UN Seeks to Criminalize Free Speech, Citing “Human Rights”

Under the guise of advancing what the United Nations refers to as “human rights,” the dictator-dominated global body is waging a full-blown assault on free-speech rights by pressuring governments to criminalize so-called “hate speech.” Indeed, working alongside radical government-funded activist groups and anti-liberty politicians around the world, the UN and other totalitarian-minded forces have now reached the point where they openly claim that what they call “international law” actually requires governments to ban speech and organizations they disapprove of. Critics, though, are fighting back in an effort to protect freedom of speech — among the most fundamental of all real rights.

While Americans’ God-given right to speak freely is firmly enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the UN and its hordes of “human rights” bureaucrats are currently terrorizing and bullying the people of Japan — among others — in an effort to drastically curtail speech rights. Pointing to a tiny group of anti-Korean activists holding demonstrations in Japan, politicians and self-styled promoters of “human rights” have also joined the UN in its Soviet-inspired crusade to ban free expression. The Japanese Constitution, however, like the American one, includes strong protections for freedom of speech. Still, that has not stopped the UN from seeking to impose its radical speech restrictions on Japan anyway.

At least two separate UN outfits, the dictator-dominated “Human Rights Commission” and the UN “Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,” have condemned Japan so far this year for failing to criminalize free speech while demanding immediate bans. The UN racial committee even released a report calling on Japanese politicians to overthrow the nation’s Constitution and take “appropriate steps to revise its legislation” by criminalizing and punishing speech, rallies, and groups considered “hateful.” The outfit also demanded a "comprehensive law prohibiting racial discrimination."
The "human rights" committee, meanwhile, demanded that Japanese authorities “prohibit all propaganda advocating racial superiority or hatred that incites to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Even speech on the Internet is in the UN's "human rights" crosshairs for regulation and prohibition. While anti-Korean speeches and rallies by the Japanese group “Zaitokukai” are being used as the pretext to terrorize Japan into changing its policies and infringing on citizens' constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the UN’s anti-free speech scheming has far larger aims.
Incredibly, despite constitutional protections for free speech and the lack of any statute even purporting to criminalize free expression, Japanese courts have actually been relying on UN agreements to punish alleged “hate” speakers. Last summer, the high court in Osaka upheld a previous ruling against the Zaitokukai organization for its speeches and rallies outside of a North Korean propaganda "school" in Kyoto that brainwashes children into worshipping mass-murdering North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The group was ordered to pay more than $100,000 for its supposed hate speech — again, despite the Constitution’s protections for free speech and the lack of a “hate speech” statute in Japan.  
Also alarming to critics is that top members of the Japanese political class are already plotting to use “hate speech” laws to criminalize criticism of government and politicians. According to a recent report in the Economist magazine, revisionist politician Sanae Takaichi said “hate-speech” laws should be used to stop people from protesting government actions outside of Parliament. Lawmakers must be free to work “without any fear of criticism,” she explained, sending shivers down the spines of free-speech advocates. Apparently the totalitarian sentiment is widespread among the political class, though Japan’s justice minister has so far resisted UN calls to pursue “hate speech” schemes. 
Much of the UN’s lobbying against freedom of speech in Japan, as in other nations, revolves around the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” and similar planetary thought-police regimes. The radical UN agreement, which took effect in 1969 but was not ratified by Japanese authorities until the 1990s, purports to criminalize “discriminatory expression.” Under the global body’s anti-free-speech regime, national governments are supposedly “required” to ban all speech that might justify or promote racial hatred, hostility, or discrimination — and punish the perpetrators.
Then UN “Human Rights” Czar Navi Pillay, a South African who was widely ridiculed after her half-baked attacks on the United States in recent years, also offered some chilling insight into the dictator-dominated global body’s views on liberty. “Defining the line that separates protected from unprotected speech is ultimately a decision that is best made after a thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case,” she argued. In other words, any time somebody speaks, he or she must wonder whether their speech might run afoul of dubious UN notions of “hate speech” — to be decided after the fact.
Of course, the issue at hand is not really “hate speech.” Threats and incitement to violence are already crimes in Japan and virtually the entire civilized world, so no new statutes are needed to rein in the excesses of racist hatemongers. Instead, the real issues include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, real rights, national sovereignty, constitutional governance, and self-government. While racist speech is certainly ignorant, tasteless, and collectivist, using laws to criminalize it is not only futile — as has been shown on countless occasions — but extraordinarily dangerous. Instead, the free marketplace of ideas is the best way to counter hatemongering. 
Even the notion of “hate speech,” though, has long been used to persecute innocent people for their political and religious beliefs. Across much of Europe, for instance, pastors and street preachers are regularly arrested and jailed for referring to homosexual activity as a sin. In Sweden, under the guise of waging war on “hate speech,” the Justice Ministry even investigated the Holy Bible. Meanwhile, at the global level, a broad coalition of Islamic dictators is seeking to criminalize criticism of Islam, its prophet, and the Quran worldwide using UN agreements. 
The tyrannical origin of hate-speech laws, meanwhile, was highlighted in detail in a 2011 report by the respected Hoover Institution, exposing the origins of the machinations within the mass-murdering regime ruling the Soviet Union. “The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies,” the paper on the “sordid origin of hate-speech laws” explained. “Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.” Acceptance of hate-speech schemes by what remains of the free world, the report added, could have “devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.”
The UN, composed largely of brutal autocracies of various varieties, has also made its views on free speech rights perfectly clear. Just consider two examples documented by The New American in 2014. This summer, the head of a powerful UN agency, Director General Francis Gurry with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), threatened a journalist with criminal prosecution — for the "crime" of reporting on official documents alleging that he unlawfully sent U.S. technology to brutal dictators, retaliated against whistleblowers, and was involved in widespread corruption. More recently, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) physically removed the public and the media from a taxpayer-funded meeting in Moscow during which it decided to demand much higher global tobacco taxes.  
Even the whole UN notion of “human rights” should be viewed for what it is: a tool of tyrants to attack the real rights that have underpinned Western traditions since the Magna Carta. Indeed, unbeknownst to average Americans and humanity as a whole, the UN means something very different when it discusses “human rights” than, say, the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In the American system, rights such as self-defense, free speech, religious liberty, trial by jury, privacy, and property ownership are endowed by the Creator upon every individual — a truth that America’s Founding Fathers viewed as “self-evident.”
Because individuals’ human rights come from God, then, they cannot be legitimately infringed upon by any government. In fact, according to the Founders, government was instituted for the express purpose of protecting those God-given rights from infringement. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” explains the American Declaration of Independence, which formally gave birth to the independent United States of America. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
Under the UN’s version of “human rights,” however, “rights” are purportedly defined and granted to people by governments, dictators, treaties, and international organizations. Even more troubling, perhaps, is that they can be restricted or abolished by government at will under virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” openly admits. Consider Article 29 of the declaration, which claims that the pseudo-rights can be limited “by law” under the guise of everything from “public order” to “the general welfare.”
Separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” For perspective, that would be like the First Amendment saying Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech is being used to criticize Congress or otherwise makes Congress unhappy. Obviously, the two views on human rights are incompatible at a basic level. The two visions are actually almost opposites — unalienable God-given rights versus revocable government-granted privileges.     
More evidence of how the UN views “human rights” can be found with a brief examination of the composition of its “Human Rights Council,” the highest “authority” within the UN system on the issue. In November of 2013, the outfit selected the most barbaric regimes on the planet to sit on the body. Among the mass-murdering regimes selected to sit on the UN’s self-styled “human rights” entity, for example, were the communist dictatorships enslaving the people of China, Cuba, and Vietnam. The socialist regime in Namibia was selected for the council, too, joining the brutal socialist autocracy ruling Venezuela that recently disarmed law-abiding citizens with UN help.
Also appointed were the hardline Islamist tyrants ruling over Algeria and Saudi Arabia, which considers converting to Christianity a capital offense and which continues to publicly behead “apostates” and others, ISIS-style. If the genocidal mass-murdering maniac ruling Sudan had not withdrawn his bid in the face of a global outcry, his seat on the council was all but assured. Ironically, the current UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” comes from Jordan, where converting to Christianity is a crime. Less than a decade ago, the UN Commission on Human Rights, which preceded the council, was actually chaired by none other than brutal Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
While UN attacks on free speech under the guise of pseudo-human-rights are growing bolder with every passing day, the controversial global outfit — widely ridiculed as the “dictators club” — has no plans to stop there. In fact, in the United States, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and more, the UN has been using its phony notion of “rights” to attack real rights — ranging from self-defense and parental rights to self-government and even freedom of the press. In the upcoming January 19 print issue of The New American (available by subscription), this magazine extensively documents the full-scale UN attack on the U.S. constitutional system and the unalienable rights of Americans using “human rights” as the weapon.
Rather than entertaining the outlandish and totalitarian demands of the dictators club against the free world, civilized nations and free peoples should force their governments to defund and withdraw from the UN. Only then will the non-stop UN attacks on freedom and real rights come to an end. Until then, though, humanity must firmly oppose the UN’s autocratic scheming at every turn — lest the people’s true unalienable rights be usurped and trampled under the guise of bogus “human rights.”

Will "Conservatives" Give Us a New Constitution?

Conservatives rightly take exception to the attacks upon the Constitution by the political Left. The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall dismissed this magnificent work of the Founders as not particularly "profound." Progressives, at least since the days of Woodrow Wilson, have considered the Constitution an impediment to their plans for expanding the power of the government, especially at the federal level. President Barack Obama, as a recent example, has lamented the 18th-century document's deficiency in addressing only "negative liberties" (keeping the government from infringing on the rights of citizens) and not allowing for "positive liberties." Positive liberties — those "rights" granted by government as opposed to natural or God-given rights — usually involve yet another expansion of government power.

It is to be expected that assaults upon the Constitution, and its emphasis upon limiting the power, size, and scope of the federal government, would come from the progressive Left. What constitutional conservatives must lament, however, is that a group from our own "camp" has bought into the idea that we need a Convention of the States (COS) to remedy the failure of the Constitution to restrict the growth of federal government power. While most of these "conservative" advocates of a COS are sincere in their belief that this would accomplish the worthy goal of limiting the power of the federal government, their sincerity does not make this belief correct.

The latest "conservative" to join the push for a COS is retiring U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican. Coburn told the Oklahoman newspaper, "[I'm] going to be working on a convention, hopefully to scare the hell out of Congress [so] that they'll pass a balanced budget amendment. I'm going to travel the country trying to talk state legislatures into [calling for a constitutional convention]." Coburn, a practicing physician, should know that treating a disease with the wrong drug can actually do more harm than good. The ancient proverb for a physician is most apt here: "First, do no harm." For example, giving insulin to a diabetic when what the patient needs is food, can be fatal.
While one can certainly sympathize with Coburn and other conservative proponents of a COS who are sincerely concerned with any infringement on the rights of the states by the expanding federal government, what the nation needs now is not a new Constitution, or a multitude of amendments. Federal government officials simply need to follow our present Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution provides two methods for the proposing of constitutional amendments. The first is the one used all 27 times the Constitution has been amended, in which amendments are proposed by  a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress. Ratification then comes from approval of three-fourths of the states, either through their state legislatures or special state conventions. The other method provided to propose changes to the Constitution (never used since our current Constitution was ratified) is for two thirds of the states to apply for Congress to call for a national convention to propose amendments. Any such amendments there proposed would then have to be approved by three-fourths of the states, as with any other proposed change to the Constitution.
Senator Coburn, despite his reputation as a staunch constitutional conservative, was among those who voted for the TARP bank bailout in 2008. When challenged concerning its constitutionality, Coburn retorted that had Congress failed to act, "your ATM would have shut down," followed by an economic depression. He also had no problem with the spying activities of the National Security Agency (NSA). "Everything the NSA is doing right now, I'm happy to have them do on my family," Coburn told the Oklahoman.
Popular talk-show host Mark Levin is another well-known conservative who is pushing for a COS, even to the point of writing a book, The Liberty Amendments, largely to promote the idea. Some of Levin's suggestions are quite good, especially that we repeal the 17th Amendment, which weakened federalism and the power of the states by making U.S. senators elected by popular vote, instead of by the state legislatures. The Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), the conservative alternative to the liberal American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), has recently joined the call for a convention. AMAC called their endorsement a "natural extension" of the organization's charge to "restore the nation's heritage, culture and values," and "rein in the power of the federal government."
Proponents of the Article V COS, such as Michael Farris of Patrick Henry College, claim that the states, not the Congress, will control any convention process. Ironically, Patrick Henry himself expressed deep concern about the 1787 Philadelphia convention, which produced the present Constitution of the United States. "I smell a rat," Henry said, and his concern is certainly relevant to the present discussion. The 1787 convention was called by the Confederation Congress for the "sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Recognition that the 1787 convention could not be limited to its call has led many conservatives to express concerns similar to Henry's about a 21st century COS.
In an effort to win enough support for ratification of the Constitution by the states, leading supporters, such as James Madison, promised they would push through amendments to the Constitution in the first congressional session. These amendments would address the concerns of Henry, George Mason, and others, by restricting the ability of the new federal government to encroach upon the rights of the states and individual American citizens. Ten of the 12 amendments sent to the states were adopted by 1791, and are now known as the Bill of Rights.
This is instructive to our present discussion. The First Amendment stated in clear words that Congress would have no power to make any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Yet, only seven years later, Congress passed the Sedition Act, a law which abridged freedom of speech and freedom of the press! Representative Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina expressed wonder that Congress could pass such a law in clear violaiton of the First Amendment.
Current supporters of the call for a national convention contend that such a gathering would rein in an out-of-control federal government. Perhaps. But even if such a convention were limited to this noble cause, one must wonder what would make today's politicians and judges obey a new constitutional amendment. They certainly have no problem in ignoring the clear wording of several parts of the present Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment. Passing one or more new amendments would simply provide even more parts of the Constitution for them to ignore.
It must be asked: Is any possible good that could come from such a convention worth the grave risks involved?

Erdogan's Egyptian Nightmare

Erdogan was happy. At least until a few days ago....
Erdogan probably did not know the Emir of Qatar's next move on the Middle Eastern chessboard.
Turkey aspires to be a regional leader with no, little or problematic dialogue with about a dozen countries in its region.

Back in 2011, everything ostensibly was coming up roses between Turkey and Egypt. In a speech that year, then-Turkish President Abdullah Gul mentioned "...an axis of democracy of the two biggest nations in our region [Turkey and Egypt], from the north to the south, from the Black Sea down to the Nile Valley..."
In September 2011, then-Prime Minister [now President] Recep Tayyip Erdogan found an emotional hero's welcome at Cairo's Tahrir Square. Tens of thousands of Egyptians had flocked to the Cairo airport to welcome him. Streets were decorated with posters of Erdogan.
In early 2012, a survey by TESEV, a Turkish think-tank, found that Turkey was the most popular country for the residents of seven Arab countries, including Egypt.
But against that glittering backdrop, this author wrote in June 2011: "For Ankara, Cairo can be the new Damascus until another capital becomes the new Cairo. At that time, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan's one-time best regional ally, had already become his worst regional nemesis.
The Turkish-Egyptian love affair would, in fact, be quite short-lived.
In August 2013, about a month after General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt toppled the Muslim Brotherhood rule of President Mohammed Morsi, Erdogan appeared on TV, reading -- in an unusually soft voice -- a letter by the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed al-Beltagy. The letter was written to Beltagy's daughter Asmaa, a 17-year-old girl, who had been killed in Cairo when security forces stormed two protest camps occupied by supporters of the deposed president. Poor Asmaa had been shot in the chest and back.
"I believe you have been loyal to your commitment to God, and He has been to you," her father wrote in the letter. "Otherwise, He would not have called you to His presence before me." Erdogan's tears were visible.
Later, Asmaa became another symbol for Turkish Islamists; Erdogan cheered party fans with the four-finger "Rabia" sign, in reference to his solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood, and as a sign of his endearment for the unfortunate girl. Even on the playing field, a few footballers made the same sign after scoring.

In this image, widely circulated in social media, Turkey's then-Prime Minister [now President] Recep Tayyip Erdogan flashes the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's four-fingered "Rabia" sign.

After the coup in Egypt, when el-Sisi ran for president and won the elections, Turkey's Erdogan declared them "null and void." And not just that. Erdogan also said that he did not view el-Sisi as "president of Egypt." At another time, he said, "Turkey would not recognize the coup regime in Egypt." Last July, he called el-Sisi "an illegitimate tyrant" and a "coup-maker."
Meanwhile, neither was Erdogan a "rock star" in Cairo nor was Turkey "the most popular country." Egyptian non-governmental organizations [NGOs] called on Egyptians and Arabs to boycott Turkish goods and soap operas. Egypt's intellectuals, writers and businessmen were recommending a break in Egypt's relations with Turkey because "they were disappointed." Egypt unilaterally cancelled both visa-free travel for Turkish citizens and a transit agreement for Turkish trucks.
In the anti-el-Sisi campaign, Turkey was not alone. Its only regional ally, Qatar, fully supported Turkey against Egypt's elected "coup leader." Erdogan was happy. At least until a few days ago....
In Ankara, Erdogan was all smiles when he offered a red-carpet ceremony to the visiting Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Happy to have his best ally as a guest, Erdogan probably did not know the Emir's next move on the Middle Eastern chessboard.
A few days after al-Thani's merry visit to Ankara, Qatar announced its determination to thaw ties with Egypt, ending its alliance with Turkey over "Egypt's illegitimate tyrant."
"The security of Egypt is important for the security of Qatar ... the two countries are linked by deep and fraternal ties," ran a statement from the office of al-Thani on Dec. 21. It was a real cold shower on Ankara -- and Erdogan. The statement had come one day after el-Sisi met in Cairo with a Qatari envoy, suggesting a possible thaw in relations. After the meeting, el-Sisi's office issued a statement saying, "Egypt looks forward to a new era that ends past disagreements." Apparently, the Egyptian-Qatari reconciliation had been brokered by Saudi Arabia and, once again, Turkey was the odd one out.
In its immediate vicinity, Turkey does not have diplomatic relations with three countries -- Armenia, Cyprus and Syria -- and has deeply problematic diplomatic relations with two countries: Israel and Egypt. This situation is not sustainable.
Even Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc has said that Turkey should repair its relations with Egypt. But this is not an easy task. In the unlikely event of a reconciliation, Erdogan's previous big words on el-Sisi the coup-maker will make him look like a leader shaking hands with an "illegitimate tyrant."
On Dec. 24, Turkey's foreign ministry spokesman said that bilateral ties with Egypt could "normalize if the country properly returns to democracy, if the Egyptian people's free will is reflected in politics and social life." Meaning, no normalization. The spokesman would not comment on Qatar's policy change on Egypt.
Turkey aspires to be a regional leader with no, little or problematic dialogue with about a dozen countries in its region. Erdogan's top advisors have found a nice euphemism for this situation: "precious loneliness." In reality, it is rather a blend of miscalculation and over self-confidence.

When they were a new “third Party” the Republicans nominated John C. Fremont as their presidential candidate in 1856. He didn’t win, but his candidacy served well as a vehicle to introduce the idea of the Republican Party to the voting public. In the next four years the Republicans gained traction because they were right on the issues of the day and although they have lost badly a few times since, they have won some landslide victories and remained one of the two major parties in America.

 The lesson here is that on their first try, third parties don’t win. But if they are right on the issues they can survive to develop influence. The election of 2016 will be the best third party opportunity in the last 160 years. Nevertheless, a 2016 third party candidacy will fail as well. So, the question for us will become do we walk away and take what is thrown at us; or carefully weigh the results and look to 2020?

 The Democrat wing of the Uniparty is rushing toward nominating either Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. The Republican wing of the Uniparty is hell bent on nominating the male counterpart to either of these far left, extremist females. Whether it is Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie or maybe even Lindsey Graham there will be little difference between the eventual Republican nominee and either Clinton or Warren.

 This means that for us the 2016 presidential election will be a “tails they win, heads we lose,” proposition; and it also means that TEA party movement Americans must make a superhuman effort replace Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. John McCain, R-Ariz. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Pat Toomey, R-Pa with true conservatives and elect a true conservative to the Louisiana seat that will open when Senator David Vitter steps down to run for governor. A strongly conservative Senate can quarantine the virus in the White House.

Like the Nazis, who, where actually a small percentage of Germans, the “soldiers” of the Black War on our police represent the sentiments and beliefs of a considerably larger segment of African American.

 Barack Obama Eric Holder Al Sharpton and Comrade Bill de Blasio have done so much to poison race relations in America that this is undeniable. In their aims attitude and ultimate goals the soldiers of the Black War on our police and the Nazis are very similar. Both regularly use(d) lies and propaganda to promote their message. Both attack(ed) weak and defenseless targets like elderly people and unsuspecting others in sneak attacks.

 Thugs running through the streets attacking specific targets brought the Nazis to power. In their case they attacked Jewish owned shops and homes. The “soldiers” in the Black War on our police attack targets they perceive to be owned by Whites. They see doing battle with our police is a necessary step to crushing White society in America.

 Unlike the feckless Left these “soldiers” have always understood that America’s police officers are the front line against their achieving the supremacy they demand.

 The Black War on our police which started in 1970 with attacks on police by the Black Liberation Army. They cowardly crept up on police officers and shot them in the back. The fact that they shot both White and Black police officers made their point that their war was on all of our police not just White police officers.

Betrayal of the Democratic Party

 By Alfred E. (Al) Smith

 

Alfred E. Smith, Democratic Governor of New York during four terms, became the Democratic candidate for President in 1928 but lost to Herbert Hoover. In 1932 he supported Franklin D. Roosevelt for President, but by 1936 he was so shocked and alarmed by what he saw happening that he decided to warn his Party. Because of the popularity of President Roosevelt this step was considered by some to be virtual treason. Nevertheless, on January 25, 1936, Alfred E. Smith gave the following speech in Washington, D.C., to warn the American people that the Democratic Party was being betrayed.

 At the outset of my remarks let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a candidate for any nomination by any party at any time, and what is more I do not intend to even lift my right hand to secure any nomination from any party at any time.

 Further than that, I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States….

I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. And I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it. Further than that, that no group of men owned it, but on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.

 

Patriotism Above Partisanship

 

It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against tire Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

 What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.

 In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.

 And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of “soak the rich” or “soak the poor.”…

 

A Government By Bureaucrats

 

The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law.

 Just let me quote something from the President’s message to Congress:

“In 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power in the hands of the people’s government. This power is wholesome and proper, but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people.”

Now I interpret that to mean, if you are going to have an autocrat, take me; but be very careful about the other fellow.

 There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any laws that provide shackles for our people.

 We don’t want any autocrats, either in or out of office. We wouldn’t even take a good one.

 The next danger that is apparent to me is the vast building up of new bureaus of government, draining resources of our people in a common pool of redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by the whim of a bureaucratic autocracy.

 

The 1932 Platform

 

Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am hereto make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them reestablish and re-declare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform….

The Republican platform was ten times as long. It was stuffy, it was unreadable, and in many points, not understandable. No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the party that was inaugurated on the Fourth of March in 1933.

 And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day.

 Well, here we are!

 Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is wiry it wasn’t carried out….

Now, let us wander for awhile and let’s take a look at that platform, and let’s see what happened to it. Here is how it started out:

“We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people, to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of contract to which they are asked to subscribe.

“The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned.”

My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.

 But what happened to it?

 

Economy in Government

 

First plank: “We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the Federal Government.”

Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated,but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted. The creation of new departments and this is sad news for the taxpayer — the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost,over and above all emergencies that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic.

 

The Unbalanced Budget

 

Another plank: “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue.”

How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in?Even the increased revenue won’t go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that?…

 

The Middle Class Will Pay the Debt

 

Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow.

 That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year.

 Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can’t pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn’t pay it; they ain’t got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing.

 This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain’t going to know that they are paying it.It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won’t think they’re paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!

 

What About States’ Rights?

 

Another plank: “We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs.”

That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their employment affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded it.

“We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws.”

Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crack-pot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children.

 Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men,women and children than any man in the State of New York.

 

Unconstitutional Measure — Unfulfilled Pledges

 

And the sin of this whole thing, and the part of it that worries me and gives me concern,is that this haphazard, hurry-up passage of legislation is never going to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed and — bear this in mind, follow the platform-under State laws….

Another one: “We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest.”

NRA! A vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death.

 Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell?

 What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise?

 I’ll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.

 

Wasteful Extravagance

 

Here is another one: “We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests.”

Now, just between ourselves, do you know any administrative officer that has tried to stop Congress from appropriating money? Do you think there has been any desire on the part of Congress to curtail appropriations?

 Why, not at all. The fact is that Congress threw them right and left — didn’t even tell what they were for.

 And the truth, further, is that every administrative officer sought to get all that he possibly could in order to expand the activities of his own office and throw the money of the people right and left. And as to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale.

 The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.

 Here is another one: “We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets.”…

What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market?Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, [page 126] and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets — food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers.

 In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God’s bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that.

 Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way. Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question.

 Let’s see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word “Democrat,” and scratch out the word “Socialist,” and let the two platforms lay there.

 Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that,make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You don’t dare touch the Democratic platform.

 

Democratic or Socialistic?

 

And incidentally, let me say, that it is not the first time in recorded history, that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.

 Now, after studying this whole situation, you will find that that is at the bottom of all our troubles. This country was organized on the principles of representative democracy, and you can’t mix Socialism or Communism with that. They are like oil and water; they refuse to mix.

 And incidentally, let me say to you, that is the reason why the United States Supreme Court is working overtime throwing the alphabet out of the window three letters at a time.

 Now I am going to let you in on something else. How do you suppose all this happened? Here is the way it happened. The young Brain Trusters caught the Socialists in swimming and hey ran away with their clothes.

 Now, it is all right with me. It is all right to me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx, or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won’t stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland.

 

“We Can Take a Walk”

 

Now what is worrying me, where does that leave me as a Democrat? My mind is now fixed upon the Convention in June, in Philadelphia. The committee on resolutions is about to report, and the preamble to the platform is:

“We, the representatives of the Democratic Party in Convention assembled, heartily endorse the Democratic Administration.”

What happens to the disciples of Jefferson and Jackson and Cleveland when that resolution is read out? Why, for us it is a washout. There is only one of two things we can do. We can either take on the mantle of hypocrisy or we can take a walk, and we will probably do the latter.

 Now leave the platform alone for a little while. What about this attack that has been made upon the fundamental institutions of this country? Who threatens them, and did we have any warning of this threat? Why, you don’t have to study party platforms. You don’t have to read books. You don’t have to listen to professors of economics. You can find the whole thing incorporated in the greatest declaration of political principles that ever came from the hands of man, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

 

Constitutional Limitations

 

Always have in your minds that the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were drafted by refugees and by sons of refugees, by men with bitter memories of European oppression and hardship, by men who brought to this country and handed down to their descendants an abiding fear of the bitterness and all the hatred of the Old World was distilled in our Constitution into the purest democracy that the world has ever known.

 There are just three principles, and in the interest of brevity, I will read them. I can read them quicker than talk them.

“First, a Federal Government, strictly limited in its power, with all other powers except those expressly mentioned reserved to the States and to the people, so as to insure State’s rights,guarantee home rule, and preserve freedom of individual initiative and local control.”

That is simple enough. The difference between the State constitutions and the Federal Constitution is that in the State you can do anything you want to do provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. But in the Federal Government, according to that government, you can do only that which that Constitution tells you that you can do.

 What is the trouble? Congress has overstepped its bounds. It went beyond that Constitutional limitation, and it has enacted laws that not only violate the home rule and the State’s right principle — and who says that? Do I say it? Not at all. That was said by the United States Supreme Court in the last ten or twelve days.

 

Chorus of Yes-men in Congress

 

Secondly, the Government, with three independent branches, Congress to make the laws,the Executive to execute them, the Supreme Court, and so forth. You know that.

 In the name of Heaven, where is the independence of Congress? Why, they just laid right down. They are flatter on the Congressional floor than the rug on the table here. They surrendered all of their powers to the Executive, and that is the reason why you read in the newspapers references to Congress as the Rubber Stamp Congress.

 We all know that the most important bills were drafted by the Brain Trusters, and sent over to Congress and passed by Congress without consideration, without debate and, without meaning any offense at all to my Democratic brethren in Congress, I think I can safely say without 90 percent of them knowing what was in the bills.

 That was the meaning of the list that came over, and besides certain bills were “Must.”What does that mean? Speaking for the rank and file of American people we don’t want any executive to tell Congress what it must do, and we don’t want any Congress or the Executive jointly or severally to tell the United States Supreme Court what it must do!

 And further than that, we don’t want the United States Supreme Court to tell either of them what they must do.

 What we want, and what we insist upon, and what we are going to have is the absolute preservation of this balance of power which is the keystone, the arch upon which the whole theory of democratic government has got to rest. When you rattle that you rattle the whole structure.

 Of course, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States it couldn’t be possible that they had it in their minds that it was going to be all right for all time to come. Sothey said, “Now, we will provide a manner and method of amending it.”

That is set forth in the document itself, and during our national life we amended it many times.

 We amended it once by mistake, and we corrected it. What did we do? We took the amendment out. Fine, that is the way we want to do it, by recourse to the people.

 But we don’t want an Administration that takes a shot at it in the dark and that ducks away from it and dodges away from it and tries to put something over contradiction of it upon any theory that there is going to be a great public howl in favor of that something; possibly the United States Supreme Court may be intimidated into a friendly opinion with respect to it.

 What I have held all during my public life is that Almighty God is with this country, and He didn’t give us that kind of Supreme Court.

 Now this is pretty tough on me to have to go at my own party this way, but I submit that there is a limit to blind loyalty.

 As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

 Why, the fact of this whole thing is I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise,and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

 Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised.

 

Suggested Remedies

 

Now, suggestions, and I make these as a Democrat anxious for the success of my party,and I make them in good faith.

 No. 1: I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November. Just take their minds off it to the end that you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing.

 Next, I suggest to them that they dig up the 1932 platform from the grave that they buried it in, read it over, and study it, breathe life into it, and follow it in legislative and executive action, to the end that they make good their promises to the American people when they put forth that platform and the candidate that stood upon it 100 percent. In short, make good!

 Next, I suggest to them that they stop compromising with the fundamental principles laid down by Jackson and Jefferson and Cleveland.

 Fourth: Stop attempting to alter the form and structure of our Government without recourse to the people themselves as provided in their own Constitution. This country belongs to the people, and it doesn’t belong to any Administration.

 Next, I suggest that they read their Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States. And I ask them to remember that they took that oath with their hands on the Holy Bible, thereby calling upon God Almighty Himself to witness their solemn promise. It is bad enough to disappoint us.

 

Washington or Moscow

 

 Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

 Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father’s house.

 Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol,Washington or Moscow!

 There can be only one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia.

 There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

 There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

 There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution –stop. Stop there. The Constitution can’t lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

 

· We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

 

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

 Amen!

 The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest.

 In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.

 The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

 

With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'one nation under God.'

In response to the growing anti-Islamization movement in Germany, some German politicians and religious leaders suggest churches should sing Islamic songs at Christmas time

No, sorry, this is not a satire post. As tens of thousands of Germans take to the streets to protest Islam and Muslim immigration, now some German politicians and religious leaders are recommending that Muslim “carols” be sung in their churches during Christmas services. The idea, which supposedly would increase “tolerance,” also involves the singing of Christian songs in mosques. (Seriously?)

How about some MUSLIM TERROR FOR CHRISTMAS?

The New American (h/t Liz)  Of course, critics would point out that the two actions are not equivalent, since no Muslim high holy day falls on the 25th. Many would also suspect that church leaders are far more likely to entertain the idea than are Muslim ones; this seems especially true since only the Imam sings during Islamic services.

The idea is a response to the burgeoning PEGIDA movement. Loosely translated as “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West,” it has inspired increasingly well-attended marches of late, with 17,500 gathering and singing Christmas carols in Dresden just yesterday.

The group objects to Germany’s loose immigration policy, which, following the trend in Western Europe, has led to rapid Islamization in the country. Germany is now home to approximately 3,000 mosques and Muslim prayer halls, including what upon completion will be one of Europe’s largest Islamic houses of worship, the Cologne Central Mosque; and Muslims constitute the majority of the school systems in some parts of the nation.

Even though this musical ecumenism would likely be a one-sided effort, some advocate it enthusiastically. Focus.de reports that Omid Nouri Pour, a Green Party member of parliament of Iranian descent, told the Bild newspaper Monday (translated from German), “It would be a great sign of peace among the religions, when in a church an Islamic song is sung and in a mosque a Christmas song.” And Junge Freiheit reports (translated from German) that Central Council of Muslims in Germany chairman Ayman Mazyek “also encouraged churches to sing Islamic songs at Christmastime,” saying “‘It would be a wonderful sign of peace and compassion.’”

Mazyek even recommended a song: “Tala’a al-Badru alayna” (“The White Moon Rose Over Us”) by legendary singer Cat Stevens, a Muslim convert who now calls himself Yusuf Islam.

Junge Freiheit continues, “‘We need understanding, respect and tolerance,’ said SPD [Social Democrat Party] member of parliament of Baden-Württemberg, Thomas Funk, praising the proposal.”

Many in Germany — especially among its leadership — are defined by what’s politically correct. While PEGIDA protesters hold placards expressing sentiments such as “Zero tolerance towards criminal asylum seekers,” “Stop the Islamization,” and “Protect our homeland,” Justice Minister Heiko Maas condemned the movement as “a shame for Germany” while other leftists have demeaned its rally-goers as “pinstripe Nazis” (ironic since Adolf Hitler held Islam in high esteem and allied himself with the WWII-era Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini).

In fact, Germany’s ruling elite is so opposed to populist, PEGIDA-like movements that it has actually used the machinery of government against them. As The New American wrote last month reporting on the construction of yet another mega-mosque in Germany, a $51 million behemoth in Munich.

As the Guardian recently wrote, “Almost two-thirds of Germans, according to a poll for news magazine Spiegel by the TNS institute, believe that Angela Merkel’s government is not doing enough to address concerns about immigration and asylum seekers, and 34% think Germany is enduring a process of ‘Islamization’.”

Elsewhere on the Christmas-meets-violent-extremism front, dozens of people were injured last night when a man drove his van into a Christmas market in the Nantes area of France while screaming “Allahu Akbar”; the individual, presumably Muslim, then stabbed himself nine times before being apprehended by police. It was “the third incident of its kind in as many days in the country which have been linked to Islamic terrorism,” wrote the Mirror.

How Muslims celebrate Christmas in Nigeria – killing Christians

Nonetheless, Islamic immigration into Germany has been increased over last year, and an estimated 5.4 percent of the nation’s residents are now Muslim.

But not everyone shares Funk’s sentiments. In fact, if one Muslim cleric had his way, people wouldn’t even be saying “Merry Christmas” to one another, let alone singing carols. In a 2011 video (below) once again circulating in social media, Lebanese-born Islamic “scholar” Abu Musaab Wajdi Akkari minces no words opining on the yuletide wish. He says: “Wishing someone Merry Christmas  is worse than fornication, and drinking alcohol and killing someone.”

Justice Department Grants Linked to Cop-killing Rap Video

As if the American people needed more evidence that the Obama administration’s Justice Department was out of control after six years of non-stop scandals, it was recently revealed that the DOJ was funding a “community” organization linked to a controversial rap music video glorifying the murder of New York City police officers. The group in question, Bronx Defenders, has received at least $1.5 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars from the Department of Justice, and played a prominent role in the pro-cop-killing music video. The link between the widely condemned rap production and the DOJ made headlines this week after two New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers were murdered, execution style, under the guise of obtaining “revenge” for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.  
 
The explosive link between the Justice Department-funded organization and the glorification of violence against police was first reported by the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal news outlet on December 22. It was not immediately clear whether the Bronx Defenders group, which is featured in the video, along with staff attorneys for the organization, played a role in financing the violent film. In addition to DOJ funding offered under a program ironically named after a murdered NYPD officer, the organization has also received upwards of $40 million from city taxpayers just in the last two years. So far, the Bronx Defenders has largely remained silent about the full extent of its involvement in the production, according to media reports.

The lyrics and images, though, sparked a national outcry and left members of the law-enforcement community furious. “For Mike Brown and Sean Bell, a cop got to get killed,” go the words of the song, called “Hands Up (Eric Garner Tribute)” by rappers “Uncle Murda” and “Maino.” "Time to start killing these coppers." The music video also features numerous images of two black men dressed in thug costumes pointing handguns at a police officer’s head. The violent words of the rap song make numerous references to killing law enforcement officers to obtain “revenge” and “justice” over the alleged systemic racism and brutality of police officers across America.

    

It was not clear whether the rap duo knew that the supervising officer at the scene of Garner’s fatal takedown was a black female, a fact most of the establishment media has carefully omitted from its reports aimed at stirring up racial strife. By contrast, in the Rodney King incident, the supervising officer, a white male, was hysterically demonized in the press for months on end. When a state jury refused to convict him, the federal government eventually came down on that officer, though nothing similar appears to be in the works against the supervising officer at the scene of Garner’s ultimately fatal arrest.   

The deeply controversial rap clip, posted on Youtube and viewed well over 150,000 times so far, shows the Bronx Defenders, too, on multiple occasions. In one scene, a grieving mother walks into the organization’s taxpayer-funded office. There, a Bronx Defenders lawyer, reportedly a managing director, comforts her over the apparent fictional loss of her son at the hands of police. At the end of the video, a banner advertisement for the Bronx Defenders is shown, along with the group’s website and Twitter account. Since 2007, the organization has received over $100 million in taxpayer funding from the city, in addition to at least $1.5 million in federal grants of U.S. taxpayer funds since 2009 by Obama’s DOJ under the “Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program.”  

The Bronx Defenders mostly refused to answer the Daily Signal’s questions and requests for comment about its role in potentially funding the video, or about its repeated appearances in the clip. The Justice Department also failed to respond to requests for comment, the media outlet reported. Despite the escalating scandal, as of December 26, neither the DOJ nor Bronx Defenders had issued a formal statement on their websites about the rap song or the possible role of taxpayer funding in producing it. However, prior to the murder of the two police officiers, a New York Post article about the taxpayer-funded non-profit group’s ties to the rap video did say the Bronx Defenders had issued a statement saying it did not know the clip would feature images of thugs holding guns to a police officer’s head. While the statement did not mention the pro-cop-killing lyrics, Bronx Defenders reportedly said it had asked for the video to be taken down.

Aside from the images of guns pointed at a police officer’s head, the violent words of the song have also sparked a growing national uproar — especially in light of the links to taxpayer funding and the recent murders of two New York police officers. “For Mike Brown and Sean Bell, a cop got to get killed; ’cause I’m black, police think they got the right to shoot me; No jail time, their punishment is death’s duty;... By any means necessary let’s make them respect us,” the rappers say in the video, which also features real and fictional video of police officers in confrontations with citizens.
It continues: “Killin’ unarmed black men, makin’ mothers holla; And this what the government payin’ with our tax dollars?; (Crazy!) All these unjustified shootin’s; Then they call us animals when we start lootin’; Those kids ain’t had no gun and the police knew it; [rapper] Jay need to talk to Obama or let me do it ... My lil’ homie told me he ready to ride; Ferguson was on his mind, he ready to fire; Staring at a cop who got death in his eyes; He want to kill me, I can tell, so my head’s in the sky; I’m stressing so I’m grabbing my MAC-11 [pistol];  Told my mama I’m’a end up on Channel 11.”
Even before the December 20 execution-style murder of police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos by rapper Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in New York City, though, the links between the DOJ-funded Bronx Defenders and the cop-killing rap video had sparked alarm. “It’s reprehensible that the city and its taxpayers are essentially supporting a video that encourages the idea of shooting police officers,” a police source was quoted as telling the New York Post  in a December 12 article, which noted that the “vile online rap video … urges black people to kill NYPD cops.” The murder of the two officers by the gunman who wanted “revenge” for Garner and Michael Brown of Ferguson, unsurprisingly, sparked a fresh wave of outrage about the video.
Another law-enforcement source quoted in the article, Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch, went even further, suggesting that the deliberate promotion of cop-killing ought to be considered a crime. “This video goes well beyond the parameters for protected speech and constitutes a serious threat to the lives of police officers,” Lynch told the Post. In addition to concerns over the video, police officers in New York, as well as their union officials, have also engaged in a high-profile showdown with extreme far-left New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, whom they held partially responsible, along with Attorney General Holder and race profiteer Al Sharpton, for the murders and the escalating anti-police sentiment.
Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers have all grown increasingly weary of the Justice Department, too — especially under the reign of Obama’s disgraced attorney general, currently in criminal contempt of Congress for trying to cover up his role in arming Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious. The guns trafficked to criminals as part of that plot have been found at the murder scenes of at least two federal agents so far, in addition to being used in the slayings of hundreds of Mexican citizens. Indeed, advocates for law enforcement say the Justice Department has increasingly been at “war” with local and state police.   
“As an expert and also essentially a watchdog on DOJ cases and management since the War on Law Enforcement began with targeted prosecution against law enforcement initially under the George W. Bush Administration, I can unequivocally state the Justice Department has been all about politics and certainly no longer interested in justice,” explained Andy Ramirez, president of the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council. “Under Bush, it was the protection of illegal alien drug and human traffickers while providing law enforcement scalps upon foreign government request. Under Obama, it has been about expanding if not fomenting racial divisions. Look back to the Harvard incident where Obama and Holder, instead of investigating quietly under the ‘we cannot confirm, deny, or otherwise comment on any investigation that may or may not be ongoing...’, to openly issuing relative condemnations without so much as the facts.”

“That is the modus operandi and pattern of this administration,” Ramirez told The New American, adding that efforts to federalize the police were an overreach infringing on powers constitutionally left for the states. “Most LEOs have zero regard, let alone trust, for this administration, which has only worsened over time, especially after the Trayvon Martin case. This certainly was not helped by Ferguson or the endless banter joined in by fellow race-baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Active and retired law enforcement I have worked and spoken with have long believed and stated that this administration needs to go in the worst way.”

Speaking of the taxpayer funding for the non-profit group involved in the rap video, Ramirez said it “only furthers such feelings and increases the chasm between politicians and the electorate, for in all honesty, it's unconscionable given the contents.” He also said such grants and rewards only further increase distrust. “It's clearly pork legislation that must be ceased immediately,” he added, referring to federal taxpayer funding for Bronx Defenders and other such “community” organizations. It remains to be seen whether the DOJ or New York Mayor DeBlassio will issue apologies for spending the public’s tax money in such a manner

The lyrics and images, though, sparked a national outcry and left members of the law-enforcement community furious. “For Mike Brown and Sean Bell, a cop got to get killed,” go the words of the song, called “Hands Up (Eric Garner Tribute)” by rappers “Uncle Murda” and “Maino.” "Time to start killing these coppers." The music video also features numerous images of two black men dressed in thug costumes pointing handguns at a police officer’s head. The violent words of the rap song make numerous references to killing law enforcement officers to obtain “revenge” and “justice” over the alleged systemic racism and brutality of police officers across America.