California prosecutes man for posting anti muslim messages on facebook

[Syriusly]

It is also an attack on the Constitution of the United States and coupled with other acts by the California Fascist Regime, an act of civil war that I call on President Trump to put down with Federal Troops.

]

The irony of a contard complaining about California 'attacking the Constitution' and then calling on Trump to violate the Constitution with Federal troops- well the irony will be lost on the contard Trumpsters.[/QUOTE

The irony of a contard complaining about California 'attacking the Constitution' and then calling on Trump to violate the Constitution with Federal troops- well the irony will be lost on the contard Trumpsters

 

[Faun]

Right, you openly praise the violation and utter end of the first amendment, driven no doubt by your psychopathic hatred of Donald Trump and anyone right of Joseph Stalin..

But I'm the nut job

Now tell me, Comrade shitferbrains, if it is illegal to criticize a certain faith, is that state recognition of that faith?

Are you so dumb that you don't understand that harassment and intimidation are not speech protected by the First Amendment and that no religion is protected by the law more than the others? There is no "state recognition" of a faith involved here even though this has occurred in other states in the deep south and mid-west that seem to have made crazy fundie "Christianity" into a state religion. It is not illegal to criticize any religion we want in a public forum such as this one. But there is no right to specifically bombard anyone's house of worship with threats, insults, and intimidation. Read the statute.

Show me the threat, you fucking scumbag?

Here are the exact words:

• “THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (In reference to the Center’s advertised “Sunset Hike”)
• “THE MORE MUSLIMS WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE.”
• “PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.”
• “Islam is dangerous – fact: the more muslim savages we allow into america – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable.”
• “Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”

Where do you see a threat, you Maoist pile of shit?

First of all, your vulgar language shows who and what you are; the crudest and most low-life among us Americans.
You apparently do not understand what Maoism is. You just fling it around indiscriminately because some right-wing propaganda source told you it was "bad." You need to stop flinging empty words around to try to divide our country.
You apparently don't understand that the legal system in the U.S. is supposed to be applied in a neutral manner, which is one of the things that makes our country great. Our laws are supposed to protect all, regardless of religion or anything else. If Feigin's actions were directed toward the Church of Our Lady in Umtifrock, the First Baptist on 25th and Main, or Temple Bet Whatever at the corner of Maple and Oak, and they were reported to the police, the same result is expected to occur.

I do not understand why you would want to defend Feigin's alleged actions in the first place. We are supposed to live in a civilized society. At least most of us try for this goal.

To explain to you why rightards here defend Feigin is simply because they’re brothers in bigotry. Feigin hates Muslims like them.

I don't defend Feigin at all. But the charges against him look very weak. The serious charge- making the threats- doesn't appear to have any significant evidence behind it. The second charge- being an annoying asshole on Facebook- just doesn't seem constitutional to me- but the courts will have to decide that. He certainly was being an annoying asshole on FB, but that statute itself seems unconstitutional.

I never said I believe Feigin is guilty of the threats; only that it is what he was charged with making them. The evidence does appear to exonerate him but that's for the courts to sort out. He brought this on himself for being a bigot in a hyper-sensitive environment which brought attention to him. As far as the misdemeanor charge for his Facebook rants, agree with their constitutionality or not, they've been constitutionally tested and upheld (so far). He never would have been charged with those had there not been a credible threat made to the mosque -- but because he was charged with making that threat, the police tacked on a hate crime which is only intended to be used as evidence for the felony charge and to add more time to a conviction.

There is another lesson to be learned here, though it's lost on the brain-dead right -- don't trust InfoWars. It's nothing but a hack site which only serves to dumb-down its followers. Like in this case, how many folks in this thread were fully unaware that Feigin was even charged with threatening to kill people precisely because InfoWars only told them part of the story and they're too mentally lazy to be bothered with checking out the whole story from independent sites?

 

[Syriusly]

Are you so dumb that you don't understand that harassment and intimidation are not speech protected by the First Amendment and that no religion is protected by the law more than the others? There is no "state recognition" of a faith involved here even though this has occurred in other states in the deep south and mid-west that seem to have made crazy fundie "Christianity" into a state religion. It is not illegal to criticize any religion we want in a public forum such as this one. But there is no right to specifically bombard anyone's house of worship with threats, insults, and intimidation. Read the statute.

Show me the threat, you fucking scumbag?

Here are the exact words:

• “THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (In reference to the Center’s advertised “Sunset Hike”)
• “THE MORE MUSLIMS WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE.”
• “PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.”
• “Islam is dangerous – fact: the more muslim savages we allow into america – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable.”
• “Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”

Where do you see a threat, you Maoist pile of shit?

First of all, your vulgar language shows who and what you are; the crudest and most low-life among us Americans.
You apparently do not understand what Maoism is. You just fling it around indiscriminately because some right-wing propaganda source told you it was "bad." You need to stop flinging empty words around to try to divide our country.
You apparently don't understand that the legal system in the U.S. is supposed to be applied in a neutral manner, which is one of the things that makes our country great. Our laws are supposed to protect all, regardless of religion or anything else. If Feigin's actions were directed toward the Church of Our Lady in Umtifrock, the First Baptist on 25th and Main, or Temple Bet Whatever at the corner of Maple and Oak, and they were reported to the police, the same result is expected to occur.

I do not understand why you would want to defend Feigin's alleged actions in the first place. We are supposed to live in a civilized society. At least most of us try for this goal.

To explain to you why rightards here defend Feigin is simply because they’re brothers in bigotry. Feigin hates Muslims like them.

I don't defend Feigin at all. But the charges against him look very weak. The serious charge- making the threats- doesn't appear to have any significant evidence behind it. The second charge- being an annoying asshole on Facebook- just doesn't seem constitutional to me- but the courts will have to decide that. He certainly was being an annoying asshole on FB, but that statute itself seems unconstitutional.

I never said I believe Feigin is guilty of the threats; only that it is what he was charged with. The evidence does appear to exonerate him but that's for the courts to sort out. He brought this on himself for being a bigot in a hyper-sensitive environment which brought attention to him. As far as the misdemeanor charge for his Facebook rants, agree with their constitutionality or not, they've been constitutionally tested and upheld (so far). He never would have been charged with those had there not been a credible threat made to the mosque -- but because he was charged with making that threat, the police tacked on a hate crime which is only intended to be used as evidence against the felony charge and to add more time to a conviction.

There is another lesson to be learned here, though it's lost on the brain-dead right -- don't trust InfoWars. It's nothing but a hack site which only serves to dumb-down its followers. Like in this case, how many folks in this thread were fully unaware that Feigin was even charged with threatening to kill people precisely because InfoWars only told them part of the story and they're too mentally lazy to be bothered with checking out the whole story from independent sites?

Well of course no one should trust Infowars- I am rather shocked that they actually had links to take the reader to the other contard website that they 'borrowed' the story from- which did have links to the actual legal documents which showed the charges of the second count.

 

[Faun]

Show me the threat, you fucking scumbag?

Here are the exact words:

• “THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (In reference to the Center’s advertised “Sunset Hike”)
• “THE MORE MUSLIMS WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE.”
• “PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.”
• “Islam is dangerous – fact: the more muslim savages we allow into america – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable.”
• “Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”

Where do you see a threat, you Maoist pile of shit?

First of all, your vulgar language shows who and what you are; the crudest and most low-life among us Americans.
You apparently do not understand what Maoism is. You just fling it around indiscriminately because some right-wing propaganda source told you it was "bad." You need to stop flinging empty words around to try to divide our country.
You apparently don't understand that the legal system in the U.S. is supposed to be applied in a neutral manner, which is one of the things that makes our country great. Our laws are supposed to protect all, regardless of religion or anything else. If Feigin's actions were directed toward the Church of Our Lady in Umtifrock, the First Baptist on 25th and Main, or Temple Bet Whatever at the corner of Maple and Oak, and they were reported to the police, the same result is expected to occur.

I do not understand why you would want to defend Feigin's alleged actions in the first place. We are supposed to live in a civilized society. At least most of us try for this goal.

To explain to you why rightards here defend Feigin is simply because they’re brothers in bigotry. Feigin hates Muslims like them.

I don't defend Feigin at all. But the charges against him look very weak. The serious charge- making the threats- doesn't appear to have any significant evidence behind it. The second charge- being an annoying asshole on Facebook- just doesn't seem constitutional to me- but the courts will have to decide that. He certainly was being an annoying asshole on FB, but that statute itself seems unconstitutional.

I never said I believe Feigin is guilty of the threats; only that it is what he was charged with. The evidence does appear to exonerate him but that's for the courts to sort out. He brought this on himself for being a bigot in a hyper-sensitive environment which brought attention to him. As far as the misdemeanor charge for his Facebook rants, agree with their constitutionality or not, they've been constitutionally tested and upheld (so far). He never would have been charged with those had there not been a credible threat made to the mosque -- but because he was charged with making that threat, the police tacked on a hate crime which is only intended to be used as evidence against the felony charge and to add more time to a conviction.

There is another lesson to be learned here, though it's lost on the brain-dead right -- don't trust InfoWars. It's nothing but a hack site which only serves to dumb-down its followers. Like in this case, how many folks in this thread were fully unaware that Feigin was even charged with threatening to kill people precisely because InfoWars only told them part of the story and they're too mentally lazy to be bothered with checking out the whole story from independent sites?

Well of course no one should trust Infowars- I am rather shocked that they actually had links to take the reader to the other contard website that they 'borrowed' the story from- which did have links to the actual legal documents which showed the charges of the second count.

Sadly for the rightards posting here, not one of them will learn the valuable lesson Feigin had to learn the hard way -- when you boastfully parade your bigotry in public, like they do online, you expose yourself to prosecution for related crimes. Anonymity provides them a false sense of comfort; but in reality, any one of them could find themselves in a predicament like Feigin's.

 

[Lastamender]

Every time you do anything different to a Muslim than you would anyone else because of his/her religion is part of Sharia.

No not excuses, exceptions for Islam as it somehow deserves respect other religions see none of? It tells Islam it can go farther using our laws against us. But that has been obvious for a while.

Take a moment to educate yourself ( won't even go into the fact you know nothing apparently of "Sharia").

This is case where California has laws regarding hate speech and regarding threats.

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I kind of wonder is - are you reacting this way because you believe that it's ok to do this to Mosques but not to Churches and Synagogues?

I know enough about Sharia that I know it demands recognition of Islam everywhere and all the time. And letting people know who did it is not the same is why he did it, is it? Maybe a rhetorical question, but when are people going to be told why people object to Islam?

Back to the case in hand...

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I asked is the case at hand. Churches and Synagogues do not have violent reprisals for insults on their menu.

Well in the case at hand, the mosque did not have violent reprisals for insults either.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Not yet, but as we have seen sometimes it happens. Now name one synagogue or church that did retaliate violently to insults. The Boston and Phoenix mosques, just to name a couple of mosques that have preached violence and had members act on it.. The intimidation of possible violence makes our spineless PC government act differently in Islams case.

I got news for you it will not make them hate us any less.

 

[Syriusly]

Take a moment to educate yourself ( won't even go into the fact you know nothing apparently of "Sharia").

This is case where California has laws regarding hate speech and regarding threats.

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I kind of wonder is - are you reacting this way because you believe that it's ok to do this to Mosques but not to Churches and Synagogues?

I know enough about Sharia that I know it demands recognition of Islam everywhere and all the time. And letting people know who did it is not the same is why he did it, is it? Maybe a rhetorical question, but when are people going to be told why people object to Islam?

Back to the case in hand...

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I asked is the case at hand. Churches and Synagogues do not have violent reprisals for insults on their menu.

Well in the case at hand, the mosque did not have violent reprisals for insults either.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Not yet, but as we have seen sometimes it happens. Now name one synagogue or church that did retaliate violently to insults. The Boston and Phoenix mosques, just to name a couple of mosques that have preached violence and had members act on it.. The intimidation of possible violence makes our spineless PC government act differently in Islams case.

I got news for you it will not make them hate us any less.

LOL- you literally stated :"What I asked is the case at hand"- and then went ahead and spun your story that had nothing to do with the case in hand.

a) There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the government acted differently here in regards to this mosque than it would to similar threats against a church or synogogue.
b) Who is hating who? It wasn't a Muslim reaching out to spew hate against anyone here- it was a non-Muslims reaching out to spew hate against Muslims.

You know- in the case at hand. Which you asked about- literally :"What I asked is the case at hand"-

 

[Syriusly]

Take a moment to educate yourself ( won't even go into the fact you know nothing apparently of "Sharia").

This is case where California has laws regarding hate speech and regarding threats.

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I kind of wonder is - are you reacting this way because you believe that it's ok to do this to Mosques but not to Churches and Synagogues?

I know enough about Sharia that I know it demands recognition of Islam everywhere and all the time. And letting people know who did it is not the same is why he did it, is it? Maybe a rhetorical question, but when are people going to be told why people object to Islam?

Back to the case in hand...

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I asked is the case at hand. Churches and Synagogues do not have violent reprisals for insults on their menu.

Well in the case at hand, the mosque did not have violent reprisals for insults either.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Not yet, but as we have seen sometimes it happens. Now name one synagogue or church that did retaliate violently to insults. The Boston and Phoenix mosques, just to name a couple of mosques that have preached violence and had members act on it.. The intimidation of possible violence makes our spineless PC government act differently in Islams case.

I got news for you it will not make them hate us any less.

Wow- you are correct- look at how this Mosque dealt with hate speech....



>> FORT SMITH, Ark. -

In October of 2016, the Masjid Al Salam mosque in Fort Smith, Arkansas, was vandalized. Now more than a year later, the man charged with the crime is getting a helping hand from the people he hurt the most.

Back in October the mosque was vandalized with swastikas and the words "go home." The mosque's security cameras caught the man in the act. That person was identified as Abraham Davis. He was charged with a felony, which consisted of community service and a hefty fine. But it was a fine he might not have been able to pay on his own, so the Masjid Al Salam stepped in.

"We heard that he was having financial problems," said Louay Nassri, the president of Al Salam. "Now if you don't pay your fine, that's an automatic six years in jail. Well, we didn't want him to go to jail for six years," he told KARK-TV.

So Nassri wrote a check for $1,700 to wipe out the fine for Davis. <<

Link


Those hateful Mooslims paid the guys fine for him.

 

[Lastamender]

I know enough about Sharia that I know it demands recognition of Islam everywhere and all the time. And letting people know who did it is not the same is why he did it, is it? Maybe a rhetorical question, but when are people going to be told why people object to Islam?

Back to the case in hand...

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I asked is the case at hand. Churches and Synagogues do not have violent reprisals for insults on their menu.

Well in the case at hand, the mosque did not have violent reprisals for insults either.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Not yet, but as we have seen sometimes it happens. Now name one synagogue or church that did retaliate violently to insults. The Boston and Phoenix mosques, just to name a couple of mosques that have preached violence and had members act on it.. The intimidation of possible violence makes our spineless PC government act differently in Islams case.

I got news for you it will not make them hate us any less.

LOL- you literally stated :"What I asked is the case at hand"- and then went ahead and spun your story that had nothing to do with the case in hand.

a) There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the government acted differently here in regards to this mosque than it would to similar threats against a church or synogogue.
b) Who is hating who? It wasn't a Muslim reaching out to spew hate against anyone here- it was a non-Muslims reaching out to spew hate against Muslims.

You know- in the case at hand. Which you asked about- literally :"What I asked is the case at hand"-

All around the world governments are acting differently because of Islam and you refuse to see it. And Muslims as a rule spew more hate than anyone. That hate is a religious obligation.

 

[Syriusly]

Back to the case in hand...

The Mosque is being treated exactly the same as a Church or a Synagogue had they been the recipient of such threats. In fact I pointed out cases where it was a Church and a Synagogue. A simple google will bring up many similar cases not involving a Mosque.

What I asked is the case at hand. Churches and Synagogues do not have violent reprisals for insults on their menu.

Well in the case at hand, the mosque did not have violent reprisals for insults either.

So what the hell are you talking about?

Not yet, but as we have seen sometimes it happens. Now name one synagogue or church that did retaliate violently to insults. The Boston and Phoenix mosques, just to name a couple of mosques that have preached violence and had members act on it.. The intimidation of possible violence makes our spineless PC government act differently in Islams case.

I got news for you it will not make them hate us any less.

LOL- you literally stated :"What I asked is the case at hand"- and then went ahead and spun your story that had nothing to do with the case in hand.

a) There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the government acted differently here in regards to this mosque than it would to similar threats against a church or synogogue.
b) Who is hating who? It wasn't a Muslim reaching out to spew hate against anyone here- it was a non-Muslims reaching out to spew hate against Muslims.

You know- in the case at hand. Which you asked about- literally :"What I asked is the case at hand"-

All around the world governments are acting differently because of Islam and you refuse to see it. And Muslims as a rule spew more hate than anyone. That hate is a religious obligation.

'as a rule'

Yet- in the case in hand- the one spewing the hate is not the ebil Mooslims but one of your own.

One of you haters.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I guess we lost another of our amendment rights and weren't even told.

Oh? Remind me again.... which amendment gives us the right to threaten to kill others?

Nobody was threatening to kill others. STOP.

Don’t you think it would be prudent for you to know what you’re talking about before you post?

Man accused of threatening to kill Muslims is a 'victim' of alt-right social media, his attorneys say

State prosecutors charged Feigin with making criminal threats. His weapons and ammunition were seized pending the outcome of his case, Sheahen said.

Feigin faces an additional allegation of committing a hate crime and a misdemeanor count of making annoying telephone calls, according to documents filed in court last week. He is scheduled to be arraigned Nov. 10.

The first call to the Islamic Center came Sept. 19, when a man left a voicemail that was “peppered with vulgarity and espoused hatred toward the Muslim faith,” Frank said. The next day a man called again, threatening to kill the person who answered the phone along with other members of the center, police said.​

Tacqiya. Made-up bull shit.

Ah so that is the word to describe all the made up bullshit from the Islam haters.

A word to describe all the made up bull shit by Muslims, yes; but it's actually an Islamic word, twat.

 

[Lysistrata]

Somebody please produce evidence that the congregants of the Islamic Center of Southern California, as a group, ever did anything evil to anyone. Moreover, if one congregant has done something evil, is that enough to condemn and target the whole group of congregants? If no one in a Christian congregation does anything evil, should it still be targeted because another Christian somewhere else did something evil? Even if a congregant of a specific Christian church at a specific address, does something evil, should everyone in his congregation be attacked?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh? Remind me again.... which amendment gives us the right to threaten to kill others?

Nobody was threatening to kill others. STOP.

Don’t you think it would be prudent for you to know what you’re talking about before you post?

Man accused of threatening to kill Muslims is a 'victim' of alt-right social media, his attorneys say

State prosecutors charged Feigin with making criminal threats. His weapons and ammunition were seized pending the outcome of his case, Sheahen said.

Feigin faces an additional allegation of committing a hate crime and a misdemeanor count of making annoying telephone calls, according to documents filed in court last week. He is scheduled to be arraigned Nov. 10.

The first call to the Islamic Center came Sept. 19, when a man left a voicemail that was “peppered with vulgarity and espoused hatred toward the Muslim faith,” Frank said. The next day a man called again, threatening to kill the person who answered the phone along with other members of the center, police said.​

Tacqiya. Made-up bull shit.

Ah so that is the word to describe all the made up bullshit from the Islam haters.

A word to describe all the made up bull shit by Muslims, yes; but it's actually an Islamic word, twat.

An 'Islamic word, twat.

The things I learn from you loons.

 

[Syriusly]

Somebody please produce evidence that the congregants of the Islamic Center of Southern California, as a group, ever did anything evil to anyone. Moreover, if one congregant has done something evil, is that enough to condemn and target the whole group of congregants? If no one in a Christian congregation does anything evil, should it still be targeted because another Christian somewhere else did something evil? Even if a congregant of a specific Christian church at a specific address, does something evil, should everyone in his congregation be attacked?

"What I asked is the case at hand"

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one has been arrested or imprisoned for opposition for Islam either

Mark Feigin has, as you well know.

Threatening to kill people is opposition to Islam?

Mark Feigin never threatened to kill anyone.

Neither you nor any Maoist in this thread can provide any threats by Mark Feigin, nor has the leftist press.

Innuendo is not fact.

Feigin was arrested and imprisoned for opposing Islam.

That you support such acts in no way alters reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh look at this poor scumbucket - he was arrested for opposing Christianity: Triangle man charged with hate crime for allegedly leaving racist note on church door

This loser was arrested for opposing Christianity AND Judaism: Annandale man arrested for hate graffiti on Va. JCC, church

And you support the shitting on the constitution to the point of arresting people for holding distasteful views?

Liberty is doomed while there are those like you about.

 

[Syriusly]

No one has been arrested or imprisoned for opposition for Islam either

Mark Feigin has, as you well know.

Threatening to kill people is opposition to Islam?

Mark Feigin never threatened to kill anyone.

Neither you nor any Maoist in this thread can provide any threats by Mark Feigin, nor has the leftist press.

Innuendo is not fact.

Feigin was arrested and imprisoned for opposing Islam.

That you support such acts in no way alters reality.

Feigin was arrested for two things:
a) Making a threat and
b) Annoying someone on Facebook.

Neither your or any of your Fascist buddies in this thread can show that Feigin was arrested for opposing Islam.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh look at this poor scumbucket - he was arrested for opposing Christianity: Triangle man charged with hate crime for allegedly leaving racist note on church door

This loser was arrested for opposing Christianity AND Judaism: Annandale man arrested for hate graffiti on Va. JCC, church

And you support the shitting on the constitution to the point of arresting people for holding distasteful views?

Liberty is doomed while there are those like you about.

LOL but wait- you said that Feigin was arrested just because he opposed Islam.

Were they arrested for opposing Islam also?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sheriff arrests man accused of leaving hate message at synagogue | | The Rock River Times
This guy was just opposing Judaism....

(why do these schmucks always look like such losers?)

Et Tu logical fallacy does not alter the fact that Mark Feigin was arrested and imprisoned for opposing Islam. It does not change the fact that California has established Islam as the state religion and openly shits on the most fundamental of civil rights.

On the plus side, looks like Sessions is getting ready to arrest Kim Jong Brown and his band of Communist thugs.

{
Brown and other leaders of sanctuary cities are even violating federal law, he believes, noting that he’s asked the Department of Justice to look into whether they can be criminally charged.

The law to which Homan is referring to is 8 U.S. Code § 1324, which states that any person, "knowing... the fact that an alien has come to... the United States in violation of the law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection... such [an] alien in any place" could face several years in prison and/or fines. }

ICE Director Doesn't Think Brown Should Get Away With Sanctuary State Law

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess we lost another of our amendment rights and weren't even told.

Oh? Remind me again.... which amendment gives us the right to threaten to kill others?

Oh? Remind me of how opposing Islam is threat to kill?

No one is surprised you are cheering the end of the 1st Amendment Fawn. Your evil is only exceeded by your stupidity.

 

[Montrovant]

No one has been arrested or imprisoned for opposition for Islam either

Mark Feigin has, as you well know.

Threatening to kill people is opposition to Islam?

Mark Feigin never threatened to kill anyone.

Neither you nor any Maoist in this thread can provide any threats by Mark Feigin, nor has the leftist press.

Innuendo is not fact.

Feigin was arrested and imprisoned for opposing Islam.

That you support such acts in no way alters reality.

How do you know Feigin never threatened to kill anyone? Do you know him, or are you involved directly in the case? If not, I would imagine you are as uncertain about that as everyone posting in this thread.

No one here needs to prove that Feigin threatened anyone. That's for the prosecutors to do, if they can.

I agree that innuendo is not fact, and it is not known by any of us if Feigin actually threatened anyone or not. He was, however, charged with having threatened someone, in addition to the harassment charge which brought about this thread.

Innuendo is not fact. You cannot show that Feigin was arrested for opposing Islam. Strange that you seem to think stating innuendo as fact isn't a problem when you are the one doing it.