Posts Tagged ‘Hate Crime Laws’


Liberal Censorship and Its Roots

December 3, 2008
Relating to the content of this article – you may be interested in viewing Coral Ridge Ministries productions on Hate Speech.
Assault on Liberty: The Impact of Hate Crime Laws, DVD
10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws
Hate Crime Laws, DVD
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 Columnist
Liberal Censorship and Its Roots
by David Limbaugh

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats’ sweeping victory Nov. 4 are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents.


We keep hearing that Sarah Palin’s criticism of Obama for “palling around with terrorists” increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the Plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn’t remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama’s critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama’s anti-gun record. The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project’s ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin ’08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What’s scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.

Obama has made no secret of his plan to pass “card-check” legislation, which some have described as the most radical revision of labor law since 1935. It would permit unions to eliminate secret ballots — against the wishes of 78 percent of union members — which would represent a radical blow to democratic principles.

Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, a euphemistically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer has compared to pornography. Remember that conservatives have never advocated government action to suppress or censor the liberal media monopoly, which has existed for decades and still dominates mainstream media today. Their answer was the alternative media.

But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I’ve cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural  nstitutions and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual and enlightened. This view holds that conservative expression doesn’t deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, “We cannot tolerate the intolerable.”

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It’s how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while nilaterallydeclaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It’s how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It’s how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise “fair elections” and pooh-pooh ACORN’s serial voter fraud in their own country. It’s how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don’t endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church’s direct electioneering for specific candidates. It’s how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while
romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. It’s how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents. It’s how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted. It’s how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. It’s how they can prevent the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you’re in for a rude awakening.


Hate Speech: Obsession?

November 19, 2008



Obsession the Movie

Obsession the Movie


Muslims in America today


Also please note the Ann Arbor News version that I was asked to send for publication (250 words).

Muslims are looking for a case of hate speech. Americans are the victim of hate speech from Islam.

Please read the very careful way I wrote this letter response to the Ann Arbor News letter to the editor – of this writer. (naive)

We are all very aware of the ‘hate speech’ threat – but Americans do not use this tactic against Islamists.


14 November 2008

Re: In Response to an Ann Arbor News Letter to the Editor: (original letter to the right)

“Obsession’ DVD is hate speech against Muslims”

Whether or not Amir A. Kamoune is an American citizen, he should know better than to make the claim of “hate speech directed against me” when he is talking about a mass mailing of anything. He tells us “I got a copy of the DVD ‘Obsession’ in the mail.” (From what I read – many millions of others did as well.) Some time ago, I watched the same film on Fox News and learned that the only hate speech shown in the film is from voices of radical Islam, targeted against him and me and the entire free world. But his letter places him on the side of being a Muslim, clearly separating himself from the rest of us. Why?

Kamoune wrote: “Non-Muslims may defend the filmmakers”, I’d guess implying that Muslims wouldn’t – or couldn’t? Many Muslims that I know, as friends, would strongly disagree with Kamoune’s viewpoint. Aren’t we always told that we shouldn’t assume that all Muslims support the terrorists, the radical Islamists? So why does Amir Kamoune take his unusual stand?

Kamoune is telling us, quite clearly, that Muslims consider this film to be against them. His words clearly tell his reader that he has placed himself on the side of these radical leaders and Imams who hate America and have plans to ‘take’ America for Islam.

He places himself on the same side as those Muslims who are spouting hate speech against America from their pulpits.

Any hate speech claim belongs to me and my fellow Americans.

The hate speech is targeted against us! and Kamoune tells us he isn’t one of us.

He emphasizes this point by specifically, in his words, identifying the “hate speech directed against me.”

“I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” Well, he is mistaken. The only hate speech in the film was and is directed against America. It is directed against me – and I am offended by this hate speech against my country.

But by his own words, Kamoune clearly tells us that he isn’t on the side of America. Is he telling his readers that he is one of those who has targeted America?

We Americans would agree that the film shows us numerous examples of hate speech – all of which is directed against America and Western Civilization. That hate is against me. Yet Kamoune tries to tell us that he considers the “hate speech directed against me” “as a Muslim”. Well, he is mistaken.

Are we beginning to see where Kamoune comes from?

In his second paragraph we read an interesting sentence:
“Non-Muslims may defend the filmmakers…” So, is Kamoune telling us that Muslims wouldn’t defend the filmmakers? Muslims that I know would disagree with him.

I personally know many Muslims who would and do, in fact, defend the filmmakers – who at the same time realize the awkward position in which they find themselves.

But Kamoune clearly writes that he and his fellow Muslims certainly wouldn’t defend the filmmakers.

Why not? It seems, I’d have to assume, apparent to Kamoune that he believes all Muslims don’t like this film. Again, I know many Muslims who would disagree emphatically with Kamoune. Many Muslims in America do not agree with the hate speech directed at America and Western Civilization – but Kamoune puts himself on the side of the hate speakers shown in this film – “Obsession”. He implies quite clearly that he defends the hate speech makers – those hateful speakers shown in the film.

Then he continues his explanation: “They (non-Muslims, Americans) may claim ‘Islam has been hijacked’ by radicals and this kind of film is necessary to increase awareness of this issue.” Well, yes, that is what many good hearted Americans claim in order to defend Muslims living here in America who appear to be hard-working, friendly neighbors.

But Kamoune treats them with little respect by his next words: “However, they don’t get to define hate speech directed against me”. He makes it quite clear that this hate must be targeted at him – why?

Then, to reinforce the ‘Me’ and ‘they’ (He obviously intended to make the distinction quite clear that he isn’t one of us) he adds this interesting statement: “However, they don’t get to define hate speech directed against me.” Again, the hate speech shown in this film “Obsession” was directly at Americans and the free world and not to the viewer.

“They” and “me” – We would have to be pretty stupid not to get his distinction. He isn’t with us on this issue of a threat to America and the entire Western World – the threat of radical Islam. He clearly identifies his position – with his strongly implied hatred for the West.

“They (the film makers of the movie “Obsession”) don’t get to define hate speech” – He does!

Then quickly he turns himself into a victim. “They don’t get to define hate speech directed against me.” He is sent by mail – a DVD on a subject that quite obviously he is sensitive about – a film that has already been seen by hundreds of millions of people. (I’m pretty certain about that figure because we are told that – two years after Fox News showed this movie on television, according to Fox News, viewed by 25 million, another 28 million copies were sent to recipients all over the country.)

“Me”! and “they” – Kamoune here may have told us a lot more than he intended to tell us – with his distinctive differentiation. “Me” “As a Muslim I have no doubt that the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” Why would he do that? Why would Kamoune put himself on the opposite side of America? Me and they? Why would he tell us, quite blatantly, that since he considers this hate speech against him and since he alone gets to define hate speech the way he wants to define it – and he wants to tell us that he believes it was directed at him – in the very next sentence he makes another unusual claim. He’s now the victim of this speech! And since now he has identified himself as the victim – he claims the right to define it! “The perpetrators do not get to practice their right of free speech”! Go back and look at his letter. Does the reader understand what this writer has said?! ‘They’ – I guess meaning us – in this writer’s opinion – ‘us’ being Americans. Let’s read that again!

His letter: “The perpetrators do not get to practice their right of free speech and then trample on my human right to be offended by it” So “his right”? – Mr. Kamoune’s “right”? “His right to be offended by it” If he is offended by it (the film I guess) then he is telling us that somehow he endorses what the recorded speakers have said – and he just wants to tell us that since we are highly offended by the hate speech recorded – he wants us to know that the hate speech targeted at Americans is OK with him – but at the same time – apparently he agrees with the ranting Imams who were preaching hate targeted at his hosts in America. But he is offended because Americans and the filmmakers are exposing radical, hate-filled speakers displaying their hate toward America.

He couldn’t have made it clearer.

Then Kamoune gets into the ‘offended’ issue by throwing out an unusual illustration:
“When a woman is raped, some jackass always says she encouraged it.” – We Americans might find this example of Mr. Kamoune kind of unusual. From what I read, when a women is raped in an Islamic country – she must have 4 witnesses to defend herself – almost an impossibility. Usually she is killed for ‘her’ crime of getting raped. It’s called “honor killing”. Often we read that her murder is preformed by her own father or a relative. She’s raped – the perpetrator goes free – and she’s killed.

Kamoune tells us he got a copy of the DVD “Obsession” in the mail – then “Because of it’s controversial nature, I forced myself to watch it from the beginning to end.” How did he already know about it’s controversial reputation before he had ever seen it?

Why would the word “Obsession” cause him to determine and use the words, “Because of it’s controversial nature”?

Then he tells us “I forced myself to watch it” adding “from beginning to end”.

He continues “As a Muslim (we already know that because he said so in his first paragraph) I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech” adding for emphasis, I would assume, “directed against me”.

I know about this movie “Obsession” from seeing it 2 or 3 times on Fox News television a few years ago (2006). It was widely discussed by Fox News reporters and guests – so I’d have to assume that Mr. Kamoune knew all about “Obsession” at least for a couple of years. Fox News invited a great deal of discussion about this production. Millions of Americans have seen the movie. But now, after all this time, Kamoune is telling us that he has “no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.” No, the film included a great deal of hate speech – that is for sure – but all of the hate came from Imams speaking from Muslim mosques and other settings (such as the mall in Washington, D.C.) targeted at me – at all Americans – at our entire Western Civilization. The hate certainly was not directed at Kamoune. If we assume that he is an American citizen or a Muslim living here with a green card – he should be the first to know where the hate speech comes from – radical Islam. But he doesn’t say that. He tells us in the first paragraph of his letter to the editor – that “As a Muslim I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed against me.”

Isn’t it interesting? Why would Kamoune write that “As a Muslim I have no doubt the film is a form of hate speech directed at me.” He clearly has identified that, because he is a Muslim – I guess – the “hate speech is directed at me”. How could he come to a conclusion like that? Any why? Unless, of course, he doesn’t consider himself part of us, or part of Western Civilization that is being targeted by radical Islam.

I’ve just watched this movie again and found absolutely nothing spoken by the narrator that could be considered hate speech targeted at Americans – or targeted at any viewer of the program. All the hate is targeted and directed at the viewer by the terrorist-supporting Imams and activists and from the children being indoctrinated in the Madrassahs.

Mr. Kamoune then writes, “The rise of hate crimes against Muslims is a verifiable fact.” Well, my research into that statement indicates, surprisingly, that hate crimes of this nature, on a national basis, are very low – almost non-existent. Americans aren’t into hate crimes or unfair treatment of anyone. The same regarding the next sentence. “Hate speech against Muslims has been prevalent since 9/11.” Again, the almost surprising things is that this behavior is almost non-existent. As it should be.

His closing, “This DVD is just the latest installment in the same old trend.” Here again, just because he writes that doesn’t make it a fact. The fact is that no American behaves in the manner that Mr. Kamoune claims. Americans have welcomed people from every nation on earth. We are the only country in the world where you can come here and call yourself an American. I couldn’t go to Saudi Arabia and plan on calling myself a ‘Saudi’.
The only problem is – we expect that everyone who comes here to live – will become an American citizen – a real American. Americans are learning to have serious concern about that when we hear these radical Imams preaching hate against America!

Americans should watch “Obsession” again and again to understand the very serious threat of radical Islam to America and to all of us who believe in liberty.

Should we come to the conclusion that Amir A. Kamoune might know all about the speakers illustrated in “Obsession”? I hope not and I pray that every American will pray for him.

A careful reading of Kamoune’s letter might have told us a lot more about his position on the subject than he intended.


Donald E. Van Curler


Two Great DVD’s Relating to HATE CRIME LAWS:

1. “Assault of Liberty: The impact of Hate Crime Laws” + 2. “Hate Crime Laws”