In response to:

DOJ: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Could Violate Law

Tasha Tchin Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 9:12 PM
This is the reason why the White House pushed the meme that "the video" caused offended Muslims to rise up and kill our ambassador -- they have been pushing for an anti-blasphemy treaty in the UN at the insistence of Saudi Arabia. It was passed last year and the Obama Admin wants to subject out First Amendment guarantees to the UN anti-blasphemy language. That is why the video was blamed for Benghazi and not al Qaeda affiliated jihadis. We and our Constitution are to be forced to submit to anti-blasphemy laws that only protect Islam, not all religions, because it is not considered blasphemous to insult the followers of other religions the way the Muslims insult Jews and Christians, or Buddhists and Hindus, for that matter. Search the web for "anti-blasphemy language, UN" and see what the Obama Admin has been up to over the last couple of years. BTW, religious Islam is protected under the First Amendment, political Islam is not -- it is considered treason.
Tea Party in Wisconsin formerlyTea Party Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 9:34 PM
Yep, that was when Barry spoke about those who dared diss Islam and now we have the career path Kissup Killian threatening Americans for speaking ill of that 'religion'
Nothing like saying 'so let it be written, so let it be done." huh. Looking back that was a real threat to the American people from the Faux ?resdent.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 9:22 PM
"religious Islam is protected under the First Amendment, political Islam is not -- it is considered treason."

ANd just what is the difference, if any, between political and religious islam? Islam isn't just a religion, it's a social system, just like marxism.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 9:23 PM
*change communism for marxism*
Bondman60 Wrote: Jun 06, 2013 11:45 AM
"Protected" from what? That's the question! Protected from being discriminated against? Perhaps, if it is not sedicious. Protected from being offended in any way? Not according to the constitution. But who cares about that old piece of paper, anyway?