Terror in Texas – Attack on Free Speech, FBI Knew Suspect

Editor’s Note – Once again, Jihadist types escaped previous law enforcement efforts because our laws, as interpreted by a judge gave sanctuary to would-be terror assassins to later wreak havoc in the name of Allah. Two suspects are dead Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson, both Jihadi sympathisers and would be members of terror groups of ISIS and Boko Haram.

It is terribly ironic that violence in the name of their prophet and in support of Allah is allowed, yet drawing or depicting Muhammad or his successors in any manner is forbidden for all. This defines the so-called ‘Religion of Peace,’ which truly is neither, as the barbaric cancer on society the world is finally coming to understand.

Islam does NOT mean peace, it means submission; have no doubt therefore what their true intentions are and have always been. You must submit to their barbaric, stone-age mind set in their belief system and you have no rights other than what Shariah laws mandate.

The problem is, over these past many years, as politicians invited so many from Muslim lands to live here in America, and the lure of being “Jihad Cool” is overtaking the minds of many of our youth, no one is safe anywhere, anymore, in America from these types. The frequency of these types of terror will only rise, as will the death toll and blood letting.

Our hats are tipped to the Garland, Texas police for anticipating such acts and prevented what could have been far worse than what happened in Paris to the ‘Charlie Hebdos’ staff and the other terror events in recent months in European cities.

Our first amendment right to the freedom of speech trumps any religion, and those who question Pam Geller and the event organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

The Daily Mail of the UK has done a great job of capturing the many aspects of last night’s tragic attack, but the real tragedy is willful blindness to Islam, even by so-called moderates, here in the west.

What next; Christian churches burned, Synagogues torched, or non-Muslim religious classes attacked? That is the logical next step for people like these terrorists because that is exactly what is happening outside our borders.

Attacks in Canada, France, Libya, Australia, Egypt, Israel… the list goes on and on – it is going to get much worse. We applaud Pam Geller and Geert Wilders and others for standing up for us all; now it is time for all non-Muslims to stand beside then!

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

  • Two suspects were gunned down after shooting a guard in the leg outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland
  • The FBI has named one of the gunmen as Elton Simpson, who was convicted of lying to federal agents about traveling to Africa five years ago – but a judge ruled it could not be proved that he was going to join a terror group
  • Simpson’s Phoenix, Arizona home has been surrounded and a bomb squad is carrying out a search 
  • The American Freedom Defense Initiative event had offered a $10,000 prize for the best caricature of the prophet; local residents had expressed their concerns about the event but organizers said they were exercising free speech
  • The security guard who was shot, Bruce Joiner, was taken to hospital in stable condition and has been released 
  • One traffic officer shot both men dead and has been praised by cops for potentially saving many lives 
  • ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals 

By Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren For Dailymail.com

A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after the two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, and his roommate were armed with assault rifles when they were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.

The shooting unfolded as the American Freedom Defense Initiative held an event inside the building where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were being displayed. Followers of Islam deem that any physical depiction of the prophet – even a positive one – is blasphemous.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

The second gunman has not been named but KPNX-TV reported that the two shared an apartment at the Autumn Ridge complex in Phoenix.

On Monday morning, FBI agents and investigators could be seen cordoning off and searching the apartment, as well as a white van believed to belong to Simpson. Investigators are also reviewing computer records from materials found at the home.

Investigators also searched the car that the two gunmen drove to the scene and found luggage and further ammunition inside. Some of the belongings were destroyed as a precaution but no explosives were found inside the vehicle, Garland Police Officer Joe Harn said on Monday.

On Monday, Simpson’s father said that he believes his son, who had worked in a dentist’s office, ‘made a bad choice’.

‘We are Americans and we believe in America,’ Dunston Simpson told ABC News. ‘What my son did reflects very badly on my family.’

Ahead of the attack on Sunday evening, several Twitter messages were sent out, and authorities believe Simpson was behind them. The last one was shared just half an hour before the shooting.

Followers of ISIS had been calling for an attack online for more than a week after learning that the competition in Garland would feature a ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest, with a prize of $10,000 for the best caricature.

After the attack, the SITE Intelligence Group reported that an Islamic State fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-Isis individuals.

In a series of tweets and links, a jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British IS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas.

‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet.

Other ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the now-suspended account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said ‘the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack’.

The contest was just minutes from finishing when multiple gunshots were heard.

The two suspects had pulled up in a vehicle before getting out and firing at a security officer, 57-year-old Bruce Joiner, who was employed by the independent school district. He was later taken to hospital in a stable condition and was released on Sunday evening.

As the gunmen got out of their car with their weapons, one police officer – a tenured traffic cop – shot both men dead, Garland Police officer Joe Harn said at a press conference on Monday. The officer used his service pistol to shoot the men, who were carrying assault weapons.

‘With what he was faced with and his reaction and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job,’ Harn said of the officer.

‘He did what he was trained to do, and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job and probably saved lives. We think their strategy was to get into the events center and they were not able to get past that outer perimeter.’

Randy Potts, a contributor for The Daily Beast, recalled how he was watching the speeches wrap up when a man wearing camouflage shouted: ‘Get inside the conference room now!’

‘The room was oddly quiet,’ he said. ‘A hush fell over the crowd of about 150, as if we were listening for something outside. Then a camo-clad security guard with a rifle got up on stage and announced that a cop and two suspects had been shot.’

He described how security surrounding the event was evident even as he drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center. The parking lot was surrounded by yellow tape and his ID was checked twice before he was allowed to enter.

Johnny Roby of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, had also been attending the conference. He said he was outside the building when he heard around 20 shots that appeared to be coming from the direction of a passing car.

Roby said he then heard two single shots before officers yelled that they had the car before he was sent inside the building.

The building, which had about 100 people inside, and surrounding areas were placed on lockdown by SWAT teams.

FBI bomb squad robots were then sent in to check the suspects’ vehicle, as the two bodies of the gunmen lay on the road beside it. The bodies were not immediately taken from the scene because they were too close to the car, which police feared had incendiary devices inside.

Shortly before midnight, police alerted media that a strong electronic pulse would be activated near the scene, presumably as part of the bomb squad’s work, and a loud boom was heard moments later, though police did not comment further on what was carried out.

The art event had been condemned by critics as an attack on Islam, but the organizers insisted they were exercising free speech.

Some Twitter users began posting about the shooting using a #JeSuisGarland hashtag, mirroring the #JesuisCharlie hashtag that became popular after January’s jihadist attacks in France. In that incident, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its cartoons of the prophet.

After the gunfire in Garland, those inside the building started to sing patriotic songs, including the national anthem and God Bless America, and said a prayer for the injured security guard after one woman pulled out an American flag from her bag.

Garland Police officer Joe Harn said on Sunday evening they had been monitoring the build-up to the event and had not received any credible threats.

During a press conference, he described how the shootout lasted only seconds. A large area around the Center remained blocked off late into the night.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott described the incident as a ‘senseless attack’ and praised the ‘swift action’ of Garland law enforcement.

The attack unfolded shortly after Dutch member of parliament and leader of the far-right Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, had delivered his keynote speech. There had been calls by members of Congress for him to be stopped at the border so he would not be able to speak.

‘We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech,’ he said during his speech shortly before the building was shut down. ‘That is our duty… Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.’

His remarks were met with a standing ovation. He then told the audience that most terrorists are Muslims, and ‘the less Islam the better’.

In 2009, he sparked controversy for showing a controversial film which linked the Koran to terrorism and has previously said the Netherlands is being taken over by a ‘tsunami of Islamisation’.

Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event and the leader of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on her personal website after the attack: ‘This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

In a post in late March, she insisted that the event was necessary to fight back against what she described as ‘the jihad against freedom’.

It was set up by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and had been described by opponents as an attack on Islam. They booked the center a little more than a week after Islamic militants in France killed 12 people at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The Garland Independent School district, who own the cultural center, allowed the event to go ahead despite criticism from residents and local Muslims that it was a risk to public safety.

The group spent $10,000 on 40 additional security officers, aware of potential threats they may attract, while Garland Police officers were fully prepared to deal with any issues that arose.

Before the event, the New York-based organisation made the headlines for its sponsorship of anti-Islamic adverts which it paid to run on transit systems in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and San Francisco.

A picture taken from inside the event just before the attack showed Geller giving a check for $12,500 to Bosch Fawtin who won the event.

He told the Dallas Morning News he believed there would be no danger because of the high levels of security surrounding the event.

‘I had known it would be secure, but seeing it is a whole new thing,’ he said before the shootings.

Locals in Garland said they were upset with the exhibit being held in their town, and tried to convince the city council to intervene.

One resident, Dorothy Brooks, said that the event was like shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater – an oft-cited example of freedom of speech taken too far.

She continued: ‘I understand that participants have a right to express themselves with cartoons, but I regret that this will be happening in our city.’

Another, Lena Griffin, asked at a city council meeting: ‘Do we want to be involved with this type of rhetoric?’ It is not an issue of free speech but clearly one of public safety.’

The event had already been the subject of disapproval from further afield, according to ForeignPolicy.com.

The site obtained a letter from congressmen Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and André Carson (D-Indiana) sent to John Kerry and Homeland Security asking them to bar a speaker for the event from entering the United States.

Caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have triggered violent protests in the past, including when the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published 12 satirical cartoons in 2005, triggering deadly protests in some Muslim countries.

In January, just weeks after the Paris attacks, an event called Stand with the Prophet was held in the same center. Muslim leaders from across the world gathered to try and combat ‘Islamophobes in America’ who had turned Muhammad into an ‘object of hate’.

Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event. One chanted: ‘Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!’ Others held signs with messages such as, ‘Insult those who behead others,’ an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

Mr Abbott said state officials are investigating, and Dallas FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said that the agency is providing investigative and bomb technician assistance.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was followed by another a month later in Europe. A masked gunman sprayed bullets into a Copenhagen meeting in February attended by a Swedish artist who had been threatened with death for his cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

A civilian was killed and three police officers were injured in the attack, aimed at artist Lars Vilks, who stirred controversy in 2007 with published drawings depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a dog.

Denmark itself became a target 10 years ago after the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. The images led to sometimes fatal protests in the Muslim world.


CONTROVERSIAL CARICATURES: WHY DEPICTING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS BANNED BY MUSLIMS 

It’s not mentioned in Islam’s holy book, the Quran, but the religion’s ban on depicting the Prophet Muhammad — even favorably — has run firm through the centuries.

Religious traditions built over the years have prohibited such depictions out of respect for Muhammad and to discourage idolatry, according to Muslim scholars and clerics. The ban is further rooted in a wider prohibition against images or statues of human beings.

There have been exceptions. A rich tradition of depicting Muhammad emerged in miniatures and illustrations for manuscripts from around 1200 to 1700. The art is mainly from Turkey and Iran, where pictorial traditions were stronger than in the Arab world. The paintings often show traditional stories from Muhammad’s life, such as his journey to heaven, though in some the prophet’s face is obscured by a veil or a plume of flame.

Shiites also differ from Sunnis by depicting Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, revered by Shiites who see him as the prophet’s rightful successor. His image — and those of his sons Hassan and Hussein — are plentiful among Shiites, adorning posters, banners, jewelry and even keychains. For Sunnis, the ban on depictions extends beyond the prophet to his close companions and wives.

‘The Prophet Muhammad enjoys sublime and supreme status among Muslims and it is impossible to let a normal person depict or act the role of the prophet,’ said Iraqi Shiite cleric Fadhil al-Saadi. ‘There is no confirmed information about the shape or the features of the Prophet … So nobody should come up with a painting or an image of him. That would represent an insult to the status of the prophet.’

With no explicit text against depictions — or against images of humans in general — the prohibition comes from deduction by Muslim scholars and interpreters over the centuries from the collections of Hadeeth, or sayings and actions of Muhammad.

The prohibition against depicting humans and other living beings, which emerged from scholars as early as the 9th century, came from reported sayings of Muhammad, in some of which he refused to enter a room with such depictions or challenged their creators to breathe life into them. The presumption was that such art would suggest man can emulate God’s powers of creation — and there were worries that statues in particular could encourage idolatry.

Islamic tradition is full of written descriptions of Muhammad and his qualities — describing him as the ideal human being. But clerics have generally agreed that trying to depict that ideal is forbidden. That puts satirical — and obscene — depictions like those in the French magazing Charlie Hebdo far beyond the pale.

While no one knows Muhammad’s true appearance, followers of the relatively modern, ultraconservative Salafi movement in Islam seek to emulate him as closely as possible — including in what they believe to be his physical features and dress. Hardcore Salafis wear a beard without a moustache, let their hair grow long, line their eyes with kohl or wear robes stopping around mid-shin, contending that was the prophet’s manner.

The ban also extends to his wives, daughters, sons-in-law, the first caliphs who succeeded him and his closest companions. In fact, Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni world’s foremost seat of religious learning, has complained when ‘Mohammed, Messenger of God,’ an epic 1970s Hollywood production, depicted the prophet’s camel.

There is a thriving production of religious TV series in the Arab world depicting the times of the prophet. But Muhammad and his companions are never themselves shown. At times, a white light stands in for Muhammad in the films or in movie posters — and when they are meant to be addressing Muhammad, the actors usually speak into the camera.


TAPES OF A TERROR SUSPECT: RECORDINGS SHOW SIMPSON’S INTENTIONS TO WAGE A WAR

Elton Simpson was well known to the FBI. In 2010, he was convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia – although a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group.

During the investigation, an FBI informant recorded their conversations, which showed Simpson talking about his intentions to fight for the Muslim way of life.

Court documents state: ‘Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away”…. “[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”‘

He added that in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Somalia, ‘they trying to bring democracy over there man, they’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws’.

He went on: ‘That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.’

In a recording from 2009, he told the informant that it was time they went to Somalia.

‘It’s time,’ he said. ‘I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… It’s time to roll…

‘People fighting and killing your kids, and dropping bombs on people that have nothing to do with nothing. You got to fight back you can’t be just sitting down… smiling at each other…’

FCC votes in Regs on 'Net Neutrality' – Consequences?

By SUA Staff

The Obama/Democrat Party “fundamental transformation of America” just visited another terrible blow on capitalism and further increased the size of government.

It also sets the stage for international controls few can fathom. Look soon for a new cabinet department, the DOI, Department of the Internet. George Soros, John Podesta, and the White House have won.

The repercussions of the new regulations created by the FCC, effectively taking control over the internet, passed on a party line vote of the Commissioners, 3-2 are stunning and unmeasurable at this time.

In an expected 3-2 party-line vote, the agency’s Democrat majority approved a plan by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that puts broadband providers in the same legal category as more highly regulated conventional telephone companies.

Wheeler has promised a modernized, light-touch regulatory approach that would exempt Internet service from many of the tougher provisions of that designation under Title 2 of the telecommunications law, particularly rate regulation. (LA Times)

The unintended consequences of this move will likely yield a whole host of negative results – but is that really unintentional? But we won’t know until we wade through all 322 pages. Sound familiar?

FCCNetNeutralityVote
Federal Communication Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, center, joins hands with Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, left, and Jessica Rosenworcel, before the start of their meeting in Washington, D.C., Thursday to vote on tough net neutrality regulations. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

The Chairman of the Commission and a supporter on the Commission said:

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said in voting for the proposal. “The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

FCC member Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted for the regulations, said: “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind.”

One of the two dissenting votes disagreed:

Ajit Pai, one of two Republicans on the FCC, said the new regulatory proposal abandoned 20 years of bipartisan consensus “to let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”

“It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public,” he said. (Read more at the LA Times.)

To those of us who work on the internet daily, many relying on it for their livelihood, we can see where this will go; all to fix something that was not broken. Market forces can get out of hand, and some regulation is necessary in some industries, but the internet is not just a “common carrier” of information – not by a long shot, it is not a utility.

In the Name of Consumer Protection

This is eerily similar to “pass the bill to see what’s in it” language that Nancy Pelosi told us about ObamaCare. Then, in a video posted by the LA Times about GOP concerns, Gene Kimmelman, President and CEO of Public knowledge stated in part in his response to concerns made by Rep. Greg Walden, R-OR:

“Sit back, and see what is put forward tomorrow…,” he may be a consumer advocate, but he is also all for the regulatory changes as he stated in his Senate testimony in January of this year. (While at the Department of Justice under Eric Holder, Kimmelman was referred to as Obama’s “Secret Weapon” on in the anti-trust division and was a Director at George Soros funded New America Foundation.)

Once again, we have to pass it so we can see what is in it. How would you like to be the CEO of a broadband provider who now has to see how his company’s future plans just changed unilaterally by bureaucrats? We see shades of the health care insurance industry, and health care provision issues all over again.

Gene Kimmelman testifying before Congress prior to the vote.
Gene Kimmelman testifying before Congress prior to the vote.

The internet is not just about downloading movies or songs, social networking, or blogging; and the free flow of ideas, innovation, creativity, and exploration, it is about commerce. Most of these attributes were not in any danger because the market self-selects and people vote with their wallets.

Unilateral Control

Those voting for the regulations claim it is about fairness – leveling the playing field. How level is level in the world of commerce and the free market?

Net_Neutrality_BennetIn our opinion, this effort was about control, not keeping something free, open, and fair.

Once again, liberals use crafty language to sway the unknowing and couch arguments in “safety,” and “fair” jargon, with the real purpose being to have government make decisions for you “stupid” masses, just ask Jonathan Gruber.

If it was about controlling broadband providers and keeping the internet neutral, why did it take 322 pages of regulations and why did they keep it hidden from the public?

We do not know, but many warned the FCC not to mess with the Web’s still-developing economic ecosystem and may be a tragic threat of our 1st Amendment rights.

However, the debate is not over but the regulations are now here, unilateral government control of the internet by a single agency without Congressional input. Yes it was created by our military, but ours, as in we-the-people’s.

International Control

Next it will mutate into international control if they have their way. Somehow, we see the United Nations creating yet another commission and gaining control many feared when the story that the Commerce Department tackles the contract with ICANN next year came out.

As was reported last March, the international question of control arose again as the Washington Post’s Craig Timberg wrote:

U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.

“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan,” Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement. (Read more here at the Washington Post.)

Then Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said: “…consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.” Thank you Senator, we all feel safer now.

There you go, those “safety” and “comfort” words again. Now that the FCC has voted, the slippery slope was just greased with 40 weight motor oil. Back in March, former Speaker-of-the-House, Newt Gingrich said: “This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”

Recently, the new Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota opined:

“…by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.

Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.

“It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument,” Thune said at his panel’s hearing on Internet governance. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?” (Read more at the National Journal.)

Trust in Government Agencies

How much trust do you have in our governmental agencies? How well have they run anything? Certainly politics will not be a concern.

Katherine Maher of Politico defended the idea of “It [Commerce and ICANN] intends to transition its coordinating role over the Internet’s domain name system—those web addresses you type into your browser—to the global Internet community” last March by saying:

It’s actually the opposite of what the critics claim: The Obama administration is trying to head off rising global pressure to give other countries, including China and Russia, more of a say in how the Internet is governed, not bow to it.

Her trust in the Commerce Department is a common problem, trust of a governmental agency that is at the whim of the current political tide has earned anything but. Ask yourself, who is the appointed Secretary of Commerce now and who will it be in the future? Who will be in charge of the FCC in the future?net-neutrality

If it is like the National Labor Safety Board that Obama tried to stack with cronies illegally, or ObamaCare that was shoved down our throats through the Department of Health and Human Services, be very afraid.

Maher continues:

“ICANN, [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] which was created primarily for the purpose of contracting to Commerce, is already a global body. Its headquarters are in California, but it has offices around the world and a governance model that includes representatives from 111 countries, international organizations and commercial and non-commercial stakeholders.”

“…there is no way Commerce will allow for a transition that doesn’t serve the public’s interest in a free and open Internet. The department controls the conditions, the timing and the ultimate approval of any new arrangement.”

If it is already international, why do the likes of China and Russia want more control? The simple answer is, they are actively seeking to reduce America to her knees, and Obama and his cronies are more than willing to “lead from behind” once again.

Say goodbye to your freedom on the internet, one already fraught with constant cyber-attacks, especially by the Chinese and Russians, and say hello to less privacy, higher bills, taxation, internet sales taxes, and limits on free speech.

How do you like all that flowery “comfort” jargon now? Free and open; fair? How about that doctor or health care plan you got to keep? Period! How about that “reset” with Russia? Is the internet the next Crimea?

How about that “targeting” issue? Do we really believe that a future administration would not “weaponize” the FCC like we all witnessed with the IRS? This will morph, of that we can be sure.

 

DNC Platform calls for limits to free speech

Editor’s Note – Somehow, this is not surprising since the Democrat Party is in the business of disinformation – for instance, Romney is a tax cheat, a murderer, a felon, and the list goes on – guess where those adds came from, the same entities and the legal decision they gripe about. Yet, they use the law to their advantage – truths be damned.

Then there is the “Medi-scare” debacle – the truth eludes them at every corner, yet they call the right ‘liars’ in their PAC adds. Guilt projection, coupled with limited free speech – it seems the word lie will be an even more common word in the future if their idea passes.

Democratic Platform Calls for Constitutional Amendment Limiting Free Speech

By Matt Cover – CNS News

(CNSNews.com)  The 2012 Democratic Party platform includes language calling for a constitutional amendment restricting free speech rights during elections, saying that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case should be overturned.

“Our opponents have applauded the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and welcomed the new flow of special interest money with open arms. In stark contrast, we believe we must take immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions,” the 2012 platform says.

“We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary,” it adds.

In its 2010 decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the political speech of activist groups or other independent organizations by limiting how much money they could spend during an election cycle. The court also struck down federal limits on when independent groups could engage in election-related activities such as running television ads or publishing political materials.

During oral arguments, the Obama administration argued that federal campaign finance laws allowed the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets, or any other material it felt qualified as election-related communications.

By calling for a constitutional amendment – as President Obama has in the past – the Democratic Party is saying it supports an amendment restricting the First Amendment rights affirmed by the Supreme Court. Such restrictions, by the Obama administration’s own admission, would allow the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets or any other type of material by independent political groups.

Such an amendment would also allow the government to restrict how much money independent groups could spend, effectively putting a cap on how much political speech such groups can engage in.

"Pressure and shame" to stop free speech – Clinton

Editor’s Note – It would be most interesting to listen to Hillary Clinton describe for us the meaning, direction, goals, and methods of Islam as she sees them. It wouldn’t take long we are sure, since she has no clue. Like so many in this administration, they appease and bend over backwards to Islamic propaganda and its infiltration of America, if not openly supporting all their world wide efforts. Like John Brennan, Chief Counter-terrorism Adviser to Obama, she must also think the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular group and the IRGC can be invited to discuss world peace ala Neville Chamberlain.

Worse though, is her desire to shut down our unalienable right to free speech:

“… use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Well Mrs. Clinton, those of us who do know the history, desires, goals, and propaganda of Islam – abhor you!

We at SUA have repeatedly pointed out that the number one diplomat of the United States of America should at least know these things because she speaks for us, yet, by her words and deeds, its clear she does not understand her counterparts from the east, because she thinks in ‘western liberalism’ – a patsy of the most gullible sort.

Since her long time number one aid, Huma Abedin, is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, questions are more numerous than answers.

A Shameful State Department Initiative

By Pamela Geller

Conservatives for America/American Thinker

Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Photos accompanying news reports about the upcoming meeting shows at a meeting last summer in Istanbul. Such prominence is given to this totalitarian organization. That photo reminds me of Neville and Adolf.

The respect and deference that the United States is paying to the OIC amounts to surrender in installments. The very idea that the U.S. Secretary of State is meeting with the OIC to discuss “religious tolerance” is like having Himmler meeting with Jews to condemn Jew-hatred. Under Islam. there is a complete and utter absence of “religious tolerance” of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries under the Sharia.

The call for “respect and empathy and tolerance,” coming from the most brutal and oppressive ideology on the face of the earth, reminds me of the “peace and equality” that was promised in Hitler’s campaign posters for the Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party.

The OIC is comprised of 56 governments along with the Palestinian Authority.

It also asserts authority over the Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, claiming that “Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are part of the Islamic nation.” It also recommends, according to the renowned historian Bat Ye’or, “a series of steps to prevent the integration and assimilation of Muslims into European culture.”

The OIC’s foremost target is truthful dialogue about Islam, which it calls “Islamophobia” and claims hysterically is a “a crime against humanity” that must be criminalized. In line with that initiative, back in July, Obama’s State Department reached a Sharia blasphemy agreement with OIC in Turkey. Hillary Clinton actually said this to the OIC:

We each have to work to do more to promote respect for religious differences in our own countries. In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance.

She wasn’t referring to Islamic jihadists. Clinton meant that the “ripples of intolerance” were those fighting against those jihadists.

Clinton went on to say:

We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

“Peer pressure and shaming.” That is exactly what these useful idiots try to do with anyone and everyone who tells the truth about Islam and jihad: me, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, and more.

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition and James Lafferty, a Board member of my organization Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), have been covering the preparations for Monday’s meeting closely.