July 1, 1776
“It was hot and humid outside, and stifling in the chamber,” wrote historian William Hogeland in his book, Declaration: The Nine Tumultuous Weeks When America Became Independent, May 1-July 4, 1776. “At four in the afternoon, heat gave way to a two-hour thunderstorm. The rain would play a strange part in the memories of the men in the room and in the recounting of later generations. … Others say heat and humidity mounted, the storm held off till late afternoon, and one writer therefore describes the sky darkening just as the committee reaches its divided result.
“The next day, July 2, began cloudy, according to Marshall, with heavy rain starting sometime before 10:00 a.m., which did not abate until after 2:00 in the afternoon. Jefferson recorded a steady temperature of 78°F throughout the morning, cooling to 74°F by 9:00 that evening. … Jefferson recorded the purchase of a thermometer from a local merchant, John Sparhawk, for £3–15 (the equivalent, by one estimate, of more than $300 today) in his account book on July 4, 1776. He had actually begun taking observations three days earlier, on Monday, July 1, in what is his earliest surviving set of weather records. … [On July 2nd] he recorded a temperature of 82.5°F at 9:00 a.m. and 82°F at 7:00 p.m. Although it was Jefferson’s practice to take two observations a day (‘one as early as possible in the morning, the other from 3. to 4. o’clock, because I have found 4. o’clock the hottest day light in the 24 Hours’), he did not take an afternoon reading that day. This was no doubt due to the important matters at hand—namely the debates taking place inside the State House over the draft of the Declaration that Jefferson and his fellow Committee of Five members, who had been charged with writing the document, presented to Congress the previous Friday.”1
The windows in Independence Hall were closed during these days for two reasons. First, they were closed because of rain and to keep out any insects (screens had not yet been invented). Secondly, the delegates knew they had to be able to talk freely without fear of hostile ears overhearing them.
Free and plaintive speech could not be suppressed. Thus, freedom’s first document was born and the importance of unshackled, free speech proclaimed.
July 15, 2011
“At a meeting on July 15, 2011, hosted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the OIC/IRCICA premises in the historic Yildiz Palace in Istanbul and co-chaired by the OIC Secretary-General H.E Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and U.S. Secretary of State H.E. Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, together with foreign ministers and officials from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sudan, United Kingdom, the Vatican (Holy See), UN OHCHR, Arab League, African Union, gave a united impetus to the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 with the release of a Joint Statement.”2
“Among its many specific points, Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”3 (Emphasis added.)
Two chambers, meeting in July, 235 years apart.
What is the importance? Following the deadly jihadist attack in early 2015 on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris,
“ … a prominent American law professor wrote in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed that the Obama administration itself has abetted the forces of intolerance.
“In that op-ed, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School primarily criticized the French for passing laws that criminalize speech that insults, defames or incites violence on the basis of religion, race, or other social marker. At the end of his piece, however, Turley brings his critique closer to home.“ ‘In 2009, the Obama administration shockingly supported Muslim allies trying to establish a new international blasphemy standard,’ Turley wrote, ‘And as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invited delegations to Washington to work on implementing that standard. … The president has said that he does not support criminalizing blasphemy, but the reality is that the language of the resolution criminalizes the same speech,’ Turley told PunditFact.” 4 (Emphasis added.)
In a December 12, 2011, LA Times Op-Ed, Turley continues to raise concerns. He says,
“This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled ‘Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.’ The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing ‘intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief. The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to ‘deter’ some speech in the name of human rights.
“FOR THE RECORD:
“Blasphemy: The phrase ‘the prosecution of’ was inadvertently dropped in a December 13 Op-Ed about a U.N. resolution on blasphemy. The sentence should read: ‘While the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify the prosecution of those who speak against religion’.”
“Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.
“This year, [2011] Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and ‘to build those muscles’ needed ‘to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.’ Those ‘old patterns’ include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005, when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result was worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.
“The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with ‘the principles of the sharia,’ or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing ‘negative racial and religious stereotyping’ and asked states to ‘take effective measures’ to combat incidents, including those of ‘religious intolerance.’ Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18’s call for states to ‘criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.’ It also ‘condemns’ statements that advocate ‘hostility’ toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to ‘incitement’ rather than ‘defamation’ of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.
“The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of ‘intolerance.’ Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of ‘respect and empathy and tolerance.’ One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet’s name.”5 (Emphasis added.)
Criticism of the United States is noted in the UN’s Organization of Islamic Cooperation – Fifth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia November 2012:
“The burning of a copy of the Holy Quran by a Florida church pastor, FBI training programs for surveillance and extra vigilance on American Muslims, holding of U.S. Congressional Hearings promoting a negative view of American Muslims, the release of “Innocence of Muslims,” and dissemination of Islamophobic paranoia through the social media by right wing extremist elements received wide coverage substantiating the OIC’s concerns and contention. These developments are contradictory to the proclaimed values of liberty and equality that the United States of America has been promoting around the world. It is indeed noteworthy that the right to freedom of expression has more than often been cited in defense of the proliferation of Islamophobia. The OIC has always upheld its unwavering commitment to freedom of expression but has never held back in expressing caution and concern of its misuse or abuse. Like all other rights, the right of freedom of expression is not absolute and that cannot be exploited to infringe on the rights of others or to incite violence and hatred to endanger human lives by engaging in blatant insult, denigration and mockery of the deep seated religious beliefs and symbols and personalities sacred to religions and their followers.”6 (Emphasis added.)
Benghazi
“Muslim governments consistently argue that it is okay to restrict speech when that speech incites others to violence. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation until 2014, made that clear in a 2012 interview with the French news service France24. İhsanoğlu spoke more than a year after the UN resolution passed and about a month after the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. ‘The OIC — I as secretary — I am a staunch supporter of freedom of expression,’ İhsanoğlu said. ‘But freedom of expression, according to international law, does not entail freedom of insulting others, denigrating others, mocking others.’ … The secretary-general went on to say that the anti-Islam video that contributed to the attack in Benghazi and the attack itself were two sides of the same coin. ‘We are equating these acts together as incitement to hatred, incitement to violence. And we say we should not be hostages to extremists on either side,” İhsanoğlu said.”7 (Emphasis added.)
Hillary and Benghazi
Questions have been raised over the last few years regarding why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would ignore and overrule the facts about the cause of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Why did she segue to the excuse that “it was the video?” (Innocence of Muslims) She purported that the film caused the deaths of four Americans, which later proved to be erroneous. Some are asking if she saw the Benghazi attack as a way to encourage Americans to become so angry at a hostile, anti-Islamic film that UN Resolution 16/18 on “blasphemy/hate-speech” would be accepted in the United States.
The story of what happened when amateur filmmaker “Sam Bacile” crossed the P.C. speech code is interesting. According to Wikipedia,
On “September 13, 2012, ‘Sam Bacile’ was identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian from Egypt living near Los Angeles, California, with known aliases. In the 1990s, he served time in prison for manufacturing methamphetamine. He pleaded no contest in 2010 to bank fraud charges and received 21 months in prison; being released on probation in June 2011. On September 27, 2012, U.S. federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias ‘Sam Bacile’. On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release. Law professor Stephen L. Carter and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams have each pointed out that the government cannot prosecute the film’s producer for its content because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as invalidating government restrictions on blasphemy since 1952 and hate speech since the mid-1970s. In March 2011, the Court reiterated its position on hate speech by an 8–1 majority: ‘As a nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate’.”8
Chamber of the United States Congress
On January 15, 2016, “H. Res 569 – Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States” was referred to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee/Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.9 Specifically, hateful rhetoric is addressed under what the House has resolved:
“(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes;”10
Judy Bergman of the Gatestone Institute calls into question,
“• Is this House Resolution a prelude? Has Attorney General Lynch seen the potential for someone lifting her ‘mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric’? And what is ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of ‘hate speech’ against Muslims?
“• Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%.“• Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
“Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship? A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation.”11
Current Instances of Silencing Speech in the United States
In each of these instances, a protest group, or a governmental regulation/action threatens the progressive ideology with speech or action that defies the progressive mantra of political correctness. Where once universities were the centers for discussion of controversial ideas, now they are the protectors of such things as safe spaces, promoters of trigger warnings, and protestors against “micro-aggressions.
According to Technocracy News and Trends, “Once the scientific method of mind control is discovered, there is a 100% certainty that nefarious people will eventually use it for nefarious purposes. This would make simple work of re-education camps that could be nothing more than simple yet mandated outpatient treatments. A bizarre experiment claims to be able to make Christians no longer believe in God and make Britons open their arms to migrants in experiments some may find as a threat to their values. Scientists looked at how the brain resolves abstract ideological problems. Using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), researchers safely shut down certain groups of neurones in the brains of volunteers. 12
MISSOURI: University of Missouri alums were recently appalled to see the videos of Mizzou professor Melissa Click go viral (both in November and now in February). Professor Click tried to shut down a student journalist with a camera who was “invading her safe space,” where students were protesting in support of Black Lives Matter on the university quadrangle. “The University of Missouri assistant professor who attracted nationwide attention and faced suspension from her teaching job for a November confrontation with a student journalist is in more hot water. The Columbia Police Department released video from an October protest on campus in which assistant professor Melissa Click can be seen cursing at a cop who is trying to clear a roadway on campus after Click and a group of student demonstrators locked arms to block a road during the university’s homecoming parade in October.” 13
What was the response of the Missouri University campus police? They were told to send out a campus-wide email asking students to call the police “immediately” if they “witness incidents of hateful and or hurtful speech.” “Students who feel offended by ‘hurtful’ comments are instructed to do the following, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:
1) Call the police immediately at 573-882-7201. (If you are in an emergency situation, dial 911.)
2) Give the communications operator a summary of the incident, including location.
3) Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.
4) Provide a license plate and vehicle descriptions (if appropriate).”14
ALSO IN MISSOURI: In the fall of 2015, the Hillsboro R-3 Missouri school district was confronted with the furor caused by assigning a male senior student who claimed to be transgendered to a “Coed Recreational Games” physical education class for freshmen and sophomores. The district’s excuse? The U.S. Federal Office of Civil Rights threatened to deny federal funding should they not comply with a regulation issued from the U.S. Department of Education. Superintendent Dr. Aaron Cornman issued a “politically correct declaration that ‘we will promote tolerance and acceptance of all students that attend our district while not tolerating bullying/harassing behaviors of any type in any form’.”15
In December, Journalist Bruce Thornton shed light on the seemingly Alice-in-Wonderland goings-on in public discourse. He said,
“Encumbered with a fossilized illiberal ideology, progressives must rely on what Robert Conquest called ‘thought-blockers’––empty words and phrases that comfort and rouse the party faithful, and camouflage the lack of coherent argument, consistent principles, and empirical evidence. More important, these empty words and phrases that lie at the heart of progressivism are the tools for increasing the progressives’ political power and influence, at the expense of everybody else’s freedom.
“Here’s a quick catalogue of a handful of such verbal evasions: Imperialism, colonialism, racism, Black Lives Matter, sexism, war on women, income inequality, one percent, fair share, Islamophobia, nothing to do with Islam, climate change consensus, microagressions, and diversity. Most lack any specific content or connection to historical evidence, and are devoid of consistent principle. They are ideological spells either chanted by the dim-witted or manipulated by the clever who lust for power and influence. …
“The result has been the ridiculous spectacles we have been witnessing on college campuses, where craven administrators have appeased and apologized to callow undergraduates who violate every canon of civilized discourse and free speech. More important, they represent the grim antithesis to liberal education. Rather than the ‘free play of the mind on all subjects,’ as Matthew Arnold famously put it––the search for truth and coherent argument uninhibited by restraints, whether formal censorship or informal subject notions of offense––today’s campuses are rigidly orthodox, intolerant of dissent, and willing to use or threaten force to impose their ideology on others. They evoke philosopher Karl Popper’s attempt to argue with a Nazi Party member, who responded, ‘What, you want to argue? I don’t argue, I shoot’.”16
WISCONSIN: “Saying ‘politically correct’ is a micro-aggression. Staff at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Inclusive Excellence Center have deemed the phrase ‘politically correct’ to be a politically incorrect ‘micro—aggression.” The Just Words campaign launched by the college seeks ‘to raise awareness of micro-aggressions, their impact, [and] provide an insight into their meanings,’ WMU’s website says.‘We, the staff of the Inclusive Excellence Center, modeled our efforts after UC-Davis Words that Hurt and Why campaign, which UW-River Falls adapted. We also drew inspiration from the University of Maryland’s Inclusive Language Campaign,’ the website says. Some other words and phrases to make the list include illegal immigration, man up, welfare queen, third world, and slut.”17
CALIFORNIA: “Major U.S. city [San Diego] now banishes Founding Fathers. ‘This brings it to a new level, without question,’ said Brad Dacus, the chief of Pacific Justice Institute … When you can’t utter the phrase ‘Founding Fathers’ without possibly losing your job and you work for government, that is a sad day for free speech,’ he told WND. … He continued, ‘Most alarming, though, is the guidelines [Visual and Correspondence Style Guidelines] directive, on page 76, that city employees should refrain from mentioning those to whom we owe our most fundamental freedoms, the Founding Fathers. The manual’s inane attempt to recast the Fathers as simply the Founders reaches a level of political correctness, censorship and insensitivity toward time-honored American values that is indefensible. … in a section on Bias-Free Language, the city tells workers to eliminate from their vocabulary a number of words and phrases considered gender biased.”18
WASHINGTON, DC: “Law professor John Banzhaf, who teaches miles away in the Northwest quadrant, at George Washington University, claims Catholic U., ‘does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion.”19
NEBRASKA: “It all began when parents in the Lincoln Public School system learned that, during a ‘gender inclusiveness’ training for middle-school teachers, materials were distributed to educators encouraging them to avoid gendered expressions, such as boys & girls. Instead, the handout recommended addressing children with phrases like ‘all of the purple penguins’ or ‘hey campers.’ But in the end, the controversy wasn’t so much about the odd penguin terminology, as it was about whether parents were being respected and given the right to weigh in on what their children were going to be taught at school, especially regarding sensitive subjects about sexuality and gender.“Where did the infamous purple penguin handout come from? An advocacy group called Gender Spectrum, which specializes in prepping schools to address gender expansive and transgender issues, created it. Entitled ‘12 easy steps on the way to gender inclusiveness,’ the handout also encouraged educators to have visual images reinforcing gender inclusion such as pictures of people who don’t fit gender norms, signs that “strike out” sayings like ‘All Boys …’ or ‘All Girls …’ or ‘All Genders Welcome’ door hangers.”20
COLORADO: “A former college football player is suing his alma mater for its Bible verse ban. Michael Lucas donated $2,500 to the Colorado School of Mines for a new athletic facility. In exchange for the donation, the school allows donors to have whatever they like inscribed on a nameplate that will go in the football locker room. Everything from ‘Give ‘Em Hell’ to ‘OK Gentlemen, it’s time to gird your loins’ has been approved by the university, which receives public funding. But when Lucas submitted two Bible verses for his nameplate, he says the school refused, saying the words ‘Lord,’ ‘God,’ or ‘Jesus’ cannot be on the nameplates. On top of that, he said Bible verses that include those words are also banned.”21WORLDWIDE – GREAT BRITAIN: “UK cops arrest man for ‘offensive’ comment about Muslim migrants: “British police have promised not to tolerate any speech that could cause offence on social media regarding Syrian migrants, after arresting a man for Facebook comments made about recent arrivals on his small Scottish Island.
“The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants, with 12 families already arriving since December last year…
“However, commenting on the com-paratively huge and sudden influx of Muslim immigrants online just became a very risky business for local residents.”22
Where is this headed? One more aspect that needs examining is what the federal government has been doing since 1995 when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Starting then with Attorney General Janet Reno, whose decisions had already allowed women and children to be killed at an “extremist” compound in Waco, Texas, the federal government began to focus on groups considered cultist and on the fringe in the United States.
The Federal Anti-Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed. Under Obama, the focus has been on identifying Americans who may be on the fringe and perceived to be a threat. There will always be some senseless people in a free society that spout off with language that threatens. However, what seems to be lost in bureaucracy is separating those who make serious threats from Americans who are frustrated with government intrusion in their lives.
Efforts to shut down traditional Christianity in the military have occurred with Christian chaplains being forbidden to preach about the core beliefs such as Jesus Christ and His birth, death, and resurrection. Even military chaplains have been forbidden to have the Bible on their desks while progressives in power have worked to shut down any speech that differs from their ideas and worldview. The latest push is to prevent anything perceived as criticism of Islam. Following the San Bernardino shootings Attorney General Lynch went to a mosque and promised strong action against anyone causing Muslims to be uncomfortable. This fits in with the UN 16/18, and it takes a number of forms.
Progressives’ Gift
Power hungry people have always grabbed whatever tools they can to make their job of ruling over others easier. Technology has been a gift in many ways and has transformed our lives for the good with enabling medical breakthroughs because of the speed of information in the cloud, iPhones and iPads allowing people to stay connected wherever they might be. Yet the dark side is Big Data and who has access to it.
Big Data is on the verge of breakthroughs that can be used by the power hungry. In the schools, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and now the new Common Core, Every Student a Success (ESSA) have become the mother load of data collection. Mandated by the federal government, every aspect of a human being’s life from birth to death is now being recorded and collected. ESSA mandates a new area of data to be collected: behavioral, and psychological-social, emotional, physical well-being and mental data. Since ESSA now starts essentially at birth, even such data on how well toddlers are potty training will be kept. As pre-schools commonly watch each child during potty training and comment according to a checklist about their progress, will the regulations that are being written include this information in the Big Data banks?
When Obama signed an Executive Order in December of 2011 amending the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), he expanded disclosure exceptions, which without parental consent, allows increased sharing of student personally-identifiable information. Factor in this increased data collection on social behavior (bathroom skills), Positive Behavior Interventions Strategies, anti-bullying legislation and expansion of Title IX to include gender identity as a protected class, and you have potential trouble.
Social Credit System
This really becomes troubling when what is going on in China becomes the latest tool for those elites committed to deciding and controlling all Americans, starting with the schools.
At a recent China Forum in Washington, D.C., “Experts discussed the system [social credit system] … which they say reveals a real-world 1984-style totalitarian state in the making. …’ It’s issuing a driver’s license for speech. You will be subjected to point deduction for violation of speech. Once you have no points left, you will be barred from going on the road again.’ As the name implies, the system holds a score on every citizen and business based on their social behavior. The things you buy and the people you socialize with are subject for review. Every word typed and posted on the Internet will decide whether a person is ‘raising the honest mentality and credit levels of the entire society,’ Based on how these behaviors are in-sync with the beliefs of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] a person’s score will go up and down. The credit rating is directly related to a person’s access to social services, such as education and health care. When a person runs out of points all together, they will no longer be allowed to leave their homes.”23
Add to this picture a recent Daily Mail article from the UK “Could we ‘speak’ telepathically? Mind-reading computer deciphers word from brainwaves before they are spoken.”24 In the U.S., “An experiment by University of Washington researcher is setting the stage for advances in mind reading technology … this technique could also assist with brain-mapping, allowing neuroscientists to identify locations in the brain responsible for certain types of information in real time.”25
Even the The Washington Post has focused on the dangers of data collection. During a congressional hearing, “How Emerging Technology Affects Student Privacy,” participants were asked to “provide a summary of all the information collected by the time a student reaches graduate school.” Fordham Law School’s Joel Reidenberg’s replied, ‘Just think George Orwell, and take it to the nth degree. We’re in an environment of surveillance, essentially. It will be an extraordinarily rich data set of your life’.”26
Profiling Taken to a New Level
With an executive order called Strong Cities and the push by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, plans are underway to re-configure all living areas in America. The Strong Cities plan calls for making each city, community, and subdivision match a predetermined profile. Each area will have to match this profile drawn up by the elites. (See “Losing Your Castle … and Your Community,” published in the Fall 2015 Front Line. www.constitutionalcoalition.com.) This means that race, income, gender, and perceived gender, etc., will all be factored into each turnover of a home – most likely done through denial of bank loans if you are of the wrong profile. The goal is to have poor and rich, black, red, yellow and white, young and old, straight and LGBT, immigrant and longtime American, Muslim, Christian, and pagan evenly distributed among the communities. Suppos-edly this will then eliminate all divi-sions in America. Embed-ded in this order is the requirement that the government know all about you, so Big Data becomes critical to their plan. Strong Cities ties in with Safe Cities at the UN and a close reading of the conferences, papers and proposed legislation reveals massive and deadly threats to the freedom of association – and the freedom of speech. Speech and its records are what will be used to manipulate the American people.
Domestic Extremists
“Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.–born philosophies present a ‘clear and present danger,’ John Carlin, the Justice Department’s Chief of National Security, told Reuters in an interview. ‘Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.’ ”27 “Carlin and other Justice Department officials declined to say if they would ask Congress for a comparable domestic extremist statue, or comment on what other changes they might pursue to toughen the fight against anti-government extremists,”28 but they “are looking for new tools to deal with the rise of ‘domestic extremists’.”29
“A Defense Department training manual for a course taken by thousands of U.S. service members refers to the Founding Fathers as extremists and, critics say, implies that many political conservatives are also extreme. The document is part of a lesson plan for the Defense Equal Opportunity Advisers Course, a 12-week class for servicemen who are trained on how to spot discrimination on military bases and tell commanders about things that are ‘inappropriate’ for maintaining diversity in the military. In the manual it states, ‘Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place,’ the document reads’.”30
Conclusion
Who defines what anti-government is? Who decides whether someone talking about “states rights and how to make the world a better place” is a domestic terrorist? Nowhere has the United States government given a clear definition of the word extremists. If hate speech and hate crimes are being equated, and all crimes are probably based on some form of hate, shouldn’t we just abolish hate crimes as a concept and component of enhanced sentencing?
In an article titled, Dangerous Speech: Would the Founders Be Considered Domestic Extremists Today?, Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead concludes by reporting on the recent stand-off in Oregon of some ranchers and the federal government. He says,
“[Y]ou don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself. One such test is playing out before our very eyes in Portland, Oregon, where radio ‘shock jock’ Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming Internet radio, is sitting in jail. … In early January 2016, a group of armed activists, reportedly protesting the federal government’s management of federal lands and its prosecution of two local ranchers convicted of arson, staged an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli, who has covered such protests in the past, including the April 2014 standoff in Nevada between the Bundy ranching family and the federal government over grazing rights, reported on the occupation in Burns as an embedded journalist, albeit one who was sympathetic to the complaints (although not the tactics) of the occupiers.
“When asked to clarify his role in relation to the occupation, Santilli declared, ‘My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here.The Constitution Cannot Be Negotiated.
“Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of key leaders of the movement. He was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.“Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation. … What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.
“As I document in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.
“The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.
“Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.”31
As John Whitehead has stated, “the only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.” Rush Limbaugh refers to the “under information folks” as those needing the truth. FRONT LINE encourages YOU to research further the Strong Cities efforts coming through your own local community. It encourages YOU to build relationships with your teachers and school board and inform them about the real agenda behind Common Core. It is at the local level where the citizen can make the change. The missing element in the battle for freedom is an informed and engaged citizenry. Start by educating your neighbors and friends about these matters before we have lost this moment in time to stand for liberty.
In 1776, they closed the windows to be able to freely speak. They knew the importance of being able to communicate, debate and engage their fellow citizens, and they knew that unrestrained speech was critical to freedom. Totalitarians are always working to shut down the opposition and truth. We must preempt their efforts by immersing ourselves in the affairs of our local communities and schools, and as our Founding Fathers resolved to talk freely without fear,
WE MUST PROTECT THE IMPORTANCE OF UNSHACKLED, FREE SPEECH.
Endnotes
1 Potter, Sean, “Retrospect: July 4, 1776: The Declaration of Independence, July-August 2011, Weatherwise Magazine, http://www.weatherwise.org, accessed February 15, 2016.
2 Wikipedia, “Defamation of religion and the United Nations,” https://en.wikipedia.org/, accessed February 15, 2016.
3 Ibid.
4 Greenberg, Jon, “Has the WH supported the spread of blasphemy laws?, PUNDITFACT, January 14, 2015, http://www.politifact.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
5 Turley, Jonathan, “Criminalizing intolerance,” Los Angeles Times, December 12, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
6 Organization of Islamic Cooperation, “Fifth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia,” May 2011 to September 2012, http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/islamphobia/reports/english/islamphobia-report-2012.pdf, p. 6., accessed February 15, 2016.
7 Greenberg, Jon, ibid.
8 Wikipedia, “Innocence of Muslims,” https://en.wikipedia.org/, accessed February 15, 2016.
9 Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr., H.Res. 569 – Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States, 114th Congress, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov, accessed February 15, 2016.
10 Ibid.
11 Bergman, Judith, “US Criminalizing Free Speech?,” The Counter Jihad Report, January 6, 2016, http://counterjihadreport.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
12 Sykes, Selina, “Scientists claim they can change your belief on immigrants and God – with MAGNETS,” “Technocracy News and Trends,” Sunday Express, October 15, 2015, www.technocracy.news, http://www.express.co.uk/, accessed February 19, 2016.
13 Rieder, Rem and Aamer Madhani, “Missouri professor Melissa Click seen cursing at cop in new video,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
14 Ernst, Douglas, “Mizzou Students Told to Call Cops for ‘Hurtful’ Words,” WND, Whistleblower, November 10, 2015, WND, P.O. Box 1627 Medford, OR 97501.
15 Ortwerth, Joe, “Female Students Lose Privacy in Hillsboro Schools,” Jeff City Update, Missouri Family Policy Council, September 8, 2015.
16 Thornton, Bruce, “Progressive ‘Thought-Blockers’: Diversity,” frontpagemag.com, December 15, 2015, http://www.frontpagemag.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
17 Ernst, Douglas, “College: Saying ‘Politically Correct’ Is a Micro-Aggression,” Whistleblower, WND, P.O. Box 1627 Medford, OR 97501, October 26, 2015,p. 31
18 Unruh, Bob, “Major U.S. city now banishes ‘Founding Fathers’, WND, February 9, 2016, http://www.wnd.com, accessed February 10, 2016.
19 Vadum, Matthew, “Islam and 9/11 not connected, 12-year-olds taught in America,” FrontPageMag, October 26, 2015, http://www.frontpagemag.com.
20 True Tolerance, a Project of Focus on the Family, “Are the ‘Purple Penguins’ Coming to A School Near You?,” http://www.truetolerance.org, accessed January 9, 2016.
21 Harper, Casey, “Colorado School Bans The Words ‘Lord,’ ‘God,’ or ‘Jesus’, The Daily Caller News Foundation, October 1, 2015, http://dailycaller.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
22 Spencer, Robert, “UK cops arrest man for ‘offensive’ comment about Muslim migrants,” Jihad Watch, February 16, 2016, www.jihadwatch.org.
23 Bojesson, Jacob, “Here’s An Inside Look At China’s Frightening New Move To Control Social Behavior,” The Daily Caller, November 8, 2015, http://dailycaller.com/.
24 Gray, Richard, “Could we soon ‘speak’ telepathically? Mind-reading computer deciphers words from brainwaves BEFORE they are spoken,” Daily Mail.com, January 6, 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.
25 Dvorsky, George, “New Technique Allows Scientists to Read Mind at Nearly the Speed of Thought, Gizmodo.com, January 29, 2016, http://gizmodo.com/.
26 Strauss, Valerie, “The astonishing amount of data being collected about your children,” The Washington Post, November 12, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com.
27 Harte, Julia, Julia Edwards, and Andy Sullivan, “U.S. eyes ways to toughen fight against domestic extremists,” Reuters.com, http://www.reuters.com, accessed February 15, 2016.
28 Ibid.
29 Broze, Derrick, “The Department Of Justice Prepares To Step Up War On Domestic Extremists, Activist Post, February 12, 2016, http://www.activistpost.com/, accessed February 15, 2016.
30 Zennie, Michael, “Defense Department training manual used by thousands of troops characterizes Founding Fathers as ‘extremists’,” DailyMail.com, August 26, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk, accessed February 15, 2016.
31 Whitehead, John, “Dangerous Speech: Would the Founders Be Considered Domestic Extremists Today?” The Rutherford Institute, February 8, 2016, www.rutherford.org, accessed February 13, 2016.