Called IT! Department of Justice to Refuse to Rule Out Blasphemy Charges

It is depressing to think how predictable the Obama Adminstration has become. Those who doubted creeping Sharia, turning into an express train, well the Justice Dept. has a few words for you. From Michael Totten, comes word that:

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice would ever actually try such a thing, and the Supreme Court would break it in half if it did, but that doesn’t make the spineless weaseliness from Perez any less appalling.

You can watch the video of the sordid incident here.

Actually, Totten is wrong. Of COURSE the Supremes will twist themselves into knots with support of the public to make “blasphemy” (but only against Islam) a crime. In Pakistan, our embassy is under attack with Muslims holding up signs saying “O Obama, We Are All Osama” … what can you expect?

America will either have to submit to Sharia, all of it, not just a little bit of it, or fight. Make enough rational fear of the US in the way that Putin has or China creates, so that sort of thing goes away. Muslims world-wide and at home, believe that with enough violence and fear and threats, they can make America cave in and accept Sharia. They are probably right.

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Called IT! Department of Justice to Refuse to Rule Out Blasphemy Charges

  1. anonymous says:

    Off topic- What happened to justice spokescunt xochil hinojarosa or whatever it was?

  2. Johnycomelately says:

    Insulting religions is a crime in Russia.

  3. sestamibi says:

    After 2001, everyone thought I was crazy for broaching the possibility of genocide as a solution to the Muslim problem. Looks like others now have the same idea.

  4. Clarence says:

    One of your dumbest posts ever.
    Apparently the SCOTUS will go against every precedent that a liberal OR conservative court has ever set …. because, well, you know, because YOU said so.
    Sorry, you need a better argument than that. Blasphemy, against Islam or anyone else is not going to be a crime anytime in my life or yours of that I am sure.

    • whorefinder says:

      You are a moron.

      They just did all this with Obamacare. They did in the 1930s with the “Switch In Time That Saved Nine.” And they did in the 1960s and 1970s when all of sudden, the Constitution had “emanations” and “penumbras.”

      Oh, they won’t call it “blashpemy,” just like they didn’t call it “fascism.” Nope, it will be “respecting religion” and “not being so Amerio-centric” and other such nonsense. It will be “exceptions” or “extensions” of the First Amendment (leftist legal scholars will debate that for fifty years before giving up).

      Finally, in a century or so, they will start calling it “blasphemic Constitutionality” or some other venality.

      It won’t be until the Constitution is long ignored—-and no one is left to get angry about it—that it will be called blasphemy.

      • Clarence says:

        *pats whorefinder on the head*

        I knew all that.
        And I still say the author and you are full of shit. Why?
        Because there is not a US legal tradition of any sort ever that shows these sorts of freedom of speech exceptions to the First Amendment. On top of that, the public is almost unanimously for Free Speech both left and right, though a minority of the left would push for “Hate Speech” expansions.

        Without a significant public, Congressional, or Legal system push this isn’t happening PERIOD. And I doubt either of the two Presidential Candidates would push for this either. It makes them look weak and “unpopulist” and Obama already has the power to chill speech without directly taking on long standing First Amendment protections.

        You can stop hiding under the bed now.

      • whorefinder says:

        Lol. So you knew that in 80 years, you know the US legal tradition has gone from a long history of blocking socialistic actions by the government to actively promoting them, and burning precedent down along the way—John Roberts’ latest opinion being the height of such depravity.

        And yet you have absolute confidence that, despite that pattern occurring in economic handouts, it won’t happen with blapshemic language.

        And yet we have hate crime legislation. We have a man in NJ in jail solely because he played a prank on a gay man. We have a man in Florida on trial for his life because he dared defend himself against a black man’s attack. We have the press claiming any criticism of the President is a “dog whistle” and “racist.”

        In short, we have a caste system in our country, where certain groups get extra-special protection under the law, even from words used against them.

        The most foolish people in the world are those who say “it can’t happen here.”

        Shit head.

    • CamelCaseRob says:

      Clarence, you are ill-informed. Laws like this already exist in many western countries, and they are headed here.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        I hope that you’re right, Clarence, but I have this sickening feeling that you’re not.

      • Lawful Neutral says:

        Clarence, you just said it yourself. Of course there will never be a “blasphemy” prohibition. “Hate speech,” on the other hand…

    • I give you the LAT citing the Fighting Words exception to Free Speech. It can be abridged at any time when it is likely to produce “imminent violence” (Brandenburg v. Ohio) and refers back to a decision in 1942. Where someone was convicted of calling a cop a rackeeter and fascist. Already the LAT is citing respected legal scholars calling for using Brandenburg to achieve Blasphemy Laws.

      The Supremes have said speech that could cause imminent violence can be criminalized. Criticizing ANYTHING in Islam causes imminent violence, globally and at home. Thus it is already under Supreme’s precedent, illegal. All that is needed is a formalized extension of government power. No Supreme Court in this century or the past one has said governments CANNOT do things. There are no limits.

  5. Johnycomelately says:

    Clarence, laws against offending religion and blasphemy laws are the same thing, we already have it in Australia.

  6. Dan says:

    This hearing occurred months ago and is not a response to “Innocence of Muslims” or events of the last week. Of course, it is still an absolutely shameful statement from one of the worst appointments ever made by President Obama, but precision is useful.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The so-called “Progressives” i.e. modern-day communists will ally with anyone and everyone they think they can use as cannon fodder and shock troops against the White race and Western Civilization. But they’re playing with fire. Islam with its insistance on blind faith, obedience and submission is antithetical not only to Western Civilization but also to issues near and dear to progressives, such as “gay marriage” and “gender equality”.

    Progressives operate by appealing to groups’ victim status and ryling them up against what they claim is their common enemy. But we can turn this weapon against them. Muslim’s claim to victimhood is by far the most spurious one. Political correctness is not as powerful a shield when it comes to these barbarians. Conservatives need to pounce very hard on Islam. Make the commies declare themselves. Goad them into standing with terrorists. Then point out the absurdity of this alliance.

    And if the Republicans win this election they need to start retaliating against attacks on US citizens. Unlike that dumb shit bush, don’t try to win their hearts and minds, just win, period.

  8. peterike says:

    Blasphemy laws will be like “hate crimes” laws. The law will, technically, apply to all religions, but it will only ever be enforced for the sake of “preferred” religions. Just like blacks are never brought up on hate crimes charges for assaults against whites, so Muslims will never be brought up on hate crimes charges against Christians. It will technically be a two-way street but in reality the traffic will be always and only in one direction.

  9. Blasphemy against Islam can already be prosecuted uder hate crimes laws. Even though Congress didn’t authorize it in the legislation, there is nothing stopping this justice department from doing whatever the hell they want. They are above the law.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      Well, so much for that “government of laws, not of men” stuff.

      • Lawful Neutral says:

        It was an impossible dream anyway. Men must enforce the laws, so of course men must rule. Is a statute book going to put me in handcuffs and haul me to court? Can it rule that I’ve broken the law when I claim I have not?

  10. josh says:

    Jews are rabid monkeys.

  11. freebird says:

    Obviously you haven’t been in a courtroom or confronted by a cop on statue violations
    Lawful neutral.
    It’s all about extracting money,certainly not about justice or truth.Not a far cry at all.
    After all,one in four muslims are the victim of hate speech!

    • Lawful Neutral says:

      Freebird, in those cases it’s still the cop, or the prosecutor, or the judge interpreting and enforcing the law. If they really want to get me, they can always find some law I’ve broken, or twist some law until I’m guilty of breaking it. If they really want to let me go, you’d better believe the fact that I’ve broken the law won’t stop them.

  12. Jack Q. says:

    LN wrote: “If they really want to get me, they can always find some law I’ve broken..”
    “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
    – Lavrentiy Beria

  13. angry says:

    Look, let’s really be honest here: does it really matter if “America” became a sharia state, as opposed to what it is today, a society of feminists and sodomites under a minority occupation? My understanding is that Islam under Sharia law is a masculine, patriarchal religion. While being an infidel is not a good position, converting to Islam is relatively easy. It would make sense for every average white man to convert to Islam and become the enforcers of Islam against anyone who does not conform. Sharia law is exactly what is needed to bring liberalism to heel.

    Why is this outcome not wanted? What is the point of preserving an America where you have no rights, no freedom and are a third-class citizen if you are an average, unconnected white male? To protect Churchianity? Entertainment? I say, let Islam take over. I can do far better under Islam than academics, women, lawyers, judges, journalists, fake religious leaders, and the rest of the ruling class ever would.

  14. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: I Have Arrived | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  15. whorefinder says:

    Clarence, for clarification, is a dumb bitch boy who writes for the Good Men Project (look it up and puke at its feminazied betaness) who thinks David Brooks is a role model.

Comments are closed.