Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) questions Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Perez, over the Administration’s commitment to 1st Amendment rights.

Profoundly encouraging, that there are at least 3 people in the US Government that actually understand the issues and are forcing those acting against Western values to expose themselves. Trent Franks is one of those three.

(This clip found through Tarek Fatah’s face book page)

“It’s Pretty Late in the Day”

          Published on Jul 26, 2012 by

In a Constitution Subcommittee hearing yesterday, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) questioned Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Perez, over the Administration’s commitment to 1st Amendment rights. Franks’ questions were prompted by a Daily Caller article from late last year in which Perez was quoted as warmly embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George Washington University, among them a request for “a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”

Perez reportedly ended the meeting with an enthusiastic closing speech and was quoted as saying, “I sat here the entire time, taking notes…I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

In yesterday’s hearing, Chairman Franks asked Perez to affirm that the Administration would “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez refused.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

5 Replies to “Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) questions Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Perez, over the Administration’s commitment to 1st Amendment rights.”

  1. “I sat here the entire time, taking notes…I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

    Penny for his thoughts

  2. “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

    As religion means, and only means ‘ideology,’ then it is easy to say “we will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any ideology”

    But for Socialists advancing a pre-Communist world order, they know all about criminalizing free speech against it.

    Talk about a rock and a hard place. No wonder there was no answer forthcoming.

  3. “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”
    Of course we all know what this question means. Already, in many countries around the world it is a ‘criminal’ offence to speak against Islam, etc. (often under penalty of death). Congressman Trent Franks asked a clear question unfortunately without using the dreaded ‘M’ and ‘I’ words. Another sign of the stealthy growth of Islam in our society. I also agree that the word religion is not correct and ‘ideology’ would be more accurate.

Leave a Reply to sheik yer'mami Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*