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next, it heads to a vote in the Appropriations Committee in early August.

Assembly Bill 2844

Freedom of Speech and other Western Freedoms

Freedom of the press means my right to post and print some things that others may find offensive. Similarly I too may find what others post and print offensive. The Ku Kluz Klan marching through Skokie, Illinois carrying anti-Semitic banners was offensive to that Jewish neighborhood. Still, it is freedom of speech.

Jeremy Renner is reminding people that his cheeky one-liner (at the Golden Globes) about Jennifer Lopez’s “globes” on Sunday was only a joke. Jennifer was obviously showing off.

I am Charlie Hebdo (Je Suis Charlie)

It is sad to report that many news organizations refuse to print or post Charlie Hebdo cartoons. If everyone would do it then who would the haters attack? Congratulations to The Huffington Post. Someone there has the courage.

From the Huffington Post

Known for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as critical depictions of Catholics, Jews and French politicians, the magazine regularly stirred controversy.

Charlie Hebdo gained notoriety in 2006 for its portrayal of a sobbing Muhammad, under the headline “Mahomet débordé par les intégristes” (“Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists”). Within its pages, the magazine published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, bringing unprecedented condemnation from the Muslim world. The French Council for the Muslim Faith eventually sued the weekly for the cartoon. The issue has since been considered the one which positioned Charlie Hebdo as a target for terrorist attacks.

Freedom of Speech is Under Attack

This is about fear. We must never say anything that will alienate any group. It’s about political correctness. Where are the moderate Muslims?

I did not attend Brandeis University. I am a graduate from Penn State. I always thought Brandeis University is the school where all ideas can be expressed.

About Brandeis on its web site: The name Brandeis was not chosen by accident. Our founders sought to name the university after an individual of impeccable moral fiber, leadership, intellectual ability, integrity and social conscience. The name that stood out was that of the late U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Louis D. Brandeis.

A few weeks ago Brandeis University took the step of dis-inviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali from giving a talk at the forthcoming commencement ceremony on the grounds that the faculty who had protested her appearance had pointed out that she was not simply critical of Islamic practices, but blamed the religion of Islam itself for the kind of backward positions many Islamists took. Explaining her shock at the Brandeis position, Hirsi Ali gave the following statement to Time magazine:

“I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called “honor killings,” and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices.”

Source: http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/04/26/aayan-ali-hirsi-the-islamists-and-the-question-of-free-speech-in-the-academy/

The Economist calls this “Enlightened intolerance.”

Salon.com says “Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the dangerous anti-Islamic logic of the war on terror.”

“It is difficult to conceive of a braver woman alive today than Ayaan Hirsi Ali,” said James Kirchick in The Daily Beast.com. Born into a Muslim family in Somalia, she was subjected to genital mutilation as a child, fled to the Netherlands to avoid a forced marriage, and became an outspoken critic of Islam, and Its treatment of women. Death threats followed, and she had to go into hiding after a Muslim fanatic murdered a filmmaker with whom she had worked and warned her that she was next. Now living in the U.S.under 24-hour police protection, Hirsi Ali remains “a heroic example to women around the world”-but not to Brandeis University. Last week, under pressure from Muslim groups, Brandeis canceled plans to award Hirsi Ali an honorary doctorate, claiming that her attacks on Islam went against the university’s “core values.” It was another depressing example of the “thought police” on college campuses squelching free speech.

“Brandeis got it right,” said Rabbi Eric Yoffie in HuffingtonPost.com. An honorary doctorate would have been an endorsement of Hirsi Ali’s deplorable views. She has said that “violence is inherent in Islam,” and called the entire religion a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” She doesn’t even distinguish between moderate and radical Muslims. “As we Jews know, there are real consequences when entire populations are represented in the public imagination by their worst elements.” But Brandeis has honored controversial figures before, said William Kristol in The Weekly Standard. Previous recipients include playwright Tony Kushner, who once labeled the creation of Israel “a mistake,” and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has compared Israel to Hitler. Is there one rule for critics of Judaism, and another for critics of Islam?

One group has remained shamefully quiet over the muzzling of Hirsi Ali, said Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe: liberal feminists. They call opposition to employer-provided contraceptives “a war on women.” But “the savagery of honor killings or child marriages”? It does not stir their outrage. Brandeis should have followed ColumbiaUniversity’s example, said Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times. When Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak there in 2007, Columbia’s president let him-but only after denouncing his most offensive views in interviews, statements, and the introduction to his talk. The best response to offensive speech isn’t censorship-it’s “more speech.”

David Bancroft

The Father

Should Catholics riot over this silly story? I hope they don’t! Muslims need to learn to take jokes about their religion as silly words.

—

A little boy got on the bus, sat next to a man reading a book, and noticed he had his collar on backwards.

The little boy asked why he wore his collar backwards.

The man, who was a priest, said, ‘I am a Father.’

The little boy replied, ‘My Daddy doesn’t wear his collar like that.’

The priest looked up from his book and answered, ”I am the Father of many.’

The boy said, ”My Dad has 4 boys, 4 girls and two grandchildren and he doesn’t wear his collar that way!’

The priest, getting impatient, said. ‘I am the Father of hundreds’, and went back to reading his book.

The little boy sat quietly thinking for a while, then leaned over and said, “Maybe you should wear a condom and put your pants on backwards instead of your collar”.

Freedom of Speech

Anti-jihad ‘savage’ ads going up in NYC subway NEW YORK (AP) — A provocative ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up in the city’s subway system as violent protests over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad sweep over much of the Muslim world.

“Innocence of Muslims” is the Muhammad movie that was the excuse for riots throughout the Muslim world. Google was asked to remove the movie clip from Youtube but they refused, sighting their first amendment rights.

The American constitution’s first Amendment says

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Americans of all stripes hold those words as important as any in the bible. We go to war to defend the freedoms we have. Many elsewhere do not agree with this belief. They believe that the United States has a responsibility to muzzle words or actions they consider disrespectful.

It’s a conflict of beliefs that could lead to a breakdown of relations with other nations.

I believe Americans really take these words in our Declaration of Independence to heart

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I believe Americans will fight, if necessary, to defend the American ideals. Thanks, Thomas Jefferson.