Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Rev Ted Pike and Harmony Grant Archive


Stealth Campaigns Against Freedom

By Harmony Grant
3 June 2008

On May 8, Homeland Security staff working for Sen. Joe Lieberman published a paper linking the internet to “homegrown terrorism.” Omb Watch, a government accountability organization, points out that the report frequently refers to “domestic radicalization” without defining the term. Lieberman’s paper troubled many free speech advocates who recognized its focused attempt to censor the internet.
On May 19, Lieberman tried to do just that. He sent a letter to Google and demanded it remove “hate videos” posted by terrorist organizations to YouTube. Parent company Google largely refused; it defended free speech and debate on its site. The NY Times published a healthy editorial rebuttal of Lieberman as a “would-be censor” Defenders of freedom argue that censoring terrorist speech might not even help; the government and public can better prepare against what they know. Anyway, terrorists will find a way to contact each other, through YouTube or not. Why not leave this speech in the public domain?
The Times also made the most fundamental argument—for free speech. “If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.”
Unfortunately, the Times and major media don’t apply this basic principle to domestic hate crimes. Slowly, the stealth campaign for stiffened “anti-hate” laws continues. Anti-hate laws present the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech, since government can use them to punish beliefs and biases not just criminal behavior.
A new, powerfully emerging Jewish “civil liberties” front, Human Rights First, offers a ten point plan for combating “hate crimes”. The plan urges society to condemn bias-driven crimes; enact special laws against them; strengthen law enforcement to prosecute offenders; train and provide special resources to law enforcement; create special inquiries and monitoring systems for hate crimes; create and strengthen anti-discrimination groups; work with non-governmental organizations; speak out against bigoted politicians; and encourage international cooperation against hate crimes.
These are exactly the recommendations of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, architect of hate crimes worldwide. Hate law advocates work with steady and quiet aggression to accomplish these goals.
The state of Alabama provides an example. This state passed state hate laws in 1994—like some 43 other states who passed hate laws in the nineties. Alabama’s law didn’t include sexual orientation.
This year’s May 16 is now considered by some “a bellwether moment for gay rights in the U.S,” because Alabama passed two pro-homosexual bills in one day—one of them added sexual orientation to the state hate law.
Alabama lawmakers previously rejected the addition of sexual orientation to their hate law in 2006. In 2007 they refused again. But homosexual activists do not give up. This year they finally succeeded.
Gay activists boldly admit that they used “stealth strategy” to defeat conservative resistance in Alabama . One news source indirectly quotes the openly gay state representative bragging about the silent campaign. She said that “Opting for a quiet strategy over media campaigns and constituent mobilization allows gay rights proponents to make progress without conservative lawmakers enduring serious political pressure in their districts…”
The ultimate goal of American hate law activists is a federal law that would allow the federal government to intervene in “bias-motivated crimes,” violating states’ rights, and enforce stiffened penalties for “hate criminals.” As they did in Alabama , homosexual and ADL activists will continue to work aggressively and quietly towards this goal.
Lovers of freedom must protest and publicize the injustice of hate crime laws whenever possible.
We must also continue to protest the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, S. 1959, now in Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee. The House passed it unanimously earlier this year. This dangerous legislation would set up a federal commission to study “hate” on the internet. It would probably recommend that Congress restrict “homophobic” hate speech online—ending online free speech.
The religious right has said and done nothing to oppose S. 1959. Yet because of initial widespread opposition, largely generated by the National Prayer Network, and because Democratic leadership does not want anti-free speech charges brought against them during the election year, this bill has been put on hold.
This recent report by Sen. Lieberman’s staff, and his protest to Google, suggests that S. 1959 is far from dead. It might be fast-tracked under a liberal Democrat President or McCain, whom Lieberman strongly supports.
Let’s be proactive and kill S. 1959 now! Call the Senate Homeland Security Committee and your senators. Say: “Please kill the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act, S. 1959. America does not have a documented problem of homegrown terrorism streaming from the internet.” Call toll free 1-877-851-6437, or toll, 1-202-225-3121.


Harmony Grant writes and edits for National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog group.

Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians:
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal it now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians at Purchase this gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at for $24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688, or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503) 631-3808.

P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.