Harm to community is precisely the same characterization of someone openly discussing Christianity in Iran. Is Jess Ghannam an expert on Islam? Perhaps he might like to offer a citation to someone like Sheik Qaradawi to back up his claims of peaceful Islam. (I wrote this as I was listening. Pam did a better job exploring this point.) Jess is insufferable. He refuses to see the victims. His attack is too studied for him to be ignorant of Islam. Citing the SPLC must represent some sort of compound ad hominem, a pile on attack - dare I say hate. There has to be a label for it. Pam did quite well. If they were to acknowledge that Muslims are adult humans then they would have to abandon their elitism, which requires that they view Muslims as pets, at best, in need of a guardian -- like Jess.

To "echo" Osama is to echo the scholars of Al Azhar University. If Ahmed Rehab has a beef with Islam according to Al Azhar University then he has at least two choices: 1) Redefine Islam, arguing with Al Azhar rather then Pamela Geller on the definition of Islam, or 2) Declare himself an apostate from Islam because his personal "Jihad" does not conform to the 97 percent of Jihad under Islam that mandates violence against non-Muslims and worldwide imposition of Islamic Imperialism. Call Ahmed Rehab out as arguing that he has become an apostate, but that he must be afraid to give himself that label openly, for fear that a real Islamic Jihadi might kill him, or at least deny him any more donations. Or, just say: "Ahmed Rehab could be an apostate from Islam?" If CAIR is filled with apostates (jihad is peace) then they could take over Pam's campaign to provide safe haven to young female so-called Muslims in need of protection from pious Muslims, principally their family or local Muslim community. Would you trust them to keep you safe? (Would you be a fool?) Ask an apostate.

Good answers. Concise. The reference to treason should immediately invoke a recognition and clarification that it is tied to capital punishment for apostasy from Islam, where a Muslim is a citizen of -- exclusively of -- a worldwide Islamic Ummah, with the OIC as its current head. Robert Spencer has repeated several times a concise set of about 5 things that Muslims need to do to render Islam -- and pious Muslims adhering to the same -- inert, and thus something we can all safely ignore. It is they who refuse to be ignored, in their Islamic Imperialism quest. Islamic Imperialism Lite(TM) versus full embrace of slavery willingly; what a draconian choice the questioner dares to ask? No Muslim needs support, other than to reject Islam or after they have made that choice. Expulsion and containment is today a necessary act of self defense. The cost of engaging in thousands of battles within is too paralyzing. "Perhaps the battle is against those in power " -- Why yes it is. Which logically leads to the conclusion that Imams should be pilloried and rejected with as much fervor as US citizens do when exercising their core freedom of speech to question and challenge private and public assertions of power. Where is the locus of power within any Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) state? Imagine a world where Imams were stripped of the power of order (directly or indirectly) the death of dissenters? They might have an approval rating no higher than the US Congress.

There is no such thing as a Muslim-American. He said it. That video is a keeper, to demonstrate what Sedition looks like. There are only Muslim-Imperialists, in a perpetual state of Islamic-Rage.

I want to know if Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) Muslims can safely be lumped into the savage or barbarian label for definitional purposes, even if it offends their malicious sense of hyper-superiority. I think the implication of the criticism is that all non-Muslims are the real barbarians. It is not unlike how the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (in Islam) refines Human Rights so as to specifically embrace Islamic barbarity. It necessarily exempts Islamic barbarity from the definition of barbarity, for acts committed by Muslims. Oh, the Joy of Interfaith Dialog.

In reality isn't this an act of war by foreign soldiers, acts that qualify as war crimes? One need only view the little-girl victims as amorphous "civilians" to draw such a conclusion. This court proceeding is the wrong court and needlessly exposes more civilians -- the jurors (an odd set of "peers") -- to risk of individualized attack by the embedded foreign army.

Which MyJihad campaign or ads represents the parody?

I recently watched a public broadcasting segment on The Abolitionists. I could not help but view the opposition to Islam, including its embrace of slavery and sex slavery, in the same way as a demand to end slavery 150 and 230 years ago. The pro-slavery crowd, particularly the Muslim pro-slavery crowd, will surely resist all peaceful resistance. I suppose we could ask the news reporter and that fat old lady that was interviewed what they think of either John Brown or Frederick Douglas. The war on slavery is not yet complete. Here's a puzzle: What might moderate-slavery look like when compared to extremist-slavery?

If the freedom loving citizens ultimately conclude that the only solution to Islamic colonization is to expel the Islamic invaders should they treat the judge and prosecutor here the same as the invaders and expel them too? Keep a list.

Muslims in America can never be "citizens" of the US in the absence of total embrace of total Sharia. Some good fiction writer ought to write a novel depicting a state like Michigan physically expelling the Allahu Akbarring army, against the federal forces under the Osama Administration reinserting the insurgents just as he is doing in Syria. It is war -- even if it is slower paced here for now during the "pre-violent" stage. Then make a film of it. How closely would this fiction resemble future reality? The insurgents in Dearbornistan (if allowed to stay) will in the future agitate to become a new nation that is distinct from the US, and the OIC dominated UN will jump to approve it. Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) Muslims demand only one accommodation; total capitulation. Which itself dictates that total expulsion as the only workable solution. CAIR, as exclusive representative of citizens of the foreign Islamic Ummah, goes out of its way every day to make this point quite clear. (In my opinion, as a mere commenter.)

Extend the statute of limitations on the crimes by at least eight years so that the prosecutions can resume after the next presidential election.

Look up the definition(s) of genocide. It includes one feature pertaining to the separation of children from their parents. If the separation was effectively to appease the foreign invasion force of Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) Muslims it could be a violation, if expanded in volume. SIC Muslims do not believe they are citizens of anything but the Ummah. Imagine the UN being invited to the US to do whatever it is that Obama loves, and they were to start separating the kids from parents if they object to Obama. Is it that stark? It is if anyone listens to Obama's staff rant about Tea Party folks etc, or his embrace of the OIC initiative 16/18 to ban criticism of violent SIC Islamic zoo animals (who are that way of their own free will). Do the parents need help by way of Obama's Responsibility to Protect formula for meddling in any country facing any dispute that might remotely be characterizable as a civil war? But, which side would he take? The Morsi/Qaradawi side, in favor of genocide and tyranny, without question.

Does this mean that in the interest of a durable solution that Jew-hate will cease to be the core of the educational curriculum for the next forty years in Gaza?

What if they were addressing a land use proposal by "I Gas Jews For Profit"? (a.k.a. Hilter Failed To Finish What Mo Started, PBUH) What sideshow could they concoct so as to approve it without saying they approve it? Do not forget that the First Amendment is special. This contract clause argument itself would not withstand a challenge. Suppose someone had a ten year advertising agreement -- long enough for a healthy legal challenge as they ran. The principal is the same for an ad with 3 days remaining. The contract clause argument would fail when matched against the First Amendment, and they know it.

The ACLU has been Islamified and will soon lead the charge to slaughter Blasphemers and Apostates according to Sharia.

Pot-induced apathy would be preferable to aggressive anti-Americanism and anti-Freedom glee. For some reason I can't help but envision a new Taiwanese animation that shows Obama and Clinton both dancing like Palestinians on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. History will forever remember Bob Marley more favorably than the Forgotten President #44.

I had a rare light bulb moment. Is a government blog such as http://howweroll.trimet.org/ a "public forum"? If government employees can be whimsical then so too can any and all comers who can add blog posts too. It is just like voices on some public corner or in some public square. It would just add to the cacophony of voices, as the SCOTUS says. If I object to this disclaimer then I must also object to uncontested and uncontestable blog based disclaimers and diatribes.

The disclaimer itself must, to remain "neutral," note that the disclaimer does not imply non-endorsement. Demand it, in a letter then in court if necessary. If an ad in total read "anti-Genocide" then the disclaimer as proposed could contain the obviously not "content neutral" message by government that Genocide is approved by government. This government message is not too far from the truth here as one allowable inference or interpretation of the instant disclaimer. What is the meaning of the disclaimer? It can mean what someone, anyone, thinks it means, within reason. What if an ad had one word "Genocide."? What if it had the same word but with a question mark? Apply the disclaimer to all variations, and to the as applied evidence of selective inclusion and non-inclusion of the disclaimer. Their h8 will become self evident, to a jury. I h8 arbitrary government (which means I favor the rule of law and oppose such nuttiness as ex post facto laws etc.). When Sharia and government merge (as in OIC governments and soon the UN) then government hate and evilness becomes beyond the reach of citizen criticism or a 1st Am. right to seek redress of grievances. Hmm, even this group that has been infiltrated by Interfaithers still recognizes that the "right to petition the government for redress of grievances includes a right to file suit in a court of law." Proposed addition to disclaimer, which if neutral, should be equal to the other: "This WMATA-demanded disclaimer does not imply WMATA's non-endorsement of advertiser's message." Demand also that commercial ads carry the same disclaimer. You learned of the Portland OR Circuit Court level case addressing this commercial noncommercial distinction nuttiness. It is an unsupportable distinction. Commercial speech is routinely recognized as having less protection, not anomalously here to have more protection -- to be exempt from the faux-neutral disclaimer. Do they not like non-commercial speech? That is nutty. Oregon SC case # SC059484 (on the unsupportable commercial noncommercial distinction) You can find court briefs at the link below, and searching on the all CAPS terms below http://digitallawlibrary.oregon.gov/ KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN Tri-Met has no business hosting a blog or this blog post: http://howweroll.trimet.org/2012/10/15/update-controversial-ads-on-the-sides-of-buses-and-trains/ (I think I need to write a letter.) The lawyer for the plaintiff, the private folks, would be considered one of the top Oregon lawyers, in capability and ethics. Tri-met is just dumb. So too WMATA.

The UN crafted a special definition of refugee for the Arabs who had strategically left Israel so their nationalist allies could ethnically cleanse the area. The special rule treats the children of these anti-Israel folks as if they had been alive when their parents left. If we were to apply this same twist on the definition to all the children of Jews (and others) who have fled Arab Muslim persecution there would be millions upon millions of folks that are themselves "refugees," even if they do not get welfare payments from the US/UN in perpetuity. We could always demand the right of return of the dead, and of the children they would have had, as a bargaining position. The possibilities for absurdity are explosive in number.

The road to freedom for a Muslim begins with apostasy from Islam. No lesser conversion will do. A Muslim has superior loyalty to an Islamic Ummah, a nation state but with a claim of worldwide jurisdiction. The raging in far away places about local conduct should make this all clear. You are the trespassers in their world, as they see it. Expelling them should be no more dramatic or legally challenging than expelling a French citizen from the US, for example, for overstaying a US visa. They self identify. They self identify when they challenge you with their mass street war-prep prayers. Try dislodging them on any given Friday and test whether they take it as an act of war, on their land.

Take note that you will not get a hearing at the US Supreme Court if you win at the lower court. The measure of success is how well you set out the facts and legal arguments for ultimate resolution by a higher court. You control the puzzle pieces just as surely as if you were hosting a dinner party and selecting the china salad dinner wine and desert. Did anyone advocate that Jihadists are not violent savages that pose a clear and present danger to free peoples locally and globally? (Everyone present is in apparent agreement that this would be preposterous.) The judge knows that she must allow the ad to run or her ruling will eventually be overturned. She has no choice in the matter, other than to follow the law. She can only whine about how doing so makes her personally feel uncomfortable. The fascinating thing about the First Amendment is that there as so many cases, each representing lots and lots of conflicts between citizen freedom and tyrant government thugs bent on imposing their will. The battles will never end. Do Muslims have free will to be violent or not? (Be careful how you answer.) If you believe them to be human you must answer yes. The label of savage is a reflection of that choice and not some immutable observable characteristic. Carmen, STAY AWAY FROM THE JUDGE'S HOUSE!!!! I repeat STAY AWAY FROM THE JUDGE'S HOUSE!!!! Don't send letters to her for she cannot take cognizance of ex parte communications etc. Let Pam's lawyers do their thing, in peace. Perhaps picket near where the ads would run, with text that matches the ad, or one of its variants. "Hate" speech laws have been tolerated only as a penalty enhancer for conviction of some other wholly independent violent crime. The plaintiff's here are not defendants for criminal conduct. The judge's thoughts on hate here evidences only her own personal hate, nothing about the law.

If Mr. Wallis is affiliated with any "interfaith" group then it is virtually certain that his paycheck is derived from federal tax revenue. He is a paid spokesperson for the executive branch, to carry out federal policy. Is the federal government paying for any don't don't worry be happy (accept dhimmitude as your fate) ads? Is Mr. Willis just a paid tool of Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton, to carry out their Istanbul Process? I would state it in the affirmative, presumptively, and let him try to refute it. This is important because there is a colorable claim that he represents government rather than a private speaker. Demand that payment for his ads come from some funding source that is not commingled with federal payments, and that no government money is used to attack and incite hate for Ms. Geller. Precisely because of his federal funding you have an opportunity to demand in court an injunction against the government's hate speech, that itself incites pious folks into doing you harm, with the blessing of President Obama. Demand that his ad discloses his federal funding. Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Example incitement to violence in an ad might be: "Paint Mona Pink!"

Perfect. Demand conviction of a felony that is sufficiently dramatic to revoke her naturalization and send her home where Morsi can eventually imprison her for her refusal to be quiet in Egypt. We could then call her truly homeless, a misfit in a world enduring a clash of values, or something. The evil of liberty is that one can, or must, make critical life choices about their own life.

I thought the First Amendment was itself enough to madden and inflame any tyrant and their supporters. The dead enders won't stop until either they have their tyranny they are dead or they have been expelled. Conversion to American-style freedom remains an option for some. If the First Amendment is killed then what will be the basis for any replacement law? They can't claim a First Amendment right to inappositely libel anti-Jihadists if they insist that the First Amendment is the primary target of their anger.