Back to Basics

Reacting to reports that the Obama Department of Justice may prosecute those who write and post articles offensive to Muslims, Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative has vowed, “We will fight you on this every step of the way. We will drag your dhimmi asses all the way to the Supreme Court. This is Sharia enforcement, and we are not going to stand for it.”

The term “dhimmi” refers to submission to or enforcement of Islamic law, also called Sharia.

Geller, who also co-foundedStop Islamization of Nations (SION) with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, has endorsed a rally for free speech on June 4 in Manchester, Tennessee, to protest anti-free speech comments by Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Killian has generated outrage by vowing to use federal civil rights laws to punish those making critical comments about Islam.

A local paper reports that Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville, Tennessee, Division, are speaking at a public event and “will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.”

A U.S. Attorney usually prosecutes offenses such as foreign terrorism, child pornography, violent crimes and drug trafficking. But Killian told the local paper that civil rights laws can have certain “consequences” for the First Amendment right of free speech. The paper said, “Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.”

Killian is apparently basing this campaign against free speech on a Facebook post from a local politician showing a picture of a man pointing a shotgun at the camera with the phrase, “How to wink at a Muslim.” The local politician is a Democrat who says he intended it to be humorous.

The American Muslim Advisory Council, which denounced the “hate-filled post,” advertises the June 4 event as being about “public discourse in a free society.” It is scheduled for 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Boulevard in Manchester, Tennessee.

The demonstration for free speech is scheduled for 5:30 pm at the same location. “Change your plans, get off from work—go,” Geller says. “Tweet it, Facebook share, get the word out.”

The Killian address is apparently part of an “Arab American and Muslim Outreach Program” conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the local office of the FBI, and mandated by President Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.

Killian’s official website also highlights a keynote address he delivered on August 25, 2012, when the Chattanooga (Tennessee) Islamic Center hosted a grand opening celebration. The center features “Strong Islamic studies,” a term that implies Sharia.

But radical Islam does not appear to be a potential problem for Killian. Instead, his office officially represents the United States in civil litigation and declares “we sue individuals or entities who have violated federal civil laws,” according to Killian’s official newsletter.

In the context of his warnings about posting comments critical of Muslims, this statement takes on ominous implications and must be treated seriously.

A wealthy former adjunct professor in trial advocacy at the University of Tennessee School of Law, he is clearly a showboat who wants to please his bosses in Washington, D.C.

Of the IRS abuse cases that have recently come to light, the use of the IRS to enforce the defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcasters is one of the most disturbing.

“I am alarmed by reports that suggest a federal official at the IRS instituting a de facto Fairness Doctrine,” National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) President & CEO Dr. Frank Wright said in a press release. Wright was referring to long-time Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson revealing that his organization had to submit sample radio programs to the IRS, and that an IRS agent indicated that his criticism of President Obama would prevent his ministry from getting a certain form of non-profit status.

A press release about the controversy was issued under the headline, “IRS Subjects Dr. James Dobson and Family Talk Action to Viewpoint Discrimination.”

In other words, Dobson’s views were singled out by the IRS because they were conservative, Christian, and critical of President Obama.

The NRB notes that the Fairness Doctrine, first introduced in 1949, enabled the FCC to compel broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues deemed to be of public importance. It was eliminated from the Code of Federal Regulations in August 2011, though it hadn’t been enforced since 1987.Wright said the FCC “was right to purge that pernicious policy from the Code of Federal Regulations” but that, in the Dobson case, it appeared to be “alive and well at the IRS.”

In a press release under the headline, “Targeted by the IRS,” the Dobson organization, Family Talk Action, quoted Dobson as saying, “The American people deserve better treatment from its government than this. Christian ministries and others supporting the family must not be silenced or intimidated by the IRS or other branches of the government.”

In a video, Ryan Dobson described how the tax-exempt status was denied for three years because the group was deemed to be right-wing and critical of Obama. He said it was only when Family Talk Action threatened to take the IRS to court that the agency relented.

The Dobson case indicates that rather than seek to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, as many conservatives had feared, the Obama Administration and its allies used the IRS to enforce a version of the measure through federal scrutiny and intimidation of religious and conservative broadcasters.

Accuracy in Media (AIM) had warned about such an effort in our special report, “Left-Wing Censorship Campaign Targets Conservative Media,” but did not anticipate that the campaign would take the form of using the IRS rather than the FCC as a method of federal coercion and control.

AIM released a book, The Death of Talk Radio?, and a TV ad warning that liberal politicians and bureaucrats were preparing to interfere with the First Amendment right of free speech.

We had noted at the time that the “National Conference on Media Reform,” underwritten by billionaire George Soros and rich liberal foundations, was providing a platform for liberal politicians who advocated the return of the Fairness Doctrine to target conservative media and talk-radio personalities. “The only question,” we said, “is when congressional liberals will get enough nerve to aggressively push this authoritarian attempt to muzzle their political opponents.”

Now we find out that the effort which took place circumvented the congressional and legislative process and instead used the powers of the IRS.

The Truth behind the Holder Justice Department’s search for leaks

What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking an incident that is true and making it not only appear false, but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as  conspiracy nuts?

The answer is playing out, in real time, right before all of us, and we all need to understand the methods that are being used to cover the lie. To answer the question, though, is for a government official or agency to take what is true, wrap it in the bait of a larger lie where the larger, more outrageous lie is proven to be untrue. Soon, people don’t know what to believe, so they discount the entire story, even (and especially) the kernel of truth covered by the lie. Then, when anyone refers to the incident, they are told that the entire story was proven false.

I am referring to the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the cloakrooms, or the private, “members-only” areas just off the floor of the House and Senate. The story originated with the disclosure that the Associated Press received a letter from the Holder Justice Department last week stating that the government had obtained two months of telephone records that included each incoming and outgoing telephone number and the length of each call for over 20 different lines used reporters. Additionally, the records also included personal lines for reporters and phones in the congressional press gallery.

Since the story broke, some lawmakers and others have gone public to decry the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the Cloak Room. Wiretapping indicates real-time telephonic surveillance of the phone lines by Holder’s agents. Wiretapping is, of course, the incorrect word to describe the DOJ’s attack on our separation of powers through the questionable, if not illegal use of his agency’s powers in a manner that seems to summon the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover during the darkest of times. The incorrect use of the word wiretapping was about all the tyrannical despots within the Obama regime needed to immediately and forcefully deny that any such surveillance had taken place – and be technically correct. Thus began the clever word games.

The truth, however, is even far more disturbing than the big lie. According to one intelligence official close to the situation who provided information specific to this incident, Holder’s Justice Department not only attacked the sacred separation of powers through his agency’s actions by obtaining the aforementioned telephone records, but what has yet to be disclosed is that all electronic communications data was included in this overreach. According to this source, the records not only included those within the Cloak room, but in other areas throughout and within the Capitol. Not in real time, of course, so as to maintain the infamous Nixonian plausible deniability amid the semantics serving to sully the truth.

The purpose is to identify the media contacts used by members of the House and Senate as they look for leaks in the house of the people.

The scandal involving the politicization of the IRS under the Obama administration continues to grow. Congressmen briefed by IRS officials say that instead of 300 groups that received closer scrutiny, the number has climbed to 471. More drip, drip, drip. But in an effort to stop the bleeding, President Obama has fired the acting commissioner, Steven Miller, who is said to have become aware in May of last year that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. He failed to tell Congress when he testified before an oversight committee in July. Whether Miller is a sacrificial lamb, a scapegoat or the true culprit remains to be seen. Charles Krauthammer, on Fox News, called the firing “a holding operation,” and “the absolute minimum he could have done.”

Now that Tea Party, Patriot, and other conservative groups know that they aren’t alone in receiving prejudicial treatment by the IRS, they are coming forward and providing more details about the reprehensible conduct of this agency. Conservative groups have told the media that the IRS asked for donor lists, Facebook conversations, copies of minutes and notes, and even lists of meeting participants.

“A Politico review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything—in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking,” write David Nather, Tarini Parti, and Byron Tau for Politico. “The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.”

“Several of the groups were asked for résumés of top officers and descriptions of interviews with the media. One group was asked to provide ‘minutes of all board meetings since your creation’” (emphasis added). For small groups, such data may not even exist.

“When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train,” reports David Martosko for the UK Daily Mail.

“It ‘should send chills through your spine that the government would ask me to identify those I teach, and to provide details of what I teach them,’” the Founder of Linchpins of Liberty, Kevin Kookogey, told the Daily Mail.

Asking for such comprehensive data from small groups such as Linchpins for Liberty accomplishes several political goals: it discourages donors, it discourages organizations, and ultimately, may cause the organization in question to fold. “Some groups even gave up in the face of the IRS questions,” reports Martosko.

“… Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS’s months-long radio silence, when he couldn’t tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status,” writes Martosko. “That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee. In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.” Even for larger, established groups, $30,000 in donations can make a significant difference.

Kookogey doesn’t even consider his group a Tea Party or Patriot group. “‘I’m not a Tea Party group.

With the Justice Department at the forefront of major news stories that do not bode well for the department and it’s agencies, the House Judiciary Committee requested the nations top law enforcement official, Attorney General Eric Holder to appear before members of the committee on Wednesday afternoon.

According to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte,R-Va., Attorney General Holder will testify at an oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice.

The hearing is expected to address a number of issues including the allegations that Justice Department officials secretly obtained two months worth of telephone records of reporters and editors working for The Associated Press.

In addition, there will be questions addressing the unwarranted targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service, the recent terrorist bombings in Boston, and troubling allegations of “the politicization of the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder’s leadership,” according to Chairman Goodlatte.

“Oversight over the Department of Justice is a key function of the House Judiciary Committee and recent events illustrate the importance of this duty. Any abridgement of the First Amendment is very concerning, especially reports that the IRS targeted conservative groups for unwarranted scrutiny during an election year,” said Chairman Goodlatte.

Members of the Judiciary Committee are also expected to ask pointed questions about the Justice Department’s decision to obtain two months worth of telephone records of reporters and editors working for The Associated Press.

“In addition, after the horrific attacks in Boston on Patriots Day [April 15], we learned that in the years leading up the attacks several different federal agencies or departments received intelligence about the bombers but failed to connect the dots and share critical information with other agencies. The Obama Administration and Congress need to determine whether there are improvements that can be made going forward to facilitate interagency information sharing so that we can better detect and deter future home grown terrorist attacks. We must ensure our criminal laws and processes are up to the task of handling terrorism cases,” Goodlatte said.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are also expected to question the Attorney General about the politicization of the Justice Department under his leadership. There are several examples in which conclusions reached by career attorneys after thorough investigation have been overruled by Administration appointees for political reasons, said GOP committee members.

The committee members were referring specifically to the Black Panther voter intimidation case and others that appeared highly suspicious to a number of lawmakers and journalists.

“The House Judiciary Committee has a responsibility to the American people to oversee the Justice Department to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and fairly as possible,” Goodlatte concluded.

If you should suddenly cease to find my commentaries, I will either have passed away or have been detained by agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Defense Department and taken to an undisclosed location for the crime of having been an “extremist” and a danger to the nation.

The April 2009 nine-page DHS report was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It defined extremism “as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”

What does the Islamic world and Europe have in common? There are actually many similarities, but one is this: in neither place are Christians allowed to fully express their beliefs without fear of persecution.

As for Eurasia, its Ministry of Truth’s latest handiwork is the arrest and punishment of an American street preacher who dared speak of sin in that land once known as Scotland. The victim is 47-year-old New Yorker Shawn Holes, who was on a UK tour when he was arrested in Glasgow after running afoul of UK hate-speech laws. Writes Pink News:

PHOTOS.COM

In 1732, Richard Saunders began publishing an almanac filled with humorous sayings and sage advice. Twenty-six editions were published. The book was Poor Richard’s Almanack, and Richard Saunders was, in fact, Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin used many pseudonyms, often creating whole personalities for the “writer.” Among them were Silence Dogood, Caelia Shortface, Martha Careful, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Timothy Turnstone, Busy Body, Anthony Afterwit, Polly Baker and Benevolus.

The papers that later became known as The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist were written under pseudonyms. Publius was actually Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Then there was Agrippa, Brutus, Caesar, Cato, Cincinnatus, Federal Farmer, Harrington, A Landholder, Senex and Sydney, among others.

Anonymous political speech has a rich and storied history in America. Even though the 1^st Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to freely express themselves, the elected class and the 1 percent often object to having the light of truth shined on them. They don’t like it when people express views that make them uncomfortable.

The Internet has provided a new medium for people to express themselves. It’s inexpensive, and it can be fairly anonymous. It’s changing the way people get information. At least one website compares the Internet to the Gutenberg press, which changed the world because it removed control of information from the hands of the elites.

The 1 percent didn’t like that fact then, and they don’t like now. Lawmakers in Illinois are a prime example. A new bill in the State Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online. Called The Internet Posting Removal Act, it states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

The bill, which does not ask for or clarify requirements from entities requesting the comment removal, would take effect 90 days after becoming law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out:

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

Illinois is not the first State to try and squelch online speech. New York, Tennessee and Arizona have all had laws proposed in their legislatures that would have outed Richard Saunders. Those all failed or were changed before passage. This one must fail as well.