“Give me liberty or give me death!” ---Patrick Henry

By Peter Ripley, Publisher

Peter Ripley, Publisher

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" is a quotation attributed to  Patrick Henry  from a speech he made to the Virginia Convention  in 1775, at  St. John's Church  in  Richmond, Virginia. 

As we commemorate those who have fallen to protect or freedoms and way of life. Our very freedoms which so many had paid the ultimate sacrifice in times of war is now being threaten from forces who oppose our very being. 

Quoting our First Amendment: “The  First Amendment  (Amendment  I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the  petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the  Bill of Rights. 

Yet, there are those who live within our mist who wants state, local, and national governments to adopt a law based on religious beliefs. I am talking about Sharia Law. Yet, those who scream the separation of church and state, seems to have no problem in allowing Islamic law like Sharia, to be implemented! Like some parts of Texas, which is an affront to our Bill of Rights! 

Two women in Texas however sees the threat that Sharia Law poses, meaning the end of our God given free will, and ending of our Constitutional rights

One of these women which I now refer to as daughters of liberty, is Pam Gellar, who is now marked for death by those who claim to be members of a peaceful religion, Islam!

Related story:   Pamela Geller Confronted Evil, so the Left Hates Her

 Pamela Geller — the woman whose group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, organized the Muhammad-cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas — may be the most hated person in America right now. She is certainly the Left’s chief villain; and, sad to say, though few conservatives hate her, more than a few have condemned her.

The second daughter of liberty: Mayor Beth Van Duyne of Irving Texas

According to The Political Insider: Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”… Here Is Her EPIC Response!

This radical group of Muslims is  not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating.

The Imam in charge of this Tribune kangaroo court, wants the mayor to be defeated! So we have death threats on one woman defending free speech, we have another woman a mayor, being intimidated! So, much for a “peaceful religion” 

Now another abridgment of free speech is happening locally actually. NO, it's not as controversial as two Texas women standing up against a foreign law based on religion, being imposed on an unsuspecting populace which takes away our rights. It's about  threatening legal action by a law firm against a local newspaper, called Port O Call for running a story of a court case involving the Wilbur decision.

The details of the story isn't relevant to my point I am trying to put forth . Now since that story as appeared in the Port O Call the publisher is being threatened legal action for publishing the story called: Justice has left the building. They gotten a letter from an law firm representing one of the people mention in the article demanding an apology, and retraction of the story, if they don't a law suit will be forth coming!

Sounds to me this is a case of a Slapp!

Which is defined as: A  strategic lawsuit against public participation  (SLAPP) is a  lawsuit  that is intended to  censor,  intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a  legal defense  until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting  legal costs  or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of  directors and officers liability insurance  for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[2]  A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a  legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid  good faith  claims.---read more

Why you may ask why I share with you these three stories? Because of this similarity, whether it's from some religious sect pushing their own law on others and using any means to get their way through intimidation and threats to silence anyone who opposes them, or an law agency using threats of legal action against a publication to silence them it still slaps the face of every service man and woman who defended our liberties and freedoms we at times take for granted. The media should stand up to any infringement of our basic rights, not bury their head in the sand and hope it will go away. I just like bully tactics in any form! Mostly any breach of our free speech whether it's acceptable or not should not be censored.

To prove my point readers I am tempted to post two bikini clad women up on this site, see how much flax I would get doing that!