Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States held that speech that is dangerous AND false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting FIRE in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Today the legal definition of free speech is, “The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed buy the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
Members of Congress have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This means that Congress has a duty to protect America from the substantive evils of those attempting to replace our Constitution with religious supremacist Islamic sharia law.
The question is not, “Is it irrational to fear Islam?” The question is, “Is it irrational to fear Islamists?”
Islamists are sharia compliant Muslims who advocate or support Islamic militancy and/or Islamic fundamentalism. Islamists target any nonbeliever – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-sharia compliant Muslims who are all considered infidels.
Islamic militancy is seen in jihadi terror attacks on soft targets – infidels in pizzerias, nightclubs, airports, on beaches, and in train stations. Islamic militancy is seen in organized military jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and in their military attacks on infidels like the slaughter of Christians in South Sudan and the catastrophic September 11th attack on American soil. Islamic militancy is easily identified and must be resolutely opposed.
Islamic fundamentalism, the non-military component of Islamism, is far more insidious but has the same goal of replacing our Constitution with sharia law to “Make America Muslim” in its quest to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
That brings us to Islamophobia – a term that has been successfully weaponized in America to silence any criticism or discussion of Islamism.
Islamophobia is defined as an unwarranted irrational fear of Islam, and an Islamophobe is an individual who experiences this fear. So, is it irrational to fear Islam? The question appears simple but its answer is complex.
Guns don’t kill people – people do. So it is with Islam. Islam doesn’t kill people – Islamists do. Who are these Islamists and is it irrational to fear them?
The Muslim Brotherhood represents Islamic fundamentalism in America. Its propaganda arm is the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR). The singular objective of the Muslim Brotherhood was defined by its founder Hassan Al-Banna in Egypt in 1928. It was and continues to be the establishment of an Islamic caliphate that will make the world Muslim – including America.
Muslim fundamentalism requires strict adherence to religious supremacist sharia law. Islam is a replacement theology when practiced by sharia compliant Muslims because they only recognize the authority of religious sharia law – they do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.
Americans are being deliberately confused by politicians and the mainstream media still insisting that Islam is a religion like any other. It isn’t. Sharia compliant Muslims like Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are Muslim fundamentalists whose objective is to make America Muslim. They do it with their votes and by screaming Islamophobia anytime they are criticized or exposed for their seditious views.
The recent suspension of Judge Jeanine Pirro for questioning the symbolism of Ilhan Omar’s hijab is a case in point. The Judge made her 3.9.19 opening remarks in response to several outrageous antisemitic
What is defensible about Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism? The Judge was asking if Omar’s hijab symbolized her adherence to antisemitic supremacist Islamic sharia law. It is a valid question.
In a free society where freedom of speech is only restricted by things like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, the response to the Judge’s legitimate and important question was absolutely stunning yet unsurprising.
The predictable shrieks of Islamophobia were echoed across the mainstream media and Muslim Brotherhood’s CAIR demanded the permanent removal of Judge Jeanine Pirro. Of course he did – Rep. Ilhan Omar fund-raises for CAIR. Judge Jeanine Pirro posed a threat to the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the few conservative voices still on the air questioning and exposing creeping sharia law in American society.
Islamophobia has become the politically correct metric that determines what is protected free speech. How did this happen? What about Oliver Wendell Holmes?
Accusations of Islamophobia made during Obama’s tenure became the bludgeon used to silence any oppositional voices to the Muslim Brotherhood’s advancing agenda of making America Muslim. Writers, journalists, politicians, and political analysts who began to identify the stealth jihad being waged against America by Islamists in suits were silenced by Obama and his gang. Just like the accusation of “Racist” was used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a black person, so is the accusation “Islamophobe” being used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a Muslim.
Here is the problem.
The accusation of Islamophobia concerns itself exclusively with the WHO and ignores the WHAT of behavior. The accusation of Islamophobia focuses on who is being accused and ignores what the person did. So, if a non-Muslim (Jeanine Pirro) questions the actions of a Muslim (Omar) wearing the symbol of sharia compliance (hijab), the non-Muslim is accused of Islamophobia and the meaning of the Muslim wearing the hijab is ignored.
Accusations of Islamophobia are powerful weapons being used to conceal the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth civilizational jihad against America. This is how it works.
Judge Jeanine Pirro’s question about Omar’s hijab is the dangerous but also true speech that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes identified as protected free speech. Cunning accusations of Islamophobia are then used to deliberately silence the Judge and deprive her of the Constitutional rights that Congress is sworn to protect.
What can be done?
Americans must inform themselves and become aware of the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm CAIR and its powerful influence in Washington. The Washington swamp is infested with leftist creatures, Islamist creatures, and globalist creatures all relying on the swamp’s dark murky waters to stay concealed from public view. Most people are afraid of swamps and the dangerous creatures that inhabit them. The Washington swamp is unique – the creatures it protects are just human and the dangers it hides only require an informed public protected by free speech to be neutralized.
Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and accusations of Islamophobia are both dangerous and false. The Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear and present danger to the United States in its support for Islamic supremacy, Islamic militancy, Islamic fundamentalism, and their clearly stated objective to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law and make America Muslim.
So, is it irrational to fear Islamists?
Fear is the natural human response to danger and it is extremely rational to fear those who wish to destroy you. Once the threat is acknowledged and the decision made on how to protect oneself, fear is no longer necessary. The courage to confront the threat is what is required.
The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its seditious organizations must be declared terrorist organizations and be expunged from American society.
What America needs now is the courage to confront the Muslim Brotherhood.
EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.