WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GERMANY AND IRAN? NOT MUCH!

By My Hate Speech
We had a good laugh today when we read an article posted on Yahoo News, "Merkel likens Iran to repressive East Germany." Of course it was her attempt to deflect what really goes on Germany today by reminding her own nation's sheeple of how good things are, in comparison to the former East Germany, and the current situation that unfolded in Iran last week. If you are aware of people such as Ernst ZUndel, Germar Rudolf, and others you may allready understand. As far as we were concerned the articles title could have been changed to something like, "Whats the Difference between Germany and Iran." Well lets see where this goes.

See if you can guess which country commits the following actions against its people.

What is the country, is in close lead for the harshest censorship laws, after China and North Korea?

What country is it that is proud of conducting more than 10,000 criminal prosecutions against persons for having committed peaceful "thought crimes"?

What country is it where the authorities declare that half of their population deserves to be ostracized for harboring political views?

What country is it where the head of state asks for children to spy on their parents and parents to spy on their children to make sure they do not harbor unwanted political views?

What country is it where even the mainstream media admit that this country is in a state of hysteria while persecuting political dissidents?

What country is it where members of certain political opposition groups considered constitutional can nevertheless be deprived of some of their civil rights?

What country is it that has a huge spy agency designed to snoop on opposition groups?

What country is it that has institutions designed to conduct political trials?

What country is it that prosecutes defense lawyers if they try to introduce exonerating evidence on behalf of their clients?

What country is it where judges are threatened with prosecution because they did not punish political and historical dissenters harshly enough?

What country is it that hides from its citizens, which media are outlawed, so that one cannot possibly know whether or not one commits a crime when distributing such media?

What country is it where authors, editors, publishers, printers, wholesalers, retailers, importers and exporters, warehouses, and customers buying more than two copies of a certain medium can be prosecuted for producing, stocking, importing/exporting, distributing dissenting political and historical literature?

What country is it where well-founded, heavily footnoted books on political and historical topics, authored by academics with plenty of credentials, can be confiscated and burned by the authorities?

What country is it that sends a historical dissenter to prison for more than two years just because he published peaceful, scholarly historical material?

What country is it where a professor criticizing internationalism can be kicked out of his job, harassed, prosecuted and driven into suicide?

What country is it where a history teacher is sent to jail for uttering historical dissent in a private letter to a high-profile personality?

What country is it where a highly renowned historian writing a well-founded book of his country's history can be threatened with prosecution because what he found out is not liked by the authorities?

What country is it where a judge, writing a well-founded, but highly controversial book on historical topics, sees his book confiscated and burned, his pension cut, and his PhD title withdrawn as a result of this?

What country is it where a professor who writes his disbelief about certain historical events in a footnote, written in Latin, in a scholarly anthology can be prosecuted and threatened with jail?

What country is it where people can get fined for raising an arm to wave their hands at a person?

What country is it where somebody raising his country's flag would be harassed by his neighbors for being an extremist?

What country is it where a teacher suggesting that all students should sing the national anthem first thing every morning would lose his job for being an extremist?

Had enough? We have. We could go on but we just get angrier and angrier. If you guessed Iran you would be only partly right. If you guessed Germany, and we are not talking about former east Germany or Nazi Germany, but rather todays modern Germany, you would be 100% correct.

So what is the difference between Germany and Iran. Well Germany claims to be a Democracy, while Iran does not. Don't you just love democracies.

The Role of “The People” in Protecting Inalienable Rights

It is interesting to know that many of the attendees at the Constitutional Convention held in 1787 were OPPOSED to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why would this be so? The chief concern was that if a written bill of rights were included, the people would, over time, think that these rights were the ONLY rights they had. They were wise enough to know that the people would not understand how vast this body of “inalienable” rights was, and would therefore allow the government (especially the federal government) to dictate, and invade, the sacred domain of self-government that was to remain with the people.

As a result, the Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution, but was later introduced by James Madison in 1789 to the First United States Congress as a series of amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights, which are now defined as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are understood to protect such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Also included (among others) are the freedom of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It is critical to understand that this in no way limits the extent of the rights of “the people.” What has been generally lost is an understanding of the purpose and meaning to the 9th Amendment which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Obviously, the founders were referring to these other “unspoken and unwritten” rights which the people possessed, even if the Bill of Rights did not explicitly detail those rights.

In addition, “the people” (that is us) have lost an understanding of our role in the governing process. An understanding of the purpose and intent of the 10th Amendment is also critical to understand the “vision” of the founders. The 10th amendment states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Therefore, there has existed, and still exists, a vast realm of rights (also referred to as “natural rights”) that we, the people, possess that are not defined by the Constitution or its amendments. In order to gain an understanding of these rights, let me ask a few questions about only one of the important areas of our lives, our physical health.

Despite no specific mention in the Constitution or its amendments, do humans have an individual right to choose their form of medicine or medical treatments? Do we have an individual right to choose “alternative” forms of medicine (such as Native American medicine, ancient Chinese medicine, or ancient Ayurvedic medicine, as examples? On the other hand, can we be forced to only accept what our government states is “legal” medical treatment according to current governmental regulations? Does the Federal government have any constitutional authority to even speak on the subject?

A study of the history of “acceptable” medicine in this country reveals that “chiropractic” treatments were for many decades “illegal,” as government authorities (dominated by the American Medical Association) had not yet deemed it “safe.” Some of the greatest breakthroughs in medical history were not “legal” according to existing governmental authorities. This reality is even more evident today as new breakthroughs in alternative medicine are being discovered every day. Does it make sense to allow a government bureaucracy (which is obviously subject to control by special interest groups) to make such an important decision for YOU, as your choice of medical treatment? Or is this potential life or death decision part of “the peoples” inalienable rights to make choices for themselves, without having to resort to “permission” from some government authority?

Hopefully, this discussion will help to clarify how we, the people, must not allow governments to invade those sacred realms of personal decisions and responsibilities, collectively referred to as our “inalienable rights.” In upcoming articles I will continue to uncover how the Founders were attempting to give us our freedom, if only we would accept it.

Source: 10th Amendment Center

In Blow to Religious Liberty and Freedom of Association, Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Truth v. Kent

In a setback for religious liberty and freedom of association on campus, the Supreme Court of the United States today declined to hear an appeal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Truth v. Kent. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal means that the Ninth Circuit's deeply flawed ruling in Truth will stand. As a result, the rights of student groups at public campuses in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington to define themselves in accordance with their shared beliefs may be threatened.

FIRE submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in late April urging the Court to hear the appeal. In our press release announcing the filing of our brief, we described the facts of the case:

The controversy surrounding Truth began in the fall of 2001, when two students at Kentridge High School first applied for official recognition of Truth from the Associated Student Body Council (ASB). Despite consulting with the school's counsel and principal, the ASB did not take any action on the application for the entire 2001-2002 school year. In January 2003, Truth submitted a second application, stating that while general membership would be open for all Kentridge students, voting membership and leadership positions would only be open to students who shared Truth's faith-based beliefs. This application was also denied, prompting Truth to file suit in federal district court, alleging a violation of the group's right to free speech and expressive association, among other claims. A third application submitted in April 2003 was also denied.

The ASB cited the group's name, mission, and the fact that it was "segregating" as reasons for the rejections, despite the fact that each of the 30 student groups recognized by the school maintain "Membership Criteria" requiring that students be, for example, committed to certain causes (EarthCorps) or even of a specific sex (the Men's Honor Club and the Girl's Honor Club). Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit found against Truth, holding that its First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association had not been violated.

Because Truth tried to ensure that its membership consisted of students who shared its core beliefs, both the ASB and the school district refused to grant the group recognition, arguing that Truth was in violation of the district's nondiscrimination policy. And in finding that this refusal did not violate Truth's First Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit essentially held that the First Amendment right to freedom of association somehow does not apply when the association in question involves high school students seeking to form a group around their shared religious beliefs. But this holding completely misunderstands the concept of freedom of association—because, as the Supreme Court held in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) "freedom of association plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." Under the First Amendment, groups like Truth cannot be forced by the government to accept members that do not agree with their mission; nor can they be penalized (here, by denial of recognition) for seeking to exclude those students who disagree with their core purpose.

But under the Ninth Circuit's flawed reading of the right to expressive association in Truth, this simple principle has been discarded. Under Truth, for example, College Democrat groups may no longer require that their members be Democrats. Nor may campus pro-life groups require that their members not volunteer for pro-choice groups. As we explain at length in our brief, this interpretation of the First Amendment is not only illogical, but it is also at odds with the rulings of both the Supreme Court and other federal circuits. That the Supreme Court ignored the plain tension between the existing jurisprudence and the Ninth Circuit's cramped understanding of the right to freedom of association does not bode well for civil liberties on campus.

Still more troubling is the fact that FIRE's concerns about Truth's impact on college campuses are not hypothetical. In fact, our brief pointed out that the Ninth Circuit's faulty decision in Truth has already been cited as controlling precedent in similar cases in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction involving collegiate, religious student groups. We wrote:

The Ninth Circuit's holding in Truth has already negatively impacted expressive association on college campuses. Despite the fact that Truth arose in the high school context, the Ninth Circuit subsequently applied its decision and reasoning to the university setting. See Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California v. Kane, No. 06-15956 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2009).

In Kane, a religious student group at the University of California at Hastings Law School challenged the school's nondiscrimination policy, which required all student groups to "accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group." Kane, No. 06-15956. The student group was denied official recognition because it required all voting members and officers to agree to a Statement of Faith. In a one-paragraph opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld the law school's nondiscrimination requirement as "viewpoint neutral and reasonable," citing Truth as controlling precedent. Id.

Anticipating Kane, a district court in the Ninth Circuit applied the Truth decision to other religious college student groups. Every Nation Campus Ministries v. Achtenberg, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12251 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2009). Relying almost exclusively on Truth, the district court denied four religious groups at two California State University system schools the right to choose their members or leaders by reference to religious beliefs. Id. Repeating Truth's mistaken application of forum analysis, the district court held that "CSU may restrict access to its recognized student organization forum so long as the restrictions are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the purposes served." Id. at *48–49. Having determined that CSU's regulations were viewpoint-neutral and reasonable, following Truth, the court concluded that "CSU's nondiscrimination policy burdens Plaintiffs' expressive activity, if at all, only incidentally." Id. at *55.

Unfortunately, today's denial means that these erroneous rulings will stand—and that more such rulings and denials of recognition could very well follow.

For example, a federal lawsuit filed recently by the Christian Legal Society at the University of Montana School of Law against the school following the school's refusal to grant the group official recognition is headed to the Ninth Circuit on appeal. The appeal's only chance for success now is the empanelled judges diverging from their colleagues and refusing to apply Truth to colleges wholesale. That's precisely why clarity from the Supreme Court about how Truth does or does not conflict with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that Southern Illinois University's denial of recognition to the Christian Legal Society was likely an infringement of the group's First Amendment right to expressive association) would have been so helpful. The Court's silence means that Truth's negative impact on college campuses in the Ninth Circuit may fester for years.

By choosing not to correct the Ninth Circuit's flawed holding in Truth, the Supreme Court has failed to address the use of nondiscrimination policies to discriminate against religious student groups at high schools and colleges across the Ninth Circuit. As such, today's Supreme Court holding is deeply disappointing to FIRE and citizens across the country who recognize that "[h]igh school and college administrators who deny Christian groups official recognition engage in the discriminatory conduct they condemn—excluding people who will not pledge allegiance to official views," as noted civil libertarian and FIRE Board of Advisors member Wendy Kaminer put it last week in a blog entry for The Atlantic. Nevertheless, while we strongly disagree with the Court's decision not to hear Truth's appeal, FIRE's efforts on behalf of religious liberty and freedom of association on campus will continue unabated.

Source: Foundation For Individual Rights In Education