(Examiner)The Washington Examiner reports that a town in New York has forced the removal of the historic Gadsden Flag, which has been a symbol of American determination to fight for liberty ever since the American revolution.
According to Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit, a group of U.S. veterans is fighting the local city council in New Rochelle, N.Y. for the right to display the flag at the local armory. The Navy and the Marine Corps have been flying the flag since 1775. The Gadsden Flag has long been considered a patriotic symbol.
But the New Rochelle City Council says that the Gadsden Flag is a symbol of the Tea Party and has right wing connotations.
No one in the veteran’s group, however, is a member of the Tea Party.
Some of the members of the council itself appear to be carrying their own unjustified bias concerning the flag. One council member likened the Gadsden flag to a flag used by homosexuals on gay pride day. Another stated that the patriotic flag is like the Nazi flag, or graffiti, or a Mickey Mouse flag.
The display of symbols traditionally has been viewed as an aspect of free speech and is thus protected by the First Amendment. But apparently in New York State, not only is the private ownership of guns considered tantamount to an act of violence but free speech is viewed with disdain.(MORE)
Like Muslims pushing for sharia law in the U.S., the courts seem to want to have it both ways when it suits them, via Islam: Political or Religious? | Blog – American Freedom Law Center.Yesterday, AFLC filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (TTAB) affirmance of the denial of the “Stop Islamisation of America” or “SIOA” trademark application, which was sought by anti-sharia advocates Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI). In a nutshell, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application, ruling that the trademark disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (You can read the whole story here.)The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is a highly-specialized federal court in Washington, D.C., that was established to hear, among others, patent/trademark appeals. At this point, it is difficult to determine how the Federal Circuit will treat this case. Generally, the TTAB, which is the last administrative appeal at the USPTO, rubber stamps the director, but in our case, the briefs and oral argument were so one-sided in our favor that there was hope for a favorable ruling. However, that did not happen, but it was no surprise: most judges are quite hostile when these types of cases are argued. Moreover, and perhaps surprisingly, the most hostile judges are typically Republican appointees. For example, in AFLC’s victories in the lower federal courts in New York and Detroit, the judges were liberal appointees, and they ruled on the side of granting First Amendment protection to our clients’ speech. In this case, given the law at work, it should be an easy victory for our clients. But, we shall wait and see.To explain further, in one case where AFLC had won in the trial court after a full evidentiary hearing at which the transit authority admitted during cross examination that our clients’ advertisement did not convey an impermissible “political” message, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit comprised of 2/3 George W. Bush appointees reversed, holding that the advertisement, “Fatwa on your head? Leaving Islam? Contact www.refugefromislam.com,” was not a permissible “religious” ad but, instead, was impermissibly “political” (the rules were meant to preclude political campaign ads from Detroit/Dearborn buses — not what we call in the law “political speech,” which of course is the most protected of all speech under the First Amendment) because “Fatwa” and sharia are political not religious matters. It was a remarkable and somewhat startling admission.So, in the Sixth Circuit, sharia is now political, and to the USPTO, it is religious. In sum, the federal courts are a laboratory of the studied application of incoherence where words carry no meaning but are used arbitrarily to protect the politically correct mantra that Muslims and Islam constitute a special class that stands above criticism that is otherwise protected speech under the First Amendment. In short, blasphemy laws are alive and well—we just don’t want to admit it.
#Censored Again: #Facebook removes #PalestinianMediaWatch expose of girl calling Jews ‘descendants of pigs’April 11, 2013
The long time official faceboook policy has long been to attack the victims who want to talk about the hate they deal with. This is nothing new. facebook also threw the Jewish Internet Defense Force’s permanent facebook account off the network, so it is almost impossible to organize against the hate. This is the long term policy of a network run by liberal feminist Jews and this is the general attitude that liberal feminist Jews have towards other Jews.
|Palestinian Media Watch posted the following video. Facebook removed it.
Let’s go to the videotape.
(Atlas) It’s hard to watch. American stalwart institutions giving up our most basic freedom to Islamic supremacists, goons and thugs.
I just got the news that Gujrat’s Chief Minister, Sri Narendra Bhai Modi’s speech has been cancelled in the USA, and some other Indian leader may speak in his place. This is likely due to the leftist Obama adminstration working in tandem with the pro-Islamic supremacist corrupt Congress government that is ruling India. Atlas reader Seema sent this to me. The loss of our most basic freedoms without firing a shot is stunning.
This mirrors Harvard’s firing of Subramanian Swamy. Voices of freedom snuffed out by sharia enforcers.
It is appalling that some professors and students of Communist and Muslim background are protesting against Wharton’s students’ body decision to invite Shri Narendra Modi. Four times elected Chief Minister Narendra Modi is hailed to be the next Prime Minister of India and has been praised as a Powerful Global Leader by the heads of many countries including Japan, China, European Union, etal. He has been invited to deliver a keynote speech at Wharton India Economic Forum about his amazing all round inclusive development work and peaceful minimum government maximum governance, which he has been delivering in his Indian State of Gujarat for the past 12 years.
The bad news is that Wharton School is disregarding the sacred US First Amendment, which guarantees absolute Free Speech to every individual, by getting influenced by few Islamic bigots on campus and is planning to cancel invitation given to Shri Narendra Modi. This has been reported in an article on NDTV, which is an extremely Leftist pro-Muslim leaning Indian news channel, at http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/after-outrage-will-wharton-rethink-inviting-narendra-modi-as-speaker-337471
Please note that, contrary to the lies peddled by Muslims and Leftist lobbyists in the US, a special investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court of India has found no evidence of commission or omission against Shri Narendra Modi, and has exonerated him of all allegations in 2002 Gujarat riots case. 2002 Gujarat riots happened after a Muslim terrorist mob roasted alive 59 Hindu devotees including women and children, who were returning from the Hindu holy city of Ayodhya, by locking them in a train compartment and lighting it on fire using gallons of petrol. It is bizarre that there is even a protest against Shri Modi because there is not even a single police report or complaint filed against this innocent man in any Police Station or Court in India.
If you remember a few years back Columbia University had invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and he delivered an anti-semitic and anti-gay speech on its campus. As expected no Muslims or Communists protested at that time. It seems as per these Universities, Free Speech Rights are for genocidal Islamic dictators only (who themselves deny the same Right to others) and not for four times democratically and fairly elected honorable public representative Shri Narendra Modi. Please note that Shri Modi’s government has come back to power again recently with a thumping majority, especially in most Muslim dominated constituencies. Sometime ago Harvard University gave into the pressures of Muslim and Leftist bigots and canceled Shri Subramanian Swamy’s Economics class because he wrote an article about Islamic terror in his personal capacity.
This is a very dangerous and intolerant trend against Free Speech in the US. Please take a moment to write to the Chair and other organizers of Wharton India Economic Forum extending your support for their decision to invite Shri Narendra Modi and ask them not to give into the pressures of Muslim bullies, who want to suppress Free Speech of a innocent Global leader.Organizers’ contact information is available at http://www.whartonindia.com/about.php and is given below:
Marketing & Sponsorship:
Please also email or call the Dean of Wharton School, etal asking them to respect the US First Amendment, to not step on the toes of Indian Justice System by disregarding latter’s verdict, and to not give into illegal demands of Islamic bigots. Following is the contact information:
Dean, The Wharton School
Media Relations Coordinator, Wharton Communications
Senior Associate Director, Wharton Communications
Director, Wharton Communications
On January 18, 2013, the Circuit Court in Wayne County preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action charging that McDonald’s had sold non-”halal” Chicken Mcnuggets that had been advertised as “halal.” A local activist named Majed Moughni was unhappy with the settlement terms (which required McDonalds to pay some money to two local Dearborn charities, along with a hefty fee to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, but nothing for the other class members), so he began a Facebook campaign (“Dearborn Area Community Members”) where he criticized the settlement terms and tried to organize opposition to it.
So far, so good. But the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed an action seeking an injunction against Moughni’s Facebook page, asking that Moughni be required to take everything he had said about the case down, and to post on his Facebook page instead what they said (and what the Court had said).
Unbelievably enough, the court granted the motion and entered a preliminary injunction; finding that Moughni had made “materially false, deceptive and misleading statements concerning the settlement . . . and concerning the rights of the members of the Settlement Class,” and that Moughni “thereby engaged in deliberate and abusive conduct which has created a likelihood of confusion of class members, adversely has effected the administration of justice and has undermined this Court’s responsibility and authority to protect Class members from such abuses,” the Court
(a) ordered Moughni to remove all statements about the case from his Facebook page and to replace them with the Court’s own expression, and the parties’ own expression, about the proposed settlement, in the form of the preliminary approval order and class notice;
(b) enjoined him from making any other statements about the case in any other forum—whether in person or electronically, or to the press;
(c) ordered him to identify to the Court and the parties those class members who had associated themselves with Moughni’s point of view by using the Facebook “like” and comment functions; and
(d) forbade him from “dissemination, circulation or publication” or any form for opting out or objecting to the settlement.
I don’t know why episodes like this get me so riled up, but they do. It’s the worst kind of judicial over-reaching – protecting the court’s own turf from dissension and criticixm by exploiting its power over defendants. Fortunately, Public Citizen has stepped in to move to vacate the injunction (aided, I’m told, by the ACLU of Michigan). Good luck to them
I’m more worried about the judge issuing an injunction against someone “not affiliated with this litigation” without any mention of how it justifies an injunction against a non-party to the suit.
She’s accepted a settlement of a class action suit, and issued an injunction requiring a member of the class to accept it? Seriously? And is he now prohibited from speaking out about the injunction, since that would in turn bring attention to his views on the settlement? Apparently the people allowed to decide these matters have clarified their contempt for the constitution as getting in the way of their court.
Updated: if #AaronSwartz had gotten older he might of realized that his progressive buds @EFF and MIT were hypocritesJanuary 17, 2013
(Hey Jillian C York… Why didn’t you help me with my legal bills?)
(The father of information activist Aaron Swartz blames US prosecutors for his son’s death)Before his days with Apple, recalled Mr. Swartz, Jobs and his business partner Steve Wozniak “used to criminally defraud the phone company” by selling small “blue box” devices that allowed anyone in the country to conduct long-distance calls for free. Gates’ development of Microsoft’s BASIC, Swartz said, was “sketchy” at best. “These are people who are lionized,” he said, and “treated like idols in our culture.”
And so the conspiracies from Russia will be promoted like 911Truth. It is sad that no one offered to pay this guy’s legal bills when he was alive… now everyone will profit off of his death. The same conspiracy theorists that took advantage of a man of logic when he was alive will continue to spin this to their advantage and blame this on a free nation. It is one thing for a grieving father to defend his child. It is another thing for a news outlet like RT to shamefully report this.
(Our Legal System Didn’t Give Aaron Swartz a Chance) In his book Three Felonies a Day, veteran defense attorney Harvey Silverglate warns that “the trend of ambitious prosecutors exploiting vague federal laws and pursuing criminal charges instead of more appropriate civil actions” makes potential criminals of us all. Redundant indictments for multiple offenses flowing from a single act — and threats of lengthy, life-destroying sentences — enable prosecutors to extort pleas from innocent or not-terribly-guilty defendants. It is often “nearly impossible for normal, rational, self-interested, calculating people to risk going to trial,” Silverglate observes. Moreover, the minority of people willing to take that risk may be deprived of the means to do so by pretrial orders freezing any assets allegedly generated by their alleged offenses.
Noah: People ask me why I took a guilty plea of misdemeanors when I set out to free information. Here is why. I’m alive. Adam Swartz is dead. I get to write this: Adam trusted in the system and his elitist Boston @EFF pals who did nothing. My mother asked me why I never contacted the ACLU. For a good reason I didn’t. These people are parasites. This Adam guy believed in justice and the system. I guess I’m a cynic… but I didn’t have to kill myself……… if this #hacker #AaronSwartz had gotten older he might of realized that his progressive buds @EFF and MIT were hypocrites. He took the fall for other people’s greed. If academia is funded by totalitarian governments and you are busy destroying the property in a free market then it doesn’t matter how much insider code you have. All the scum on twitter’s first year that were touting the open platform of twitter with RSS were the last people to bitch when the social networks turned into walled archetypes. The elite in these programs depend on the system that they rail against. Progressives are a lot like Muslims. They kill their own more than anyone else.
Do a google search for ‘Noah David Simon’ and you can see they did to me what they did to Aaron Swartz. The difference with me is I could see my opposition. This guy was too far on the inside to realize that he was in the lion’s den. His crowd was with people who distributed a lot of Palestine propaganda… against free markets. Though Abbas leader of Fatah appears to claim to be Libertarian, Fatah started as a Socialist movement. You can realize that copyright is obsolete without railing against private property. Free markets recognize there are somethings you can not own. It doesn’t mean the government owns it. I’m sure Aaron’s friends feel they are closer to Libertarians, like Abu Mazen… but that just becomes sustaining an unsustainable system. It’s a lie either way. Socialist or Libertarian… it’s breaking the rules. Anarchy always defaults to tyranny.
If he had been found guilty of the charges, Swartz faced up to 35 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines, although it has emerged that negotiations between his lawyers and prosecutors had included a potential plea bargain of six months in prison. Condemnation of prosecutors over the litigation against Swartz continued on Tuesday. A petition to the Obama administration to remove Ortiz from office reached 28,188 signatures, past the crucial 25,000 signatures needed for a White House response. In July 2011, Ortiz said in a statement about the case: “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” Lawyers for Swartz said that, despite their best efforts, prosecutors had refused to negotiate a plea bargain which did not involve jail time. One also said that MIT refused to agree to a plea bargain in which Swartz did not serve time. Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, told the Boston Globe that he had warned one prosecutor, Steve Heymann, that his client was a “suicide risk”. Good said: “His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said: “Fine, we’ll lock him up.” I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.” Lawyers for Swartz said they had offered to accept a deferred prosecution or probation, so that if he did it again he would serve time. Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, told the paper he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. “There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,” but that support did not override institutional interests, Weinberg told the Globe. Another of Swartz’s attorneys, Elliot Peters, said on Monday that MIT officials were “very cooperative with prosecutors” during the investigation. “MIT could have handled things differently, rather than inviting law enforcement and turning it into a federal criminal case,” Peters said.
- We call for this tragedy to be a basis for reform of computer crime laws, and the overzealous prosecutors who use them.
the extreme measures of the prosecution merely reflect Anonymous and groups like EFF
- We call for this tragedy to be a basis for reform of copyright and intellectual property law, returning it to the proper principles of common good to the many, rather than private gain to the few.
…actually that’s bullshit. Aaron came off looking like a good guy and guys like Noah David Simon (that is me) were libeled as stalkers of women. If anything Aaron realized that he had nothing to live for and it was probably because of this sicko culture he was a part of that encouraged him. He would not of been an insider unless he was mentally ill
- We call for this tragedy to be a basis for greater recognition of the oppression and injustices heaped daily by certain persons and institutions of authority upon anyone who dares to stand up and be counted for their beliefs, and for greater solidarity and mutual aid in response.
try attacking feminism for free expression and see how quickly Anonymous will abandon the martyr
- We call for this tragedy to be a basis for a renewed and unwavering commitment to a free and unfettered internet, spared from censorship with equality of access and franchise for all.
that includes violent threats… if not then they should support the Jewish Internet Defense Force
(M.I.T.’s president, L. Rafael Reif, said he had appointed a prominent professor, Hal Abelson, to “lead a thorough analysis of M.I.T.’s involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present.” He promised to disclose the report, adding, “It pains me to think that M.I.T. played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.” )The last post he wrote on that blog, in November, was a detailed analysis of the final installment of the “Batman” series.
The Joker is actually the hero
…only in the movie Aaron. The rules work only within the given system… He had no faith and was stuck within the constructs of logic. No faith, hence the suicide.
Having warned his readers that he was about to reveal the conclusion of the movies, he ended the post by writing:
Thus Master Wayne is left without solutions. Out of options, it’s no wonder the series ends with his staged suicide.”
But Aaron did not fake his suicide. He must of been disappointed by the third movie.
From Al Arabiya/AFP:
Telecom companies across the world may be given the opportunity to dig through data passed across the Internet more easily following a move to allow the United Nations new authority to regulate the Web.
At a conference in Dubai this week, Members of the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) agreed to work towards implementing a standard for the Internet that would allow for eavesdropping on a worldwide scale.
The ITU members decided to adopt the Y.2770 standard for deep packet inspection, a top-secret proposal by way of China that will allow telecom companies across the world to more easily dig through Web data, according to a report from Russia Today.
The gathering which opened this week in Dubai of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union has triggered fierce objections from Washington, and from Internet freedom activists who fear new rules that could end the freewheeling system of the Internet.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously on Wednesday to oppose any efforts to give the United Nations new authority to regulate the Internet.
The 397-0 vote, following a similar vote in the Senate, came as delegates were meeting in Dubai to revise a global telecom treaty, a gathering which some say could be used to impose new controls on the Internet.
Representative Greg Walden said ahead of the vote that lawmakers should “send a strong bipartisan, bicameral signal about America’s commitment to an unregulated Internet.”
He said Washington should not “stand idly by while countries like Russia and China seek to extort control over the Internet.”
The Internet controlled by the same countries that control the UN?
Even though it is unlikely to happen anytime soon, in a decade or two this could become a major problem.
Just imagine what Muslim countries could band together to do to the Internet.