5 Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired from Fox News
February 6, 2017
On Friday, US Federal Judge Robart in Seattle, Washington District Court ruled that real damage would be done to the people of Washington State if he did not freeze President Trump’s immigration/visa pause from seven nations deemed significant sources of terrorism by the Obama Administration following dozens of attacks in Europe and the US over the past 2 years in which hundreds of civilians were murdered by radical Muslims. Many of the attackers claimed allegiance to The Islamic State.
Robart sided with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed a suit to block key provisions of the president’s executive order, which also bars Syrian refugees from entering the country. The order pauses the visa program for 120 days while the Trump administration reviews and reworks immigration screening procedures.
The fundamental question posed by the court order is; does someone sitting in Yemen have the right to enter the United States of America? Or does the US get to decide who enters and who doesn’t? Can our decision to allow people into the US be based on the foreigner’s political, racial, religious and national origin? Since we have to limit the number of people who enter the US annually, what should be the criteria of the people we do allow into the US? Should they be poor people without resources or marketable skills? Should they be people with religious back grounds who conflict with our own national history, our national identity, our national culture, our national interest and with democracy?
By Alek Hidell
All too often we have seen police interfere with citizens attempting to catch misconduct on video. A bill in the Colorado Legislature is setting the groundwork that would subject officers who attempt to block, destroy or seize lawfully recorded video by citizens, seeing these officers face a penalty of up to $15,000. The bill was introduced by a bipartisan team of state representatives comprised of three Democrats and a Republican.
Representatives Joseph A. Salazar, Daneya Esgar, Lucia Guzman and David Balmer proposed the legislation. It came about as a result of numerous cases where the current laws and regulations were not properly enforced by police commanders, thereby allowing the unlawful seizure or destruction of legally filmed police video. The Denver police case of Jessica Hernandez, who was shot by officers as she stood in her front yard, is a primary example. A bystander who attempted to film the incident claims that police actively interfered with her attempting to film the incident, resulting in another case where we have to take law enforcement’s word for it.
By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
They’re calling it “the worst US terror attack since 9/11.” A Muslim is being blamed for shooting up a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, killing more than fifty people.
In the recently-published Another French False Flag, former CIA clandestine services officer Robert David Steele – who admits he executed one false flag operation for the Agency – lists ten “key indicators of a modern false flag.” The most important is #10: “Who benefits?”
So let’s start there.
The entire world just spent the past week celebrating the life of Muhammad Ali – and Ali’s religion, Islam. It was the best PR week Islam ever had.
What’s more, we didn’t spend the past week celebrating “house Muslim” Uncle Tom style Islam. We just spent an amazing week cheering for Muhammad Ali, a Muslim fighter, a truth jihadi, a man willing to sacrifice everything for truth and justice…a man who famously cheered on armed Palestinian resistance with the immortal words:
“In my name and the name of all Muslims in America, I declare support for the Palestinian struggle to liberate their homeland and oust the Zionist invaders.”
By Glenn Greenwald
One of the greatest free speech threats in the West is the growing, multi-nation campaign literally to outlaw advocacy of boycotting Israel. People get arrested in Paris — the site of the 2015 “free speech” (for Muslim critics) rally — for wearing pro-boycott T-shirts. Pro-boycott students on U.S. campuses — where the 1980s boycott of apartheid South Africa flourished — are routinely sanctioned for violating anti-discrimination policies. Canadian officials have threatened to criminally prosecute boycott advocates. British government bodies have legally barred certain types of boycott advocacy. Israel itself has outright criminalized advocacy of such boycotts. Notably, all of this has been undertaken with barely a peep from those who styled themselves free speech crusaders when it came time to defend anti-Muslim cartoons.
But now, New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo (above, in the 2016 Celebrate Israel Parade) has significantly escalated this free speech attack on U.S. soil, aimed at U.S. citizens. The prince of the New York political dynasty yesterday issued an executive order directing all agencies under his control to terminate any and all business with companies or organizations that support a boycott of Israel. It ensures that citizens who hold and express a particular view are punished through the denial of benefits that other citizens enjoy: a classic free speech violation (imagine if Cuomo issued an order stating that “anyone who expresses conservative viewpoints shall have all state benefits immediately terminated”).
Even more disturbing, Cuomo’s executive order requires that one of his commissioners compile “a list of institutions and companies” that — “either directly or through a parent or subsidiary” — support a boycott. That government list is then posted publicly, and the burden falls on them to prove to the state that they do not, in fact, support such a boycott. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told The Intercept: “Whenever the government creates a blacklist based on political views it raises serious First Amendment concerns and this is no exception.” Reason’s Robby Soave denounced it today as “brazenly autocratic.”
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets | Maine Republic Email Alert
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”