PDA

View Full Version : Will Democrat Control Mean The End of Free Speech in America?


lakeway11
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:33 PM
my Bayesian posterior analysis of the Jewish-led thought crimes Inquisition put it at a 98.7% probability

Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass
By Rev. Ted Pike
11-15-6


For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal "anti-hate" bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.

Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.

With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL's federal thought crimes bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a "modified" hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

Unless, that is, there arises an upheaval of protest from the American people. How can that happen? Answer: Alternative right-wing talk radio has helped make it happen before; it can do so again.

Spreading Net of Thought Crime Laws

Today, from Canada to California, to Europe and Australia, ADL-inspired "thought crime" laws are stripping nations of free speech. In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime punishable by heavy fines and even imprisonment to make use of the internet to criticize federally protected groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims.

A top Canadian "hate laws" senior policy advisor recently described the power of her country's "speech crime" tribunal courts: "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body. It can force a web to shut down or risk a $10,000 fine--$20,000 in extreme cases. If one ignores the Tribunal, one can be tried in federal court for contempt, and risk a 9-month jail sentence for a first-time offense." (Karen Izzard, quoted in Jewish Tribune, Sept. 21, 2006)

English-Turkish cyber-hate expert Prof. Yaman Akdeniz, speaking at a B'nai B'rith conference on how to end dissent on the net, rejoices that David Irving is behind bars. He said "continental European countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Hungary, Austria and Belgium have strong anti-hate laws, which have resulted in the imprisonment of hate-mongers. In Holland, 657 websites were removed. And in Germany, more than 700 hate websites were shut down." (ibid)

In England, two men who publicly described Islam as a "wicked faith" were indicted under Britain's anti-hate law and are fighting to avoid seven years in prison. The ADL-influenced British hate law stipulates that truth cannot be admitted as evidence in court. Only the complaints by members of specially protected groups who say their feelings have been hurt will be allowed. David Irving languishes in an Austrian prison primarily because he was forbidden to bring truth to the court in his defense.

NPN Helped Hold Back Hate Laws

Congressional Republicans have played a decisive role in keeping hate laws from similarly binding America. But there is another factor: the consistent resistance and education provided over the last 27 years by the National Prayer Network. Here is a brief history of NPN's role and my part as its director.

In 1988, after ADL held its definitive Hofstra conference on "verbal violence," I realized ADL wanted jurisdiction over all hate crimes definitions, education, enforcement, and statistics gathering for the federal government. They intended to seize control through passage of their Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990. I responded by creating a powerful brochure, "Will Hate Laws Make You a Lawbreaker?" which NPN sent to many thousands of key opinionmakers.

Ultimately, we failed. Congress passed the act and ADL now dominates the federal hate crimes agenda all the way down to every local police precinct in America.

Also, during the 1990s, ADL persuaded about 46 states to adopt some version of its "Model Hate Crimes Statute." These are backup "sleeper" state hate laws that can be used by ADL in lieu of a federal hate law, which is their ultimate dream.

Where were the New Right watchdogs during the 10-year period when ADL created a federal hate crimes agenda and made hate crimes law for most states? There was no organized consistent opposition apart from some excellent research on the danger of hate laws done by Robert L. Knight. This was used in sporadic alerts by New Right organizations including Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and the efforts of Dr. D. James Kennedy, who was pivotal in publicizing Knight's research to help defeat a federal hate bill in 2000 (See, "How Dr. D. James Kennedy Helped Save Free Speech").

Sounding the Alarm

In 2000, my wife Alynn and I produced an 80-minute video documentary, Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians. With much documentation provided by Canadian free speech leader Paul Fromm and a stellar review from Michael Collins Piper of the American Free Press newspaper, many thousands of this groundbreaking video circulated throughout America and the world.

Also, hand writing every address, NPN sent 12,500 copies of my brochure to every state legislator and virtually every member of Congress, plus about eight of each of their key legislative staffers.

Yes, these were small beginnings. But at last, a consistent educational program against hate laws was underway.

Not a moment too soon! In the spring of 2002, ADL expected easy passage of its hate bill by the Senate. Yet Jim Tucker of American Free Press told me that when he attended the National Press Club at that time, reporters were abuzz with how much unusually educated protest against hate laws was bombarding members of Congress.

Emboldened by the public outcry, a handful of spirited Republican senators demanded discussion of the bill on the floor of the Senate. That's the last thing Tom Daschle and the ADL wanted. They shelved the bill for the year.

Taking to the Airwaves

In the spring of 2004 NPN and the religious right were shocked to learn ADL had quickly and quietly passed its hate bill by a vote of 65-33 in the Senate.

I was desperate to defeat the hate bill, but how? The only glimmer of hope was in burgeoning alternative talk radio. For a week, I phoned 1,400 talk radio stations in America, gleaning the names of about 350 Christian conservative talk show hosts. I sent them our hate laws brochure and an offer of a free video. Only five responded.

Then I heard of popular talk show host Pastor Ernie Sanders. He shared my burden and allowed me to speak on his program many times to alert his vast listening audience. The late Dr. David Wolfe soon did the same on the Genesis radio network, as did Bill Brumbaugh of First Amendment Radio. During the summer of 2004, as the hate bill was headed for conference, many other talk show hosts allowed me to speak. A wave of angry protest assaulted Congress. Result: Again, House Republicans, under Rep. Roy Blunt, encouraged defeat of the hate bill on Oct. 8, 2004.

ADL Goes Berserk

What happened next is still beyond belief. ADL was enraged by our defeat of their cherished thought crimes bill. On Sunday, Oct. 10, through their National Executive Board member, Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, they arrested 11 Christians peacefully evangelizing at a large gay pride rally in downtown Philadelphia. One of the charges against the Christians was the "hate crime" of criticizing homosexuals. Total possible penalties: 47 years in prison and $90,000 fines each. (See, "Eleven Christians Jailed For Criticizing Homosexuality")

Realizing God had given ADL into our hands, I took the offensive on dozens of national radio talk shows, some with Michael Marcavage, head of the "Philly 11." He and his lawyers were also extensively interviewed. Some New Right organizations, such as Concerned Women for America and WorldNetDaily, alerted millions. Despite silence from the mainstream media, we were able to trumpet news of this outrage to the entire astonished world.

International indignation against Abraham and the corrupt Philly government became so great that Abraham (herself soon the defendant in a wrongful arrest and imprisonment suit) was glad to allow a fair-minded judge and jury to drop the case against the Christians.

In my opinion, ADL's rash action against the "Philly 11" was the greatest blunder in their 89-year history. It allowed me, in the next year and half, to speak on nearly 200 talk shows. For the first time, millions of Americans were made aware of how ADL has silenced free speech in Canada and desires the same stranglehold in America.

Incredibly, however, most of the largest Christian conservative organizations gave minimum, or very belated, exposure to what happened in Philadelphia. To this hour, they have failed to provide any long-term education on the threat of thought crimes legislation.

Threat of Hate Bill Returns

Although we defeated the hate bill twice, the House in the fall of 2004 made recommendation by a nonbinding vote of 213 to 186 in favor of the hate bill. The next time the hate bill came to the House for a vote, it would surely pass. That's exactly what happened.

In October 2005, after only 45 minutes of discussion, the House passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a rider on a Republican-generated bill to protect children from pedophiles.

The blitzkrieg speed of the bill's passage deeply shocked evangelicals and conservatives. They thought House Republicans would never allow it to happen. Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America sputtered that passage was "inexplicable." If she and other evangelical leaders had listened to my warnings over the past year, they would have known passage was not surprising at all, but predicted.

The New Right quickly mobilized. It encouraged millions of Christians and conservatives to protest with calls to their senators and Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader. Impressive as was this response, I knew it could not win. The battle would be decided in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where, hopelessly, it seemed, Republicans against the hate bill were outnumbered 10-8.

On at least 50 talk shows, the most important of which were those with Jeff Rense, I instructed hundreds of thousands of patriots to do what few had ever asked before: Come to www.truthtellers.org for a complete list of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Countless patriots, eager to save freedom, called protesting the hate bills.

Having saturated Judiciary for two weeks, I then posted the names of all 100 Senators, and again a vast number of patriots called each one.

In short, between an outpouring of calls generated by the New Right and myself-and a divinely imposed madness on the part of Sen. Kennedy, sponsor of the hate bill who gave up support of the bill in Judiciary at the last minute-the hate bill was defeated. (See, "Federal Hate Bill Virtually Dead ")

Hate Bill Still a Threat

Yet, contrary to what most believed, the hate bill was not dead. Sen. Kennedy still had power to revive it on the floor of the Senate-reattaching it to the children's bill just as soon as Sen. Frist brought this much-needed legislation before the Senate.

As a result, Frist (unbeknownst to supporters of the children's bill, such as Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and John Walsh of America's Most Wanted) would not let the children's bill onto the floor of the Senate. He would not allow Kennedy the opportunity to stand to his feet and demand reattachment of his hate bill to the children's legislation. Frist knew that if Kennedy got that opportunity, the Senate, having voted overwhelmingly 65-33 for the hate bill the previous spring, would certainly support Kennedy and pass it.

This standoff of Senate titans continued through the fall and then the winter session of Congress. Supporters of the children's bill, like Kathie Lee Gifford, O'Reilly and Walsh, unaware of the real reason for its delay, began making angry demands that Frist get the children's bill moving. Frist was mum concerning his real reasons for delay and wouldn't budge. He knew the extreme danger and power of Kennedy to pass the hate bill if the children's bill came before the Senate.

Finally, as tension was becoming almost explosive, I sent out my e-alert explaining to the nation that the only reason the children's bill was bottled up was because of Kennedy's determination to have his hate bill attached to it.

Less than two days later, O'Reilly exploded on Fox News, furiously accusing Kennedy of the obstructionism which I had described. Tens of thousands of calls flooded Kennedy's office. I also generated many thousands to all members of the Senate, opposing the hate bill. When Kennedy publicly announced his abandonment of attempts to pass the hate bill, I knew we had witnessed another mighty deliverance from God.

A Dangerous Time

Humanly speaking, these victories were primarily made possible because of the presence and integrity of Sen. Bill Frist and core Republicans in leadership of Congress.

Frist is now gone as Senate majority leader, replaced by no other than Sen. Harry Reid, co-sponsor with Kennedy of the Senate version of the hate bill. Similarly, House majority leader Nancy Pelosi is another long-term hate bill supporter, a pipeline from San Francisco gay activism. Such liberals and ADL lackeys are as determined to pass the hate bill as Frist was to impede it.

Now, with more than enough votes from Democrats and turncoat Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that ADL's dream legislation will be approved and move America toward a Big Brother police state.

Considering the lack of focus and inattention of the New Right and Christian evangelicals in opposing hate crimes laws, we cannot count on them to provide an offensive proactive program of resistance. Yes, they will react eventually but only at the last moment. Their stop-gap response will almost certainly be too little, too late.

Alternative talk radio, especially the Genesis and Republic networks, speaks to hundreds of thousands of focused activists. It still holds the brightest possibility, in my opinion, for another deliverance.

That is, if the talk show hosts will put me on the air. The reason I have dwelt at length on the record of myself and NPN is not to boast. Rather, it is to remind talk show hosts of my unique ability to explain the background and danger of hate laws and to generate effective protest to Congress.

It's true, especially of late, that I have had to become very critical of Jewish activism, Talmudic Judaism, and Israel. Some talk hosts may say, "I can't put Ted Pike on-ADL will make trouble and I'll lose stations!"

The truth is, talk show hosts, if you don't put me on and let me fight for your free speech, soon you'll lose not just a few stations-you'll lose everything.

With Republicans out of power, Congress must be besieged with protest as never before. With this in mind, the issue is not, "Do I dare put Ted Pike on the air?" Instead, the issue is, "Do I dare not to?"

http://www.rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

égalité
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:41 PM
:weirdo:

Hate isn't free speech. It's verbal harassment. And there are already laws against that.

samsung101
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:50 PM
I think they'll try. I think they'll push it fast.


The public may have been angry and frustrated with a war effort
they want over sooner than later, frustrated with a peace at home
that seemed to say the war wasn't necessary anymore, angry with
a few GOP scandals, and complacent with a good economy built on
the Bush tax cuts that allowed us to have change in Congress......
but, did the public say 'swing far left?'

The Democrats think yes.

They will push every San Fran Nan Policy they can, and fast.

We're seeing it already.

Kucinich didn't win the presidency. He didn't get many votes at all
anywhere. But, I guarantee you his ideas are the same as Nancy Pelosi's,
and that's what they will push.


It is the #1 hope of the GOP in 2008, the far left will lead as the far
leftists they really are...not as they campaigned on as moderates.


It's sad.

We have only to look at Italy and France and other nations
where 'speech' is now regulated like this.

That's not what I want here.

I may dislike Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and things like
The Turner Diaries and Klan material...but, I have to allow it as
an American because of The Constitution. It's free speech.

I don't like flags burning, but it is free speech.

I don't care for the people Reconquista and invoke racial and
ethnic ideas and terms to do it, but it's free speech.

I have to allow it.


I hope as a nation we realize what we're heading to with the
PC mentality.



Salman Rushdie.
Theo Van Gogh.
Cartoons.



Look at what the 'cartoon's did to the world. We let protests and
calls for beheadings silence free speech all over the world, even
here.


Yes, Pelosi and others love Europe, and will try to emulate that here.

Wigglytuff
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:52 PM
dude i hope so, at least it will bring an end to all this bad poetry!!

Qrystyna
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:08 PM
I don't see how anybody could defend hatred, racism, and bigotry by claiming they have the right to "free speech". That's not free speech, that's just inciting hatred.

Why are these clergymen so full of hate anyway? I thought Jesus was all about love and peace.

bionic71
Nov 16th, 2006, 10:34 PM
If it means putting an end to the vitriolic nonsense and twisted logic....as written by Rev. Ted Pike above....then lets hope the bills passes swiftly.

nikita771
Nov 16th, 2006, 10:49 PM
If it means putting an end to the vitriolic nonsense and twisted logic....as written by Rev. Ted Pike above....then lets hope the bills passes swiftly.

AMEN TO THAT:worship:

Rocketta
Nov 16th, 2006, 11:33 PM
oh the spin is beginning I see. Now Free Speech wasn't under attack when people were losing their jobs because they didn't agree with the president but if congress passes a hate bill then it is. :lol: :haha:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 17th, 2006, 02:16 PM
For those who don't know it, Ted Pike is a racist white supremacist who is associated with the following whte supremacist publication:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vanguard_(publication)

Lord Nelson
Nov 17th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Well a lot of democrats are on the conservative side. They are bright enought to know that Islam is not a race. For instance the Californian student who refused to stand up, well he is white. A white American of Iranian origin. The bill is worthless and unneeded.

Qrystyna
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:19 PM
For those who don't know it, Ted Pike is a racist white supremacist who is associated with the following whte supremacist publication:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vanguard_(publication)

LOL Oh dear, no wonder the creator of this thread has not responded. Sad that the "conservatives" have sunk so low to begin embracing white supremacists... if they weren't already ones themselves :lol:

I completely agree with Bionic71's post.

Kunal
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:25 PM
quite the contrary

BUBI
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:35 PM
These kind of laws are dangerous and not needed :(

Fucking Democrats :fiery:

Volcana
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:36 PM
Will Democrat Control Mean The End of Free Speech in America?Of course not, for a couple reasons.

a) There's no 'Democrat' party in the United States. So they can't take control of anything. That's like me asking if Pelican Party control of the Federal government guaranteed massive fiscal irresponsibility, as opposed to the Respublican party.

b) Enforcing 'Free Speech Zones' around the Republican Convention in New York City and evicting citizens from taxpayer-financed events for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts demonstrated the end of frree speech, if anything currently happening does.

c) Freedom of Speech has NEVER been absolute. The general case for the exception is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The potential harm caused by the panic that might result is considered more important than the individual's right to say whatever they want. Another example, it is expressly illegal for me to threeaten the life of the President of the United States.

Limits to speech based on bigoted content came open to consideration in the United States after Black Urban Rebellions (http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm) in the 1950s and 60's. The Kerner Commision Report (http://www.africanaonline.com/reports_kerner.htm) followed in 1968, leaving the United States, as a society, with a stark choice. The United States was, indisputably, a white supremacist society in 1968. Was the freedom to continue as one worth thousands of lives and billions in property damage? If it wasn't, laws would have to change, and limits were going to have to be put on a lot of behaviours previously considered 'protected'.

Add to this, the generation in political power was the generation that fought in WWII, and had seen Hitler and his minions using virtually the same speech as was used in America towards those they considered inferior. They has seen first hand where it all could lead.

So, to re-iterate, the answer to your question is 'no'. 'Democrat' control of Congress is no greater danger to Freedom of Speech than 'Pelican' control.

Freedom of Speech has NEVER been absolute, not since the inception of the Republic.

égalité
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:47 PM
These kind of laws are dangerous and not needed :(

Fucking Democrats :fiery:


:haha:

I love how conservatives get all up in arms when a law threatens hate speech (because, I mean, how many liberals are there in the KKK?) but the knee-jerk Patriot Act was all hunky-dory.

BUBI
Nov 17th, 2006, 04:03 PM
:haha:

I love how conservatives get all up in arms when a law threatens hate speech (because, I mean, how many liberals are there in the KKK?) but the knee-jerk Patriot Act was all hunky-dory.

I'm serious...and liberal.

For example... if there's any truth in this...

In England, two men who publicly described Islam as a "wicked faith" were indicted under Britain's anti-hate law and are fighting to avoid seven years in prison.
:help:

As an atheist, I think it's dangerous if we can't criticize religions but religious people can say that everybody who don't believe in God/Allah are going to hell.