View topic - Censorship by Intimidation - Harry Abrams/Richard Warman :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

Last edited by Mark Fournier on 08/ 08/ 09 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
July 17, 2009

Censorship by Intimidation - Harry Abrams/Richard Warman

Richard Warman has a long and documented history of suing (or threatening to sue) anyone who writes anything other than glowing reports of his activities as Canada's censorship champion. He has extended his modus operandi to any unfavourable news coverage of his numerous "I'm offended" CHRC complaints and to the uncounted civil lawsuits he regularly launches (or threatens to launch) in order to silence his critics.

Harry Abrams is a Richard Warman wannabe who, along with B'nai Brith Canada, is in the process of using the CHRC to attack Arthur Topham of Quesnel, B.C. for his political views. It appears that last year Harry Abrams used the same intimidation tactics perfected by Richard Warman, and with Warman's assistance, to silence the Quesnel Cariboo Observer from carrying stories about what is being done to Arthur Topham.

One of Free Dominion's top investigative reporters, 'fourhorses', has done yeoman's duty in bringing the story of this legal harassment of Arthur Topham to the public and has brought to light more of the now-expected abuses and skullduggery that are invariably present in these CHRC complaints. And as can be seen from what happened with the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, the silencing of critics of the CHRC is an integral part of the abusive process.

On January 13, 2008 the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and the Prince George Free Press (both owned by Black Press) ran a story about Arthur Topham's travails with Harry Abrams and the CHRC.

TOPHAM VIEWS UNDER ATTACK: B’nai Brith claims anti-Jewish writings

By Autumn MacDonald
Quesnel Cariboo Observer
January 13, 2008

Arthur Topham, owner, publisher and editor of The Radical Press, has received a complaint from the Canadian Human Rights Commission stating he’s promoting hatred towards Jews and citizens of Israel.

B.C. representative for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada Harry Abrams filed the complaint with the CHRC after articles were published by Topham on the Radical Press website, which Abrams felt were discriminatory against individuals of the Jewish faith.

Topham, who has been publishing both a hard copy and online site since 1998, said he received the complaint Nov. 20, 2007.

Since then, Topham has been working on a response to the commission – he sent the 13-page document to the CHRC anti-hate team investigator Sandy Kozak Jan. 3.

He has not removed the articles in question from his website.

“Harry Abrams and his partner in this complaint, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada are exploiting and abusing the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act for their own narrow, partisan, ideological purposes,” Topham said Wednesday.

“They are not designed to promote and ensure the freedom of expression that the vast majority of Canadians demand and expect but rather are meant to buttress and support the political aims of a foreign state (Israel) of which these organizations are but political extensions.”

Topham further explained it’s his criticism of Zionism and Zionist policies that have the CHRC worried.

“They don’t want the people of Canada knowing what’s going on in Israel,” he said.

Topham stated there’s been an increase in these types of complaints to the CHRC by both the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress since Sept. 11, 2001.

In the aftermath of 9/11 Canada brought in its new Anti-terrorism Act, c.41 on Dec. 18, 2001 and along with it came changes to Sec. 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which specifically deals with “hate messages.”

It is Topham’s contention that both the B’nai Brith and the CJC played a significant role in defining the new interpretation of Sec. 13 (1) – one that he feels now allows both of these partisan groups to lay hate crimes complaints against any Internet user or website owner who criticizes Israel’s Zionist ideology and its racist policies toward the Palestinian people.

And it’s Topham’s belief that charges are designed to silence debate on issues vital to both national and global peace.

“If we cannot express our thoughts and ideas openly and freely,” he said, “then the democratic principles upon which Canada was founded become meaningless and dead and we might as well accept the fact that we are living in a communist dictatorship rather than a true democracy”.
For now, Topham waits to hear back from the CHRC, but he’s pretty sure he already knows their answer.

“My response won’t make any difference,” he said. “It doesn’t matter whether I’m writing the truth.”

Topham explained the CHRC will present his response and Abram’s complaint to a tribunal who will review the evidence. A decision will then be made.

In the past, writers have been ordered to remove the articles in questions, or take their site down. Some have resisted – this has resulted in jail time.

“The irony of it is,” Topham said, “the person I love most in the world, my wife of 30 years, is Jewish.”

The story generated a flurry of letters to the editor and comments on the newspaper's website, almost all of them supportive of Mr. Topham. The local newspaper published four of those letters to the editor, one of which was written by Harry Abrams. Although the newspaper's website no longer carries the above article, or Harry Abrams' response, both can still be read here and here respectively.

Arthur Topham wrote a follow-up letter to the Quesnel newspaper, which it also published. A part of Mr. Topham's second letter included:

But there is also much more that Abrams is not telling readers when it comes to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

For example the latest revelations coming out of the recent federal court case involving Marc Lemire and a former lawyer for the CHRC Richard Warman who, as Maclean’s Magazine writer Mark Steyn recently stated, has been carrying on his own personal “inquisition” of Internet sites and making obscene profits from it as well.

This exchange of letters to the editor occurred at the same time that Richard Warman was starting to sue Free Dominion for reporting on his activities. He had already initiated a suit against Connie and me and the eight Free Dominion John Does; the story of the infamous “Anne Cools post” had just been broken on Free Dominion; and Richard Warman was about to hit us with the second of three civil suits.

At the same time Richard Warman was revving up his lawsuit machine against Free Dominion he was also threatening Black Press, the owner of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer.

Free Dominion Exclusive #1

Free Dominion has uncovered a copy of an email from Harry Abrams to Black Press concerning the situation outlined above. It is very revealing on a number of levels, the least not being the glaring subtext of legal intimidation that flows throughout. A second document has also come to light which reveals much but raises many new questions.

On February 4, 2008 Harry Abrams wrote to David Black of Black Press.

Mr. David Black
Black Press
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mr. Black,

I am writing to thank you for having had removed a rather unfortunate letter-to-the-editor that appeared in the Quesnel Observer yesterday.

Though the alleged libel matter at hand concerned a friend and colleague, I feel that I should express my concerns to you directly before we see too many more editorial blunders around the legal matter of Abrams & The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada V. Arthur Topham ( of Quesnel B.C.)

Whereas it is indeed in the public interest to bring this story to the attention of your readers, and public opinion deserves to be served, I would caution you and your publications against reproducing statements that may go to harm against the reputations of individuals or organizations especially before the final disposition of this matter.

A retaliation complaint naming Mr. Topham has now already been filed, substantially because of intemperate comments presented as news already having appeared in your Quesnel Observer and the Prince George Free Press.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html

Sincerely Yours,

etc. etc.

It can be deduced from this letter that Harry Abrams had previously contacted Mr. Black and had convinced him to take down the follow up letter from Arthur Topham and had used the threat of being sued by Richard Warman as his main argument. But the full email from Harry Abrams to Black Press duplicated below shows that the taking down of Arthur Topham's letter wasn't good enough. Richard Warman contacted Black Press anyway and apparently made his usual silencing threats. And it wasn't good enough for Harry Abrams either because he wrote yet another letter to Black Press on February 18, 2008

From: Harry Abrams <habrams@pacificcoast.net>
Date: February 18, 2008 3:49:37 PM PST (CA)
To: lwilliston@blackpress.ca
Cc: editor@quesnelobserver.com, Anita Bromberg <abromberg@bnaibrith.ca>, Richard Warman <richardwarman@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Attention: Lorie Williston, Manager, Black Press, Northern BC Re: Abrams & BBC V. Topham

Lorrie Williston
General Manager
Black Press
Northern BC Division

Dear Lorie,

Thank you for your attention in the matter of Abrams & BBC V. Topham as it has so far concerned Black Press. This is to bring you up-to-date as quickly as possible, so that the Black Publications are at least aware of the issues at play and to "head off" the potential for legal problems down the road.

A quick synopsis of this issue is that I, Harry Abrams and the National Jewish service organization of B'nai Brith Canada have filed as co-complainants, a federal human rights action naming Arthur Topham, who lives in Quesnel, BC.

I attach two files. The July 07 file initiated the action. The August 07 file is the "formal" 3 - page complaint. Essentially, we allege that Mr. Topham posts a lot of extreme material that incites hatred against Jews and Israel, over and above reasonable criticism or fair comment.

Mr. Topham was served in late November and was asked to respond to the Commission. As we now know, his response was pretty voluminous, and not limited to the Human Rights Commission either.

Mr. Topham cobbled together a press release and a bizarre story about "Killing Monkeys" that he and his friends posted far and wide on the internet, and sent to every publishing or news outlet that they could think of.

The Quesnel Observer obliged him a story http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html which also was printed in the Prince George Free Press.

Neither I nor B'nai Brith Canada were contacted for "our side" before this went to press.

Letters from Topham supporters deluged the Quesnel paper. I believe 4 letters from Mr. Topham's supporters were printed, and one of my own appeared as well.

We ran into a bit of a problem when the Observer posted Mr. Topham's following response to my letter verbatim.

The contents of that may be seen here: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=684

It was removed promptly after Black Publications was threatened with legal action by Mr. Richard Warman.

As I'm sure you appreciate, it would not be a good thing for Black Publications to appear to take sides in a legal complaint between two other parties. Also, I further suggest that before anything more concerning this action is given any publicity, you and your editors make themselves familiar with the contents and likely intent of Mr. Topham's website, with an eye to the possibility that he would very much appreciate your cooperation to spread his "gospel."

This was my letter to Mr. Black of Feb. 4, and I also attach a copy of my retaliation complaint.

(editorial note: the rest of this email is a reproduction of the February 4, 2008 letter from Harry Abrams to David Black posted above and is indeed our source of that letter.)

All of this clearly demonstrates the threats and intimidation techniques used by the litigating censors among us. It is truly despicible and has no place in a free society.

But there is more.

Free Dominion Exclusive #2

Although Harry Abrams obviously attached his second CHRC complaint against Arthur Topham (the retaliatory complaint he speaks of) as an implied threat to Black Press, to this day the complaint has not been served to Arthur Topham or to anyone else. Yet Harry Abrams, the complainant, seems to think it is appropriate to turn it over to a media outlet.

Here is the text of Harry Abrams' second CHRC complaint as he provided it to those listed in his email to Black Press.

My name is Harry Abrams., I am a Canadian citizen of Jewish faith and in 2007, I filed a Section 13 complaint naming Mr. Arthur Topham of Quesnel, B.C. as respondent; seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The premise of complaint # 20071016 is a contention that Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.

I now allege that my seeking relief from discriminatory publication has in this instance, prompted Mr. Topham to engage in a sustained and worldwide campaign of retaliation, much of it at the moment taking the form of a press release dated January 7, 2008 as well as an article titled: Killing the 100th Monkey the Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet.

Here is a screen shot of his press release as re-published on a website illustrated with an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/01/08/b%E2%80%99nai-brith-vs-arthur-topham-publisher-ghost-troop/print/

Every day now, internet searches turn up new re-postings of Mr. Topham's press release and 100 Monkeys article, but none are as troubling as this article which appeared January 13th in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer Newspaper and distributed online, titled:
Topham Views Under Attack: B’nai Brith Claims Anti-Jewish Writings

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/news/13717397.html

Also syndicated here in the Prince George Free Pree Press:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/pgfreepress/news/13774742.html

100 Monkeys and the press release have been posted to these websites often accompanied by abusive commentary. This list is by no means exhaustive:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080103172731565

http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=234

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=5000764

http://loopyloo350.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/life-experiences-140/

http://antwerpen.indymedia.org/news/2008/01/14264.php

http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node/28914
http://ottawa.indymedia.ca/en/2008/01/6543.shtml
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message485339/pg1
http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/browse_thread/thread/b9b09f4adb355cf6
http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/arthur-topham-radical-press-another-452141.html

http://worcester.indymedia.org/node/19238

http://groups.google.fr/group/qc.politique/browse_thread/thread/25a28d651d472d47

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-KillingTheHundredthMonkey-NewFrontAgainstTheCHRC-RadicalPress.htm

http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/74761/index.php

http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?10054S

https://us.indymedia.org/us/servlet/OpenMir?do=opensession&sessiontype=translation&to_content=29376

http://atlanta.indymedia.org/comment/reply/257

http://www.nogw.com/download2/%5E8_battle_for_canada_internet_control.pdf

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=295984302&t=0

I must suggest that I find that the following elements of this now widely posted material retaliatory, defamatory and abusive in the following ways:

1) I am described as "... exploiting and abusing the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act..."

2) It is said of me that "...the actual and true agenda of Harry Abrams … is, in fact, one of seditious, purposeful design meant to undermine ... the sovereignty of the legally elected Canadian government,..."

3) It is said of me that I am “…silencing and suppressing debate on issues related to either the policies of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or to the (Jewish) stranglehold over western mainstream media and international finance.."

4) It is said of me that I conduct “.... unscrupulous manipulation of organizations such as the CHRC.."

5) It is said of me that I "... overtly or tacitly support the Israeli government’s domestic policies which are based upon a set of principles fundamentally in violation of Canadian provincial and national laws as well as international law..."

6) It is said of me that "...the spurious charge”... is nothing less... than “rank bigotry and a disingenuous and vexatious attempt” to both slander and libel Mr. Topham and his website “while at the same time attempting to censor and suppress valuable, responsible coverage of the truth about the actual conditions which exist in Israel proper and in the surrounding areas of Palestine..."

7) It is said of me that I "... squelch any and all criticism I deem anti-Zionist. And that “ Working with a complicit Zionist-controlled media” I “used its power and influence to vilify” whomever I felt was “deserving of my smear campaigns..."

8 ) It is said that I am “.. rampaging about cyberspace like some renegade vigilante..."

9) It is said that I am ”...” placing the interests of a foreign nation (Israel) above those of Canadians …as a form of treason…”

I should add that on the Free Dominion site, Mr. Topham also retaliates against me for having launched my complaint:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1122334

Posted: 01/ 06/ 08 4:47 am Post subject: Re: (CHRC) Killing the Hundreth Monkey…

“…. Being a Zionist himself he must do whatever he can to silence critics of his homeland. Who wants the people of Canada to realize that in Israel you have an apartheid system where Jewish citizens have full rights and non-Jewish citizens have a marked degree of lesser rights in a number of crucial areas of civil life…. Of course what Abrams really means is "Jewish" citizens of Israel. Not the Arab citizens or anyone else who the state hasn't deemed to be Jewish…”.

These people must be stopped and the system that allows them to operate needs to be fixed so that others can't come along and fill their shoes.
_________________
"If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you. If you are willing to use violence to impose your ideas on your fellow man, you are a menace to society." - Entropy Squared

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 9:30 am Post subject:

Part of the strategy of these complainants is sheer volume and repetition. It is like listening to one of those interminable Brezhnev speeches from the 1970s that never stop making the same point over and over again.

The casual onlooker starts to think, "well there must be something to this, with this many examples and sub-sections!"

But in reality, it is all the same objection stated over and over again -- "we don't like people with a different point of view, and we want to silence them."

In fact, the strategy generally used by Warman and Abrams has a broad foundation in Soviet traditions.

One key element is to create a broad front of opposition, roping in people who may not even remotely share the point of view of the core target group, but who are also themselves selected targets for other reasons.

People would know by now that I share very few ideas in common with Arthur Topham, and as I browse some of the links (many are now changed by the way), I see names and persona of people who evidently form a much different group within conservative politics than what I perceive to be the core group of Free Dominion. In other words, there is quite an active group out there with a negative agenda towards Israel and this group does not terminate conveniently at some boundary that anyone could reasonably say was still democratic and not extremist.

So to put things in plain English, the Warman and Abrams strategy invites democratic conservatives to make common cause with anyone who speaks out in public about any subject, with any motivations and any agenda, hidden or otherwise.

I must make two points here. There is no compulsion on anyone, you, me, Ezra Levant, any given member of the free speech coalition, to take up automatically the cause of every "Tom, Dick and Harry" who might protest censorship. That is also part of free speech, the ability to discriminate which free speech we ourselves might support. And the logical conclusion of this is to say that when we give support, we must not automatically expect that others will join us. It would be very difficult for someone like Ezra Levant to take a strong stand against Abrams and for Arthur Topham, unless there were clear legal principles involved. Topham's citation of the PEZ is a self-exclusionary act that all people active in conservative politics should understand is a rule of the game, like not fixing spike marks on a golf green, that we all have to live with, like the rule or not. And if people don't understand that, then they go off into a legal wilderness at their peril.

The second point that emerges is that if the Topham writings are to be censored because they are fascist in nature, this brings into play the question of whether Canadian society should not automatically create a legal equality of fascist and communist writings, and start to ban communist opinions from publication and dissemination.

If one believes, as many do (Kate at SDA famously says things about asteroids) that fascists and communists are equally loathsome, then when the communists step forward to challenge the fascists, perhaps we should ask for a mutual exclusion outcome, and send them all to the sidelines of Canadian society.

If that seems too draconian and arbitrary, then who has the wisdom of Solomon required to say which offensive views are going to be allowed, and which not? I mean, beside Kevin Newman, who seems to know everything, and he's only what, fourteen?

My friends, this is my stand on such matters. It seems to me like World War II all over again. If the fascists and the communists want to draw us into their war, then we shall have to deal with them in the order they present themselves.

Whether this is what I was supposed to say here or not, I don't know. Hopefully, that's not an issue.

But when Topham meets Abrams and Warman in court, my money's on a roof collapse.

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 5:48 pm Post subject:

Arthur Topham has some political views that are polar opposite of mine. In fact, he was banned from Free Dominion because we feel that his message is completely at odds with principled conservatism.

That being said, however, there is a very important reason for us to be covering his story.

Once again, the usual suspects planned to set dangerous legal precedents by going after someone that they felt they could take without a fight.

For anyone who has been bothering to keep up with this story, you will know that the original complaint was over Topham critcizing "citizens of Israel".

I don't think I have to emphasize how dangerous it would be to have a CHRT precedent where one can have your speech rights permanently removed for criticizing citizens of other countries.

This is not the only skullduggery that has taken place in this case, and fourhorses has been great about getting the news out there so that the CHRC knows that their days of sneaking around setting horrible precedents while nobody is watching, is over.

I don't really care if anyone thinks badly of me because FD is carrying this story. Free Dominion has always been the most pro-Israel secular site in Canada, yet Harry Abrams was sniffing around here as Brian Esker trying to get dirt on us before we had ever even heard his name.

Meanwhile, the pukes at the ARA/ARC site march with the Aryan Guard against Israel and Dr. Dawg and others support "Israel Apartheid Week", and they get a free pass from these people.

I will NOT play this game. I have no political aspirations, and I don't really care what people say about me. This is a WAR for freedom of speech, and I'm not going to hide in the bushes because I'm afraid someone might make the ridiculous accusation that I'm an anti-Semite just because I oppose the Stasi-like methods of the CHRC and those who use it for "maximum disruption" purposes.

If other people want to hide on the sidelines, they have every right to do so, but you won't count me or Mark among them! Mad

_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread.

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 6:36 pm Post subject:

Ambush predators do not like the light of day. They are also cowards when confronted with defense.
I am waiting as you to flick on the "halogen" and stand tall! Wish i could help.
_________________
I have no "label" no "sticker" just a hidden price!
A liar will assume you are lying

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 7:46 pm Post subject:

The seven legal principles that the CHRC is being asked to endorse have to be opposed for the reasons that Connie explains, and this needs to be a fully engaged protest from the free speech movement. I have been trying to bring some visibility to this difficult situation (difficult for the reasons I explained above) in those places where I expect action to be slow in starting up.

That's about all I can do about this, lawfare is essentially a rich man's game and I have plenty of challenges to face already.

I sure know a lot about being stranded in no man's land in an important fight for an important principle, perhaps if people in my original community of interest (climatology) had understood my call for integrity twenty years ago, we would not have seen Canada leading the way to this global nonsense-science of climate change.

So I understand, perhaps better than any other living Canadian, what is at stake when people sit on their hands because they don't want to assist an unpopular person.

Folks, I am now heading off on a retreat, I would hesitate to call it a vacation on my sort of budget.

If I seem to disappear for a while starting perhaps Monday morning, this will be why -- I am leaving the internet for possibly a couple of weeks, and will avoid the one or two opportunities I might have to look in on the net, unless there are world-shaking events. You can visualize me sitting beside a mountain lake trying to recover a bit of my sanity after a pretty brutal year. Take care and God speed.

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 7:47 pm Post subject:

Posted: 07/ 19/ 09 11:47 pm Post subject:

I won't be silenced either Connie. They can take all I have and I will still call them what they are fascists, censors and thugs.

I missed church today as I was not feeling 100% well and apparently about half the church (and we are large) was asking if I was ok and what they could do to help. I am fine, but I can imagine the fire storm when these thugs pounce on me. Come and get me you Roo's, I am a outspoken Christian and ultra right wing conservative......I have said plenty that does not follow your PC line of speech........there is not a hateful bone in my body but I will be applauding your punishment by our real courts someday and hope to have a part in that.
_________________
.
.
.
.
.
Pray this prayer.
Jesus I believe You died for my sins and were raised from the dead 3 days later. Forgive me and save me. Jesus be my Lord and Saviour. Help me to follow You from this day forward. Thank You God. Amen.
.
.

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 1:17 am Post subject:

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 1:23 am Post subject:

Doug Collins

"I defended freedom in the 1940s when Hitler was on the loose,
in the 1970s when the federal hate laws were passed,
and in the 1990s when those idiots in Victoria passed their misnamed Human Rights Act,
and that I shall go on defending freedom until the day I die."
_________________
“There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times.” — Holocaust survivor Abel Herzberg
"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." - Chesterton -

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 3:09 am Post subject:

Returning to the question of the seven legal principles that Abrams wanted to read into the record in this case, I am quite surprised that other free-speech crusaders have not picked up on this issue.

It would not matter if the defendant were any pariah you might want to name, the concept of some parallel court system endorsing a randomly selected political agenda (even if I happened to agree with it, which in some instances, I don't) is the ultimate danger here.

One only has to imagine the parliament of 2003 in power with this tendency raised up to the status of the new "in-crowd" political cause du jour to get a picture of what might lie ahead. And meanwhile, it won't be long until judges in regular court are asked to endorse the political views of sainted figures from the higher realms of the cultural establishment.

Almost for certain, we will be staring at demands to endorse global warming and abortion rights as sacred trusts, defining their opponents to be thought criminals. This is more or less the de facto academic position already, of course.

I can't imagine that these implications have escaped intellects many times sharper than my own (or so we are told even on here) and therefore, they must be holding fire for some reason. The only plausible reason is a desire not to be associated with given defendants. This is the catch-22 of the situation, and so I would say this -- keep on hoping they nail me with a similar list, because I am the sort of guy you can bring home to mother. Especially if mother is hot.

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 6:21 am Post subject:

I'm going to be blunt. If people are not standing up against this travesty because they are afraid someone will call them names, they are cowards.

If they want to be cowards, it is their right, but I just thank God every day that the biggest danger I face in this fight is that someone will call me a name or sue me.

I'm glad our forefathers were brave enough to risk their very lives, not just their property and their reputation, to fight for our freedom. I'm not going to be the kind of wimp that fails to stand up if I have anything to lose.
_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread.

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 7:49 am Post subject:

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 9:17 am Post subject:

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 9:39 am Post subject:

"'With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied-chains us all irrevocably."

"But she - or someone like her - will always be with us...waiting for the right climate in which to flourish...spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mr. Worf. That is the price we have to continually pay." (paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson)
_________________
braveheart - "You can not take my freedom"

The claymore weilding Baqubel of FD.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of
solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Posted: 07/ 20/ 09 9:47 am Post subject:

	The time now is 02/ 09/ 10 10:43 am
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->