'Hate speech creates a clear and present danger'


Keith Ellison

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., said in a tweet he is asking the Justice Department to launch an investigation about the legalities of a protest at a Phoenix mosque that included the participation of gun-carrying activists.

But as some social media posters were quick to point out: Investigate them for what – legally protesting?

Ellison in a tweet wrote: “@RepAndreCarson and I are asking the Obama Administration to investigate the armed rally at Phoenix mosque.”

A couple Twitter users were quick to comment.

“Investigate what? The counter-protest already took care of that problem. Free speech does its own plumbing,” wrote one.

And another: “Investigate them for legally protesting?”


The protest Ellison was referring to occurred at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix in late May, held in part to show solidarity with the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Texas. Approximately 250 protesters carrying American flags and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad assembled outside of the mosque that had previously been attended by the two gunmen from Phoenix who opened gunfire on the “Draw Muhammad” event. Various media outlets described the protest as heated to the point where police had to physically separate Muslims and rally participants, some of whom were armed.

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST! JAN. 21, 2007: New Muslim congressman called for terrorist’s release – Ellison spoke at fund-raiser for SLA member who killed California woman, bombed cops

Protest organizers, however, said the First Amendment guarantees them the right to rally, and police at the scene didn’t dispute that fact. Still, Ellison and Carson wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and asked for intervention.

They wrote, Twitchy reported: “These demonstrators argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights. What they fail to understand is that First Amendment rights are not absolute: they are limited to protect the safety and rights of others.”

One big problem with the protest is that some participants carried weapons, they wrote.

“The presence of assault weapons coupled with deep seeded bigotry and hate speech creates a clear and present danger to worshippers and threatens lawless action,” the letter stated. “The activity of these armed anti-Muslim demonstrators comes at a time when anti-Muslim hate crimes are on the rise. As anti-Muslim violence and bigotry sweep across the country, we must do everything we can to prevent further tragedy and discrimination.”

Ellison, from Minnesota, was the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives.

Views: 823

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here's an idea Rep. Ellison, learn a little more about our constitution before opening your mouth.

I have no doubt that every mosk in the nation has you on speed dial for situations such as these.

If protesting offends you and the Muslims attending these mosk, get over it or move to a country that follows your Sharia B.S.

Why would you build a mosk here other than to have a safe haven to preach Sharia. Well guess what, we are on to you and your little infiltration game. Don't expect it to get any easier, why would anyone with common since trust a religion that condones what is going on around the world in the name of your religion.

Dang Straight!

Hey we need to do what the British did when they fought these savages, when you kill one you rap him in Pig Skin throw him or she in a hole and just pore a little Pig blood on it that seemed to quite things down, now I'm not sure if this is fact or fiction but it sounds very effective !

Do we not see a coalition with Muslims and Communists? My idea is to find a video of the beheading of children and take a still photo! Then have this blown up and placed on posters! We still have freedom of speech for now and let the facts with photos tell the story. What would those Muslims at this Mosque do then? Make them take sides to show their true support of butchery!

Excellent reply. I second it

If the SOB muslim commie IDIOTS think about who it was that went to Texas and open fire then I would say the legally carried weapons were a good choice.   Theyneed to listen to the crap coming out of the muslims mouths around the country and world and go after them if they want to be respected here.  Thay need to become Americans not try to change America to become what they left.  Ship them all back to Iran beginning with the 2 SOB's in congress that think something needs to be done.  Oh yeah and send sharpton with them.

Please send Sharpton as a parting gift.

Add these to the list too:

muslim bros in the whitehouse


First of all, what idiot voters put a known muslim in office?!! The idiots that voted for obummer did not know he was a muslim in disguise. Secondly,carrying weapons in a state where it is legal to do so poses no threat of danger while protesting. This muslim jerk is using jihadist tactics to get want he (they) want in our country....dismantle our rights,liberties and Constitution!

Idiot voters----We must all vote in-order to rid America of traitors like Keith U TERRORIST ENABLER-VOTE ALL MUST VOTE-God save America.

Minnesota has the largest concentration of Muslims in the USA. I guess they don't realize that the 1st amendment not only protects their right to be Muslims, it also protects protesters against their religion.




Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco


OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service