Again, this is the opinion of a friend who wishes to remain anonymous. The following is not by me.
—–begin anon message, part II—–
I am not Charlie Hebdo, because I know that free speech is a lie. The Constitution is a dead letter, and I am a coward.
Charlie Hebdo published offensive speech that was found by a court of law to be worthy of protection. The speakers were killed.
Anwar al-Awlaki published offensive speech, and was killed. He was denied a day in court, and simply murdered.
I don’t want to be killed. I want to work for peace, but I’m not going to stick my head up and invite extremely well-armed people to shoot at me, no matter what costume they wear.
I am not alone. Scott Greenfield has noticed:
People died because of this. Fanatics were outraged because of the content of its expression, and killed them. Many are outraged at the violence, but too fearful of publishing it lest some fanatic be outraged and do the same to them.
They say they want free expression, but they refuse to take any personal risk for it. Let Charlie Hebdo take the risk. Let the people at Charlie Hebdo die. They will weep over their deaths, but they won’t show the courage to stand up against the murders. Who?
As for the present day, CNN, NYT, AP, NBC, ABC, the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and the CBC, will *not* be running Charlie-Hebdo cartoons.
…
when you demand that others be silenced at the end of a gun, whether a fanatic’s or a cop’s enforcing laws you demand to criminalize expression that offends you, you are no different than the fanatics.
Christopher Hitchens saw this clearly when, in 2006, he wrote:
I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun.
There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient.
But the American government, at federal, state, and local levels, will never put away its gun. If they don’t like what you say, they will kill you. Whether it’s fiery sermons that scare the bejesus out of CIA spooks, a Facebook post that anyone dislikes enough to report, or some kid sassing a cop, death is too often the result.
Police around the world, including American and European governments, openly monitor social media for “offensive” speech.
There is no free speech, and defending the right is a fool’s game. Speech has consequences, as it should, but the gloves are off, the chains have been broken, and the U.S. government will kill me, if anything I do or say annoys them. The consequence for them will be zero. I will be dead.
Given this state of affairs, I cannot agree with demands that the Muslim community police itself.
The men who murdered the artists and editors of Charlie Hebdo are criminals. Madmen. Nothing can excuse what they did. Nothing justifies this slaughter.
But it doesn’t take a lot of thought to understand the reasons, the causes, for this atrocity. Not all causes; we will never know the full tapestry of the lives that resulted in the creation of 3 (or more) madmen determined to slaughter cartoonists. But we can know some of their reasons.
I’ll say this at least three times, knowing full well the point will be lost on most readers: Nothing excuses what they did. The point I will attempt to make is that there can be responsibility, even though that does not excuse the actions of madmen.
Where did these madmen come from? How is it that there is population of crazies willing, organized, and able to plan and execute such a monstrous crime?
Claire and others make the point that the Islamic community must ultimately deal with the culture of death and destruction that produces and enables these criminals. But why does that culture exist?
The truth is that the American government, supported and elected by the American people, has been slaughtering Muslims for over 60 years. Greenwald quoted al-Awlaki’s core message:
For decades, the U.S. Government has been engaging in violence and otherwise interfering in the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children have died as a result. There is no end in sight to this American assault on the Muslim world and those of its client states. Therefore, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Muslims to engage in violence against Americans as a means of self-defense and to deter further violence against Muslims. That is the only available means for fighting back against the world’s greatest military superpower. The only alternative is continuing passive submission to this onslaught of violence aimed at Muslims.
In the past 15 years one would be hard pressed to identify a single week where there were not multiple innocent men, women, and children maimed and killed by American bombs, American fighters and gunships, American drones. Many, in fact most of the dead where just as innocent as the cartoonists. Few had expressed opinions that were so offensive as to give them any reason to fear for their lives. But they are just as dead.
When you target and attack an entire populace for decades, it changes that culture. It creates an environment where hatred and madness can fester and grow. Again, that does not excuse the madness, but it does help to explain it.
Ron Paul made this point in the presidential “debates” when he countered Rudy G’s simplistic nonsense that “they hate us for our freedoms.” The 9/11 attackers were created and motivated by hatred fed from decades of murder and oppression by the American government. Even the 9/11 Commission understood this point, and included it in their report. Yet Ron Paul was reviled and mocked for “blaming America.”
There are many peacekeepers in the billion-strong practitioners of the Muslim faith. But their job is made immeasurably more difficult, probably impossible, when performed under a constant rain of bombs, when speaking to people who live under the fear of constantly circling drones that spew hellfire at wedding parties and funerals. Peacekeeping is a hard sell to a man who has buried his wife and children and sifted the ashes of his home.
If Americans truly want peace, they must give the peacemakers a chance to do their work. That means halting the constant murder and maiming. It means allowing those peacemakers, governments, courts, and laws the opportunity to solve their own problems. It means halting enormous flows of military and financial aid to grotesquely oppressive governments.
Americans love to talk about free speech, and many will repeat that the cartoonists did not deserve to die for their offensive speech. But there is deep hypocrisy here.
Let us remove the giant beam from our own eye before we criticize the motes in Muslim eyes. Let us stop bombing them, starving them, caging them, and killing them. Leave them alone for at least as long as we have been raining hellfire upon them. Then, and only then, can there be any legitimate criticism of Muslim peacekeepers. Perhaps by then, we’ll have raised up a few of our own.
I think good (and bad) viewpoints from both/all sides have been presented in the past few days. Here is one more by Reza Aslan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan )
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/10/376381089/depictions-of-muhammad-arent-explicity-forbidden-says-scholar
All well and good. But the Muslims have been killing each other and everyone else they didn’t like for centuries. This was true long before America or Israel existed. That is a matter of recorded history.
Nothing can excuse or justify the murder and torture perpetrated by anyone, anywhere, any time.
Leave them alone, indeed. And prepare to defend ourselves from those who don’t wish to return the favor. I’d like to see the people of the whole world stand up and repudiate the “radical” elements of their own society and governments… the “radicals” who presume to act like slaveholders… owning and controlling the lives and property of others.
Non voluntary governments all over the world have exactly the same goal… control. The violence, murder, theft and lies differ very little from one to another. And the people everywhere mostly accept it as somehow natural and good. Beats the heck out of me why, but that’s exactly what has to end for the violence to stop.
What Mama said…
I’m wondering how anyone can even do things anonymously anymore. The writer at least would have had to have gotten a CD or other electronic storage medium in your hands. Even then, I wonder if individual computers put in identifying markers on everything they produce. If so, if someone cuts and pastes from a CD, is there any way to tell the identity of the original computer? If there is, will running the information through some simple programs (like Text Edit, for example) get rid of the markers? I definitely don’t know much about this stuff.
“Therefore, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Muslims to engage in violence against Americans as a means of self-defense and to deter further violence against Muslims.”
No. They have the right and duty to engage in violence against anyone initiating force against them- and so would be fully right to kill any US government employees they encounter in “their territory”, but not in targeting those who aren’t the aggressors and are far away from the homes of the Muslims.
Exactly like the US government employees are not right to go to the villages and cities of the Muslims and kill them.
Violence is great, in actual self defense and defense of property, but it isn’t self defense to go to someone else’s house and smash things and shoot them because someone else once came and did the same thing to your home. Or, even if someone else is in your home doing it now. Target the right people.
They dont have a large military that can go toe to toe with us.So they fight like the 3rd world warriors we cant beat,guerrilla warfare.
They also take the fight to the other nations,not their own backyard,just what we are doing.
People mostly arent religious extremists,they want what most all do….to live life free of violence,see their children prosper,live in their homes.Bombing them ceaselessly as weve been doing for decades only brings reprisal,to say its because of religious beliefs is nonsense,its because we are killing them,their wives,children,husbands,nieces,nephews,on and on.
THATS why they hate us.
Its as simplistic to blame it on religion as it is to say the Blue war on us is about black killings,thats a smoke screen/propaganda to fool the masses from seeing the real truth.
I work with way too many Muslims to know the real Muslim is just another schmuck who just wants to live in peace,barring the extreme amongst us all that get the press for the agenda…WAR!
Lets get our noses the hell out of THEIR countries and see how many 1-want to kill us…and 2-how many actually can.Those numbers are quite low because most people just arent murderers,for whatever reason.
They have the right and duty to engage in violence against anyone initiating force against them- and so would be fully right to kill any US government employees they encounter in “their territory”, but not in targeting those who aren’t the aggressors and are far away from the homes of the Muslims.
Who voted for the elected representatives that sent the “government employees” into “their backyard” to kill them?
We killed a lot of non-military Germans, Japanese, and Italians in WWII, “far away” from London or Honolulu.
Mama Liberty —
Well said!
On the notion that “As for the present day, CNN, NYT, AP, NBC, ABC, the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and the CBC, will *not* be running Charlie-Hebdo cartoons.”:
While that on its face looks hypocrite, they have to consider the safety of their employees. And yes, that appears to be giving in to terrorists. But while the people at Charlie Hebdo consciously chose to put themselves at risk, that is different than putting other peoples lives at risk, and the threat, unfortunately, is not imaginary.
This morning, a Hamburg newspaper was firebombed, likely for publicizing the cartoons out of support for Charlie Hebdo: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/german-newspaper-muhammad-cartoons-firebombed-hamburger-morgenpost
Kent —
Also well said. I second that.
Agree R. Hartman. They are fanning the flames/antagonizing them for nothing.Its kind of like taking bait from Trolls,just ignore em,where is the problem? It doesnt even exist at that point.
Why do they (Hebdo) want to spit in peoples faces and expect no repercussions?
I keep saying it,reap what you sow,there’s a reason that phrase is so famous,its true.
Look at it this way…..
I say to you,in front of your family and friends… your wife is a fat azzed pig,your daughter is a whore and your son is more famously known as Bathhouse Barry…. would you just turn away or would you stand up and be counted?
Go tell Freddie Blassie wrestling is fake…. see what happens….
Its the same thing.”Free’ speech has consequences whether you like it or not,better think twice about who you choose to mouth off too?
Fred, the difference is whether or not they can call on government to cage or kill you for making those statements. “Standing up” to such abusive language would not give anyone the right to cage or kill you for what you said. You might become their very least favorite neighbor, and they may have some “free speech” to offer other neighbors about you, but they can’t just kill you because they are offended.
“But the Americans have been killing each other and everyone else they didn’t like for centuries.”
There, MamaLiberty, I fixed it for you. 🙂
It’s amazing how collectivist everybody sounds after a showy killing. It’s as if there are no individuals any more.
I mostly agree with the article, especially the conclusion. My only nit is that he didn’t go quite to the end of his line of reason with the right of free speech. Of course, there is no such right, or any right for that matter. Speech can have adverse consequences for the speaker. Yes, yes, it’s better if people acted as if there is such a thing as a right to free speech – in other words, society works better when people do not kill after they imagine they’ve been “dissed”. But that does not mean any right exists.
http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights
http://strike-the-root.com/i-dont-have-rights-nor-do-i-want-any
Rights theory does not explain this incident. Dispensing with faulty rights theory, and it all becomes obvious. Reality makes sense again.
I say to you, in front of your family and friends… your wife is a fat azzed pig, your daughter is a whore and your son is more famously known as Bathhouse Barry…. would you just turn away or would you stand up and be counted?
I’d be getting out of the way. My wife and daughter have their own ways of dealing with such, thankyouverymuch.
Charlie Hebdo understood that exercising their version of free speech had consequences. They still had the courage to speak! Within the means of their society they took measures that they saw as prudent. Body guards, better locks on the doors etc. The biggest thing they did in support of free speech was to speak and not cower in fear when threatened with death. Free speech is mute if it only speaks up when there isn’t a threat of negative consequences. The great freedom leaders of past years spoke even with fear of death and imprisonment and many paid the ultimate price. When they were imprisione or killed, their followers took up the torch and pressed onwards. We need to demonstrate that kind of courage now and into the future. Free Speech, like Freedom isn’t free it has cost, sometimes great, but the cost is worth the benefit.
Absolutely, Paul. I never intended to suggest that Americans don’t share in that insanity, just that Muslim violence predates America.
Will Grigg has an excellent article on how Americans have been killing each other from the beginning.
Bryan Fischer and the Gospel of Genocide
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/01/bryan-fischer-and-gospel-of-genocide.html
It’s all insanity. And may well spell the doom of mankind if it can’t be stopped.
Just walk into a biker bar and shout out Which one of you limp wristed drag queens rides that fairy cycle out front?
Yes,it would be nice if you could say anything you want,at any time,no matter how offensive and the World at large will just stand there and say,Lookie there,free speech.
But that isnt the real world,and common sense better be followed or those bikers are gonna shank your tail.
Free speech my foot,no such thing.
Hebdo thinks they have the right to say anything at all,to anyone and there arent repercussions,Hogwash,there certainly are and they were too stupid to understand bad manners can get you killed,and they did.Maybe next time they wont walk into the biker bar and mouth off.
Sure,they have a right to say anything they want,and Im all for it.They also have the right to suffer for it when they abuse it.
This guy says it better than I can
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/bionic-mosquito/je-suis-donald/
Fred:
“I say to you,in front of your family and friends… your wife is a fat azzed pig,your daughter is a whore and your son is more famously known as Bathhouse Barry…. would you just turn away or would you stand up and be counted?”
I’d say, “The way you have your wife wrapped up there tells me she’s at least a one bagger. Do you put one over your head, too?”
Seriously, insults should be traded for insult. They demand the right to trade death for insult.
In this country, killing the guy who insulted you would get your butt in the hoosegow, at least, if not killed in return.
Islam not only says it’s ok to kill the insulter, it’s a commandment.
Sure, we’ve killed a lot of them, but NEVER simply because they’re Muslim. They’ve DONE something, or were unfortunately close to someone who did something. Compared to carpet bombing of previous conflicts, we’ve been extraordinarily careful about this.
I wouldn’t accept that,”…but Billy gets to do it” response from my kids, I sure as hell won’t accept it from a bunch of clowns who think that the writings (plagiarisms plus some self-serving cant) of a 7th century pedophile warlord are Holy Writ.
We may not be perfect, but we DO try. They don’t, and they won’t as long as “we” allow them to excuse themselves from civilized behavior with citations from their Magic Book.
Their religion has to change to allow exegesis of the Koran so as to explain that Allah didn’t REALLY mean to say “Kill the unbelievers.” Until it does, it’s “trust but verify” for the average Muslim, a response in more that words to every incident, and threats of Not-very-mutual Assured Destruction to the leaders.
Saying “I see your point, and we’ll muzzle anyone you disagree with,” is not a prescription for anything but eventual dhimmitude.
I guess as long as we only racially attack mooselums all is OK?
Try puttingt that crap in print about Blacks or Jews in this country,or France.Britain,and see where it gets you.
Its open season on attacking towel-heads apparently as it seems sanctioned here in the West. Propaganda period.THEY have an agenda,and its YOUR actual freedom thats being lost….see the troops in the street and the militarized police?
Ask Donald Sterling about free speech,somehow you couldnt find enough people who succeeded in stealing his sports team from him….for what he said….IN PRIVATE!
Try pulling a Hebdo on the Blacks or Jews…..aint gonna happen….but mooselums? Kill em all!
Propaganda people.
I crunched the numbers,we kill them at a rate of 10:1,or was it 100:1,I forget,but we in the WEST are the killers supreme.
The Koran? They hate us for our freedom,HOGWASH! They hate us because we have a devine right to KILL THEM! The excuses are just that,that facts are,we are KILLING THEM.They hate us for usurping THEIR goverments for the oil Gods.For the repression our allies put on them,Ie Saudi Arabia for one.
Time we get the hell out of the East,and clean up our won mess,the West.What they do,in THEIR World and reality is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
Why was it Americans in the 60’s and 70’s could travel just about anywhere,and now we cant? What changed? The imperialist elites decided they should rule the world,and used America as the military to do so.The rest is history.
Blowback.
BTW,do you practice the old testament?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
Sorry Fred, but you’re comparing incomparable things. As for the LewRockwell reprint: not sure who decided to reprint is, as it is a biased and very subjective article, written from personal disgust and, worse, it is a plea for the right of the strongest, which libertarianism is supposed to condemn, as it is what rules us today.
It starts with equating ‘Free Speech’ to ‘Speech without Consequence’, and rants on from there, but the rant only sticks when you accept the equation, and I do not.
Basically, the whole rant is a plea to give in to bullies. Despicable. You should not voice your opinion to bullies as they might not reply with words. But arguments can only be meaningfully fought with words, and an open mind on both sides. If neither side wants to weigh the opponents arguments, nothing can be learned.
Charlie Hebdo consciously voiced their opinion, taking the piss out of anybody and anything, and were very much aware of the potential consequences. They were already firebombed once, remember? But they saw Western freedoms being crushed by islam, and they saw that this was a very conscious policy on behalf of the country’s power- and violence monopoly, the French (and all western) government(s).
So they fought back with the only weapon they were allowed to use: their pens, voicing how Western civilization was being killed by barbarians. And you want to complain about that? And guess what got them killed? Their government’s refusal to do its ONLY legitimate job: to protect them from the thugs. So their government not only put them in jeopardy, it also allowed them to be killed.
Whomever says the editors of Charlie Hebdo had it coming because of their own actions has clearly not understood liberty, or who are the ones putting that liberty at risk. To defend these editors, one does not have to agree with them; it’s a matter of principle. It also has to do with whether you’re willing to die on your feet instead of having to live on your knees, in submission to who appears to be the biggest thug today.
“Try pulling a Hebdo on the Blacks or Jews…..aint gonna happen….but mooselums? Kill em all!”
Um … Fred, are you saying that you never saw Charlie Hebdo’s grotesque caricatures of Jews, of which they did many? You never saw their cartoon that showed Mohammed, Moses, Jesus (or maybe the pope; can’t recall), and the Buddha in bed together after an orgy? I don’t know what, if anything, the magazine had to say about blacks, but they were definitely an equal-opportunity satirizer when it came to religion.
They never, however, said, implied, or even remotely advocated “kill ’em all.” That’s you talking.
Fred —
“Why was it Americans in the 60’s and 70’s could travel just about anywhere,and now we cant?”
Guess once. Nothing to do with muslims, as profiling like the Israeli’s do works a lot better. It’s because your government fears its subjects, the former citizens. Governments are control freaks, and you’re not being able to fly anywhere these days is about government control, not terrorism.
For one, the chances you die of a terror attack are slimmer than to be struck by lightning, and as Vin repeatedly has written, pretending to control the front door does nothing as long as you leave the back door wide open. The simple solution to improve airline safety is to allow passengers to be armed. 9/11 as officially portrayed could never have happened if law abiding passengers had been armed.
Your biggest enemy is, and will always be, your own government.
Fred —
“Try pulling a Hebdo on the Blacks or Jews…..aint gonna happen”
It’s happened lots of times. With blacks you still run a risk of being called a ‘racist’, with Jews an ‘anti semite’, although that’s already more acceptable, but with christians it’s called ‘art’: http://t.co/y7w0w1ykLJ
OK,I can see Im not getting it across,free speech is a fallacy and doesnt exist,and that the media is propaganda to take away our rights.
Im off to the biker bar to tell em where to get off,then walk around badtown at 3 am flashing 100 dollar bills,while flying gang colors.
When Im done I’ll go print some Halocaust denier articles too…..For sure I wont be beat up,robbed,fined or jailed…IF I live long enough.
After all,I have free speech rights….and no consequences for my big mouth.
COOL!
[Sure, we’ve killed a lot of them, but NEVER simply because they’re Muslim.]
True enough. They had the misfortune to be born over a big lake of oil. I notice we don’t mess with Indonesians very much.
[And guess what got them killed? Their government’s refusal to do its ONLY legitimate job: to protect them from the thugs.]
Where did this notion come from, anyway? That government has a job of protecting people? We don’t say such silly things about the Mafia.
We seem to be arguing whether the bravery of the Charlie Hebdo folks reached the level of foolhardiness. I don’t know how profitable such a conversation will be. It’s good when people push back against sources of power, so I’ll give you that. But in the context of Muslim Algerians in France (a hated and despised minority), well, I’d be more impressed if they went after the French government instead. Did they? Anybody know?
Fred —
Yes, you HAVE free speech rights, and as with all rights, it’s up to you to deal with them sensibly. The editors of Charlie Hebdo made their choice, and did not ask your permission or consent. It was THEIR decision, and they had every right to it.
As a side note: you’re doing it again: “I have free speech rights….and no consequences for my big mouth.” Nobody here has claimed that there may not be consequences. Only that those consequences have no legitimate basis in what’s supposed to be a civilized society.
[Sure, we’ve killed a lot of them, but NEVER simply because they’re Muslim.]
True enough. They had the misfortune to be born over a big lake of oil. I notice we don’t mess with Indonesians very much.
=================================
Lets really toss one out.
I’ll be GLAD when Iran gets the bomb so we can quit saber rattling with them.We Also dont attack people with the means to truly fight back(the bomb),funny how that works and funnier still the Iranians have figured that out.
Look at the Iranians,a large young populace who would like nothing more than to embrace much of Western culture.
So let em have the bomb,and we can live in PEACE with them,they are not a Country of invading hordes,contrary to what many think.They are a Country filled with young schmucks just like us,whatta concept!
Paul —
“[And guess what got them killed? Their government’s refusal to do its ONLY legitimate job: to protect them from the thugs.]
Where did this notion come from, anyway? That government has a job of protecting people? We don’t say such silly things about the Mafia.”
I wholeheartedly agree with you. But there are minarchists and anarchists (the AnCap-variety, please). For minarchists the state only has one legitimate purpose, and since we currently (and unfortunately) have a state, that’s what I referred to.
It does prove minarchists wrong, doesn’t it?
As a side note: you’re doing it again: “I have free speech rights….and no consequences for my big mouth.” Nobody here has claimed that there may not be consequences. Only that those consequences have no legitimate basis in what’s supposed to be a civilized society.
============================
What civilized society,lets keep it reality based.
People are saying hebdo has a right,I guess some do,but others dont,like Sterling?
Reap what you sow,and they did.In spades unfortunately,and YES,it was their choice and I support it fully,no matter how foolish.
I beleive this discussion about suffering the consequences of free speech was set up by improper application of the classic nursery rhyme. “Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but Names will never hurt me.” In the west we often use that to excuse insults to our persons Unfortunately, some people default to the Sticks and Stones part.
[Only that those consequences have no legitimate basis in what’s supposed to be a civilized society.]
Getting enough qualifiers in there might bring it closer to reality, but makes a tepid example of what is supposed to be such a manly thing, a “right”. 🙂
Might be easier to just dispense with the notion of rights.
I discovered a while back that any discussion involving rights can be recast in a way that involves no mention of rights at all, while at the same time being more easily understood, common-sensical and less lawyerly.
Of course, every thing that people think of as a right, is routinely trampled by every government in the world on a daily basis.
Paul —
What people think of as a right seldom is; many perceived rights are in fact privileges; the UDHR is full of them.
Still, it’s easy to keep them apart; a right is something which does not need to be provided by others.
While it may be true that not involving any mention of rights may lead to more understanding, it does nothing in terms of education. The Pavlov reflexes taught in public schools will not wear off…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/paul-craig-roberts/false-flag/
Roberts makes several good points, would they really? Do you really think they wouldn’t??
This could explain a lot;
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/01/12/sleeper-cell/?singlepage=true
I’m putting my money on a false flag operation – and I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories.
One additional factor may be the anticipated shift to the right in France, and a possible move to repeat the expulsion of Jews and Moors from Spain that happened in the 1500’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Monarchs#Expulsion_of_non-Christians_and_the_Spanish_Inquisition
When economies crash, as is expected in the entire EU, there has to be a scapegoat; and Muslims are the obvious candidates. Recall that Hitler came to power via the evil Versailles Treaty and the unrest caused by hyperinflation.
Claire, you have a BEAUTIFUL Website. Am trying to understand how to use a computer & how things work. I do not know how I got here, but, I did. IF the following is inappopriate here, on this thread, I/m sure you have one where it will fit so cut & paste it if you like it & put iy where people can see that we do have tyranny & oppression& what they may be in for IF they “rock the boat.” I was not trying to rock it, I was trying to sink it. Below are “in pertinent parts” of ONE of my cases on the Law Books. 3rd & 4th sentences should reveal something. IF NOT, the CONTEMPT portion WILL.
OPINION
BOSSON, Judge.
This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct. The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its wilful violation. We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt.
(Please take notice what the Court SAID, in the 3rd & 4th sentences. NOW, let’s skip down a little).
CONTEMPT
Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.
(SEE ??? The Court is saying, We have the POWER to hold you in CONTEMPT for not OBEYING our INVALID MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY ORDERS. WHERE DID THE COURT GET THIS POWER?? They GAVE THAT POWER TO THEMSELVES. SEE ??? Probably not. I SEE.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the injunction entered by the district court as part of Defendant’s sentence. The finding of contempt is affirmed because the district court had jurisdiction and the Defendant ignored the injunction at his peril.
(Please take notice that the Court DID NOT say, Defendant ignored the INVALID, MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY INJUNCTION AT HIS PERIL. Now, read what “God” says in, Isaiah 10 verses 1 & 2.)
( There were no dissents ).
——————————————–
I apologize. I sent the cut & paste “in pertinent part”case to another person & I forgot to erase the part sent to you that says, SEE??? Probably not. Also I do not know how you will take the “God” insert. I would have erased that too, at least until I knew you somewhat better. No offense meant. I like good people regardless of their religious beliefs or non belief.