Eric Holder and Thomas Perez *(the eminance gris of DOJ)
It seems that our embattled attorney general, Eric Holder and his top radical deputy Thomas Perez are at it again this week. Creeping Sharia reports that they have been asked by Muslim-American "leaders" to find a way to criminalize any critical discussion of Islam. It seems they may be taking the idea under consideration.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/muslims-tell-doj-to-find-a-way-to-crimalize-criticism-of-islam/
It is bad enough that DOJ has allowed itself to be pressured to get rid of training manuals that mention Islamic terrorism. It is bad enough that they would allow themselves to be pressured to cut back on support to state and local police when it comes to terror investigations. But to seriously discuss ways to stop any public discussion of this issue is incredible.
Strike that. Not with this Justice Department and with this attorney general.
Remember the words last week of Hedieh Mirahmadi at UC-Irvine, when she told us how she cannot use the word, "Islamist" when she is working with government. It has to be "radical extremism."
Did nobody at DOJ inform Ms Aziz that we have something called the First Amendment in this country? It may not exist in Egypt, but it still exists here. One can only wonder why she wasn't escorted out of the building when she made this request.
4 comments:
Since Holder is rumored to have graduated from law school, I doubt he will seriously propose any way to accede to the request. There is none, under the First Amendment, and even if he wanted to find a way, he knows
a) that door is closed, and,
b) if he tried, it would kick up such a storm that he would lose too much ground to make anything of it anyway.
However, are we forgetting that the most common response of anyone in a bureaucracy is to politely listen to a request, assure the speaker "I will see what I can do," and then get on with their job and forget all about it?
Perhaps in three months the busybody will get a polite form letter typed by a third secretary, saying that the matter has been thoroughly researched, but the Supreme Court would never allow such a law to be enforced, because it is forbidden by our constitution.
Duh.
With this DOJ and AG, nwho the hell knows what might happen. Plus, one more Sotomayor appointed by Obama and its 5-4 for every insane rule that comes down the pike.
To answer "that's conjectural" would be a gross understatement. Tone down the paranoia a bit. The wording of the First Amendment did not change on Jan 20, 2009, nor even on Jan 20, 2001.
You are absolutewly right, Charlie. Now go back to sleep. Sorry to have disturbed you.
Post a Comment