DISQUS

The Rev. Pfleger, while speaking to a crown at a rally designed to shut down a lawful firearms business, said "We're going to snuff out John Riggio" [the store's owner]. He was later justly rebuked by his Bishop for this inciting hate speech. Calling on a crowd to kill someone violates both the law of God and of the state. To this date Rev. Pfleger has not apologized to the store's owner for his call to kill him.

The pastor has his right to free speech, however, there are those on the left who would deny that hate speech is protected and seek to suppress it. While Mr. Obama is not responsible for the hate speech of his pastor, he is a public official who aspires to the highest office in the country, and can't be given a pass for his standing by and failing to speak up while this hate was spewed from the pulpit. But Obama did more than just stand by, his website featurerd Wright, and the New Black Panthers, both not withdrawn until others drew attention to them. This was not just a case of having a "crazy drunk uncle" for Wright was featured on Obama's website. When the likes of Wright spew hate, it's not just a question of a difference on a matter of policy, and while Obama can feature anyone he wants on his website, others can justly question his fitness for the Presidency when he voluntarily chooses to feature them on his website. No one forced Obama to put them there, he chose to do so.

Mr Giuliani, an attorey, owes a duty to be candid and forthcoming when discussing the criminal aspects of illegal immigration. Under 8 U.S.C. 1325 a first illegal entry may result in a misdemeanor conviction. The public understands misdemeanors as crimes. Only in the technical world of lawyers is a misdemeanor not a crime. Giuliani, as a lawyer, had as duty to be honest and fully truthful in public statements concerning the law. He did not discharge that duty by repeated claims that illegal immigration is not a crime and failing to clarify
that his contention was based on a technical distinction in the grade of criminal offense and by failing to disclose that convictions for second and subsequent illegal entries are federal felonies, which, even in the technical jargon of lawyers, are, without doubt, crimes. The absence of widespread prosecution does not make the act any the less a crime.

Is interfering with federal military recruiting by blocking access to recruiting centers a federal criminal offense? Physical interference with lawful activity is often not considered first amendment protecred speech.
Can the President from deploy federal law enforcers instructing them to prevent interference with fedeal government activities?

So called tree sitters are nothing but defiant criminal trespassers and should be treated as such. The university officials should place no trespassing signs around the areas, let no one on the property and have arrested anyone who tries to enter. If they are students suspend them and forbid them to enter or remain on school property. Everyone has a first amendment right to state their case but not in a way to interfere with another person's lawful activities. As they say in the criminal law, your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. Universities need a zero tolerance policy for this type of illegal conduct. If this illegal conduct were not tolerated, students might actually study rather than engaging in criminal conduct.