Criminalizing the First Amendment On Behalf of Illegal Aliens

August 12, 2013 - Activism, Featured, Main - Tagged: agenda 21, false flag, obama, police state, protesters, sharia law, TSA, wall street - 8 comments

Seattle city government is immediately banning certain words which are very common to the American lexicon. The source of ban came from an internal memo suggesting that “government workers no longer use terms like “citizen”, or ‘brown bag.”
PC Speech

Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights describes the aforementioned terms as “potentially offensive” and therefore other language should be used to describe “brown bag” lunches and “citizen” rights. It is not clear on how Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights decided that such terms were “offensive.” Further, it is not clear how the ban on the language will be enforced. Will workers be fired or thrown in jail?

It is very kind of Elliott Bronstein, from the Office for Civil Rights, to tell us what words are appropriate to use. Bronstein suggests that the word “citizens” be replaced with the word “residents.” It is crystal clear that Bronstein is trying to disguise that fact that someone might actually

This is what Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights says you can have for lunch.

be illegally living in the United States. Bronstein said that the term “brown bag” could actually be referring to one’s skin color in obvious reference to Latinos.

But don’t despair, Bronstein has an alternative. Rather than calling one’s impromptu sack lunch a” brown bag”, they could refer to it as “lunch and learn,” or “sack lunch.”

An Office of Civil Rights? Really?

Can anyone explain to me, why in the world would a city need an office for civil rights? Secondly, how can the good people of Seattle justify spending funds for this abject nonsense? The Seattle Office of Civil Rights has stated that the city serves all of the residents, not just the ones who are in the city/country legally.

And right on cue, the Office of Civil Rights pointed out that, you know, Seattle serves all residents, whether they are U.S. citizens or not – though officials did not say whether anyone bothered to ask the taxpayers of Seattle whether they truly want to “serve” those who are not in their city legally.

Banning Brown

I can’t help but wonder if the city is going to ban the use of the word brown in general? This makes me wonder if Seattle were to have an interruption of power delivery to its utility customers, what would they be permitted to call it? Certainly, we could no longer call the event a “brown out.”Additionally, what will Seattle now call a high pollution day, because they certainly can’t refer to the air pollution as a

Downtown Freddie Brown
“brown cloud.”

The former Seattle Supersonics NBA basketball team once had one of the best pure long distance jump shooters in the game. Unfortunately, Seattle fans used to refer to him as “Downtown” Freddie Brown. We certainly can’t talk about him anymore.

This practice could put UPS out of business in Seattle because if we “Let Brown Do It,” Bronstein would accuse people of exploiting immigrant labor.

What seems like a ridiculous policy by the city of Seattle, is actually very important. We live in country where administrative bureaucrats, not elected officials decide on public policy without any oversight.

Free Speech Cannot Be Abridged

What Elliott Bronstein does not realize is that speech cannot be banned in public settings merely because it creates an offensive or hostile environment (See DeJohn v. Temple University, 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 200 and Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995)) or “emotionally” harms a listener (see McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands (3d Cir. 2010)), but let’s not confuse the city of Seattle with the facts.

In the finality of this case, this situation represents how far a group of administrative bureaucrats are willing to go to justify amnesty for illegal aliens.

Whether we are talking about amnesty for illegal aliens or the imposition of Sharia Law by our president, our courts and our legislatures in places like “Dearbornistan”, Michigan, or in Oklahoma, or even in Florida, American legal residents are not being allowed to have a voice in running their country and soon it is going to be illegal to write about these issues or speak of them in public.


As citizens of the America middle class, the only right that you have left is to pay the taxes for the Obama phone crowd who don’t work. In fact, half the country does not work and you and I are paying to support them. Soon our welfare rolls will swell with millions of illegal aliens going on welfare. And the only lunch that the middle class “citizens” will be able to afford to eat, with the resulting loss of jobs, will be a brown bag lunch. It’s just that you “residents” will not be able to call it that.

Bronstein said in an interview with KOMO the term “brown” has a “sordid history”. So does unwarranted censorship of legitimate free speech.

8 thoughts on “Criminalizing the First Amendment On Behalf of Illegal Aliens”

  • Don UberAugust 13, 2013 at 6:02 am

    I may be slightly off the mark but don’t city and state government have the right to make almost any law they choose and doesn’t the federal government has the right to determine if those laws are constitutional? Yea, I think that’s how it still works. Seems like all is well in America to me.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Remember when this WAS AMERICA?

  • EdAugust 13, 2013 at 6:50 am

    better idea … Mr Bronstein, you’re fired! you lack the knowledge to assess and carry out your job responsibilities. you trample on the God given rights of the People of Washington. you push forward an agenda of a foreign people before those of whom you should be serving! if you wish to serve foreigners then go get your paycheck from them!

  • Hare Krishna ZombieAugust 13, 2013 at 8:58 am

    We need to ban “White Christmas” the term and the song. Make it a 3 strikes law. . . Oh wait, that might offend a criminal.

  • GuyAugust 13, 2013 at 10:07 am

    These administrative rulings only apply to those who are subject to the administration i.e., those in the employ of said, not the people. Study the Administrative Procedures Act and learn the truth behind this facade of “government”.

  • JeremyAugust 13, 2013 at 10:33 am

    Bronstein… Hmmm.
    Same name as Lev Bronstein aka Leon Trotsky.
    Lenin and Trotsky made their first act of power to be the ban of free speech in Soviet Russia. Communism never changes its Modus Operandi, nor is it implemented by anyone other than “The Tribe.”

  • Eileen K.August 13, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    This is a gross violation of the First Amendment, period. This is the United States of America, not the United Soviet States of America. Therefore, so long as the speech doesn’t contain any threats of violence, nor shouts of “Fire!” made in crowded establishments to create panic, the First Amendment applies.
    What you posted in your comment, Jeremy, is spot on. Indeed, their first act of power was to restrict free speech in Russia and impose the death penalty for “anti-Semitism”.

  • RogAugust 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm

Poor Mr. Bronstein will have to change his name. At least, if the name means “dwellar near a brown stone” (such as a boundary marker), as an internet search mentions. Any relation to Lev Bronstein, the birth name of Leon Trotsky? In the Bolshevik paradise of Seattle.

“when you reject truth you place yourself in judgment”….Wayne Martin