For those who do not understand the magnitude of the threat to civilized freedom-loving democracies posed by the theocratically-based religious/political system known as Islam…

With all of the turmoil over China and the Communist Chinese Party virus, let us not lose sight of the continuing attack on America by Islamic fundamentalists.


A theocracy is a form of government in which a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day-to-day affairs of the government, which in turn manage the lives of those under the government’s jurisdiction.

Islam, the religion of the Muslims, is fundamentally an intolerant system based on theocracy, authoritarianism,  patriarchy, and strict control over individuals of faith (and those encountered by individuals of faith).

A faith as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah where ALL civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, laws, regulations, prohibitions, and permissions must be based on Islamic criteria.

While being promoted as the religion of peace, justice, and freedom, one need only look to the persecution of women, homosexuals, and those not of the Muslim faith in countries where strict Islam is practiced and where apostates (heretics) are more reviled than infidels (nonbelievers). Where cruelty, barbarism, rape, and mutilation are state-sanctioned.

According to some, “Islam is not even a religion; it is a social and political system that uses a deity to advance its agenda of global conquest by emigration, self-segregation, concentration, obtaining political power, advancing the cause, spreading out over the land, and repeating the process over and over until they assume control.

Using our own Constitution and laws against us to advance their religious agenda…

In the guise of a consumer protection lawsuit, a radical Muslim civil rights organization, Muslim Advocates, had launched a legal action against Facebook and several related individuals alleging the parties made "false and misleading" claims when they claimed that the company had deleted hate speech from the Facebook platform.


Plaintiff Muslim Advocates respectfully submits this Complaint against Facebook, Inc. and
the company's Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl
Sandberg, Vice President for Global Policy Joel Kaplan, and Vice President for US Public Policy, Kevin Martin (collectively, "defendants") for violating the District of Columbia's consumer protection law and bar on fraud, by making false and deceptive statements in the District of Columbia about Face book's removal of hate speech and other harmful content from its platform.

Yet Facebook refuses to “remove” this content or “take it down,” as its executives repeatedly promised that they and the company would do when they learn of such content. Instead, in an effort to convince Congress, civil rights groups, and the public that their product is safe, Facebook’s officials have consistently misrepresented the company’s actual practices when it comes to enforcing Facebook’s own its own standards and policies to keep Facebook free of hate speech and other harmful content.

This failure has amplified the volume of anti-Muslim hate bombarding Facebook users.
And the anti-Muslim hate that’s so pervasive on Facebook presents an enormous problem both online and in real life.

[OCS: Under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, it is illegal for a company to make material misrepresentations about a good or service in the District of Columbia. This lawsuit alleges that Facebook’s executives have repeatedly done this by falsely telling Congress that the company takes down all content that violates its standards and policies when Facebook learns about such content.]

Muslim Advocates v. Facebook, Inc., et al.; Superior Court For The District Of Columbia, Civil Division;  Case 2021 Ca 001114 B


This is problematical because, unlike Islam-related entities that have outlawed depictions of the deity, using his name inappropriately, criticisms of their holy literature, religious teachings, and religious leaders, there is no direct legal regulation of speech in America due to an American’s inalienable right to free speech as recognized in the American Constitution.

So before we give credence to any complaint involving so-called “hate speech,” we are compelled to ask, What is hate speech, and is it simply another manifestation of malignant and divisive identity politics?


There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive. Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’). Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes. Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit. It is important to underline that even when not prohibited, hate speech may to be harmful.

Hypocritical and ironical given that the United Nations Human Rights Commission is filled with representatives of despotic and oppressive nations.

Commonsense bullshit test? 

What is the venue?

Do the individuals within that venue enjoy the Constitutional protections of free speech?

Who defines hate speech?

Can the literal truth or description of an observation be defined as hate speech?

Is opinion hate speech?

Is there a universal agreement on what constitutes hate speech or is it a matter of opinion, mindset, or viewpoint?

Is the organization investigating and reporting hate speech an independent neutral third-party or an ideologically-bound entity with an agenda?

Bottom line…

The Jihadists' goal is the legal suppression of any criticism of Islam, Jihad, or Sharia.

Not only do Americans have their inalienable right to free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution, but we are in conflict with numerous radical Islamic entities who openly fight against American personnel but who also constitute a threat of both state-sponsored and lone-wolf terrorism in our nation. To promote awareness and provide information regarding these Jihadist activities is not hate speech.

The progressive socialist Democrats condemn Praeger University, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Jihad Watch as hateful organizations but are quite content to allow the truly corrupt and hateful Southern Poverty Law Center to define hateful organizations.

I find it amazing that Muslim groups, especially those found in American educational institutions, are almost always associated with anti-Semitic hate speech, the demonization of Israel, and the promotion of un-American values, many of which are associated with Sharia law.

We are so screwed when we accept this nonsense from our enemies with good grace. Screw ‘em all.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell