Free Speech Gone--Replaced with Group-Thug Speech

In the last few days, a Michigan court ruled such that Terry Jones is barred from visiting the vicinity of a mosque for three years, after his attempt to peaceably protest jihad and sharia outside of the mosque on public property. By extension, then, anyone is also prohibited from doing so.

So, this court says, in essence, yes, the Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech . . . "; however, a court in the state of Michigan can, by decision, abridge such speech if it deems it to be offensive to some group.

Two implications arise from this ruling: First, in Michigan, the individual's right to the freedom of speech recognized by and protected under the U.S. Constitution will not be recognized and protected by the courts in Michigan. Rather, in Michigan the individual is only permitted to speak if it doesn't offend some group. Now, it's one group's "rights" versus another group's "rights."

Secondly, In any conflict of words or demonstrations between two groups, which group gets their "rights" protected? Simple: the group which issues death threats in the face of their opposition.

So now, it's group versus group, and may the biggest thug win. Great ruling. As a culture, if we ever rediscover reason, may this judge get what he deserves.

Obama’s Wisdom on Burning of Koran

Regarding the proposed building of a mosque at Ground Zero, President Obama has said that he will “not comment on the wisdom” of such a project. A large majority of Americans regard it as outrageous that a place of worship for an ideology in whose name thousands of Americans were slaughtered is proposed to be built in the very area where the slaughter took place. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama can’t bring himself to denounce the proposed mosque. However, he is willing to say that Muslims have “…the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property….”

By contrast, in the case of the burning of the Koran, which is a matter of constitutionally protected free speech on behalf of Americans who are opposed to the Koran’s message of Jihad and Sharia Law, his approach is the exact opposite: Not only will he not affirm individuals’ right to burn a book on their property, but also he does offer his opinion on the wisdom of taking such an action. And his verdict? In essence: Don’t offend the Muslims.

In the conflict between Americans who oppose Jihad and Shariah law and people who openly or silently support these ideas, he sides with whom?

The word jackass comes to mind, of course, but think of the deeper implications of the situation: This is our Commander-in-Chief. This the stance that the leader of the supposedly Free World and of its military forces takes in the face of calls for global Jihad against the United States? Perhaps when his term is up, he can run for President of Iran.