Saturday, May 15, 2010
9-11 Families Oppose Building Mosque Near Ground Zero
Fox News reports that outraged "family members and community groups are accusing a Muslim group of trying to rewrite history with its plans to build a 13-story mosque and cultural center just two blocks from Ground Zero, where Islamic extremists flew two planes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001... The 13-story mosque and cultural center will be built on the site of a four-story building that was a Burlington Coat Factory retail store until 9/11, when part of a plane's landing gear crashed through the roof. The building, which will be razed, currently houses a mosque."
"This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the attack on the Pentagon that day.
"I think that it is incredibly insensitive and audacious really for them to build a mosque, not only on that site, but to do it specifically so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened," said Burlingame, who is co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
Tweet
O'Reilly vs. Beck On Miranda Rights For American Islamoterrorists
To view the debate visti http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdqGuzIrVr.
I sympathize with Beck's point that terrorists like the attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad should be afforded Miranda rights because he is an American citizen, that no American citizen should have less rights than any other American citizen.
The point that I think goes ignored in this whole debate is that Miranda rights are not actually a right in the historical Constitution as understood by its original meaning, but rather it is a right created by the Supreme Court in their famous 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. The dissent of Justice Byron White in that case expressly pointed out that the right created had no basis in American constitutional history. He opened his dissenting opinion by pointing out that "the proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with White, though later in his career he abandoned his opposition to the Miranda right on the basis that it had already become deeply embedded in America's law enforcement culture. When Miranda v. Arizona came before the Supreme Court, however, there was not major terrorist threats to the United States. What they largely must have had in mind were typical individual criminal defendants, from the less serious crimes to the most serious offenses, but not those who train with a foreign enemy or sympathize with a foreign ideology and intend to commit acts of mass murder on our soil as acts of war against our country. The Miranda right does in fact have a public safety exception, but that exception is so narrowly interpreted and applied as to be practically meaningless. It is not, therefore, outlandish to suggest that in light of the radical Islamic terrorist threat that these rights should perhaps be reexamined, that those that are enemy combatants should not be afforded this right. To suggest that enemy combatants should not have Miranda rights is not out of line with the Constitution as originally understood and may in fact make sense in light of the present day threats from Islamoterrorism that did not exist when the Supreme Court first created the right.
Tweet
Finally A Jewish Group, The Simon Weisenthal Center, Denounces Comparisons Of Arizona's Immigration Law To Nazism
The Sacramento Bee reports that a "major Jewish rights group has denounced comparisons of Arizona's new immigration law to Nazi Germany and the persecution that led to the Holocaust. The Simon Wiesenthal Center's criticism on Friday follows Nazi comparisons made by a Los Angeles City Council member and the head of the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Wiesenthal Associate Dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper says the Los Angeles-based Holocaust studies center opposes the law but says the Nazi comparison is irresponsible. This week Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz likened the law to the beginnings of Nazi Germany when Jews were singled out for persecution. Last month, Cardinal Roger Mahony said the law encourages people to turn on each other in Nazi- and Soviet-style repression."
“The Wiesenthal Center along with many other Americans expressed our opposition to the language of the Arizona immigration bill but it is inappropriate and irresponsible to link the bill to the actions of Nazi Germany,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the center, said in a statement. “In a democracy, there is no need to demonize opponents, even when they are mistaken, to those whose actions led to history's most notorious crime."
Tweet
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Attorney General Holder Admits To Not Having Read The Short Arizona Immigration Law That He Has Harshly Criticized
The Washington Times reports that "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television." The attorney general is going around criticizing a law he has not even read? This is unbelievable incompetence that shows he is a political hack first and the top legal officer in our nation second. It is inexcusable for the attorney general to criticize a law passed by the legislature of Arizona on the basis only of newspapers and television. The law is not thousands of pages of Obama legislation that one could not possibly read or understand, but a short piece of legislation that is relatively simple. In fact, the controversial provisions of the law take up about one page. Yet he is criticizing the law based on what he saw on MSNBC or the pages of the New York Times? Are you kidding me?
Based on television and newspapers alone Holder took to the media to attack the law that Arizona passed and that all polls show a strong majority of Americans nationwide support. As the Washington Times reports, this "weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's 'Meet the Press' program that the Arizona law 'has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.' He had earlier called the law's passage 'unfortunate,' and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government."
Texas Republican Ted Poe told the attorney general in a House hearing that it's "hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law."
The facts are that Arizona's law does not go beyond federal law, it simply allows local police only upon a lawful stop, arrest, or detention to ask for proof of citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is undocumented. The law is not unconstitutional because it easily and constitutionally coexists with federal law, it does not contradict it. Supreme Court precedent on federal conflict preemption of state laws provides a deference to the state acting in accordance with its traditional police powers including the health, welfare, and morals of the citizens of the state. This is the case unless it is the clear and manifest intention of Congress to invalidate the state law through Article VI's Supremacy Clause that Supreme Court jurisprudence has stated provides the basis for preemption. Further, the burden is upon the party challenging the state law to show that the state law cannot constitutionally coexist with the federal one. A fair reading of the law would show that is simply not possible. The law even includes express provisions banning racial profiling and stating that all civil rights legislation are applicable.
I have no problem with a vigorous debate regarding an important policy and legal issue like immigration. It is what America is and has always been about. I think laymen should argue the merits and not opine on constitutionality without understanding what is involved in that discussion. And I think that elected officials or those in positions like Eric Holder should not be forming their opinions on issues of constitutionality and legality solely based on what they read in a newspaper or saw on some television program.
Tweet
Supreme Court Rules Mojave Cross Can Stay, And Then The Cross Is Stolen
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the theft and "removal of a cross-shaped veterans’ memorial from the Mojave Desert has angered veterans’ groups and spurred calls for its immediate restoration. The cross, first constructed at the remote site in 1934 as a memorial to WWI veterans, has been the subject of a nearly decade-long legal fight over the constitutionality of a religious symbol on public lands, and had just two weeks ago been cleared to stand by the US Supreme Court. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US (VFW) has vowed to catch the people who stole the cross, offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of those behind the cross’s removal. 'This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families,' said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell, Sr. in a statement. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the US Supreme Court on April 28, overturned an earlier federal court ruling that prohibited Congress from transferring public land around the cross to private owners, thus eliminating any perception of government-endorsement of religion. The court battle had gone on for several years as the memorial had remained covered, first with brown canvas, then with plywood." Tweet
Swedish University To Attacked Mohammed Cartoonist: You're No Longer Welcome Here
The Christian Science Monitor reports that "Swedish cartoon artist Lars Vilks, who became the target of an alleged international murder plot for his 2007 cartoons of Mohammed as a dog, again angered Muslims Tuesday by showing an Iranian film that depicts the Prophet entering a gay bar. When Mr. Vilks showed a scene from the film at Uppsala University in Sweden, a protester charged the dais and hit him, breaking his glasses. Police were forced to detain or pepper-spray some unruly members of the crowd as other protesters yelled 'Allahu Akbar' – 'God is great.' For Mr. Vilks, who has booby-trapped his own house and says he sleeps with an ax beside his bed, the right to unfettered speech – regardless of whether it offends Muslims – is a point of principle. "This must be carried through. You cannot allow it to be stopped," he told the Associated Press, saying he wouldn't hesitate to give the address again. But the university apparently disagrees. Officials said they would 'not likely' invite Vilks again because of the incident. In some quarters, the university's reponse is adding to concerns that violence and threats from some members of the Muslim community are effectively muzzling free speech."
The Christian Science Monitor then chronicles recent censorship as a result of Islamic intimidation, threats, and violence:
"Last month, Comedy Central edited a 'South Park' episode showing Mohammed in a bear suit in response to veiled threats by a New York-based Muslim group. Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Museum of Art pulled a collection of art of Mohammed to avoid offending Muslims, who believe that the depiction of any of the prophets is a form of idolatry. And Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen says that Yale University Press prohibited her from using several 2005 Danish newspaper caricatures depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head in her book 'The Cartoons That Shook the World.'"
"When it comes to depicting the Prophet, this has nothing to do with social issues or integration," says Professor Klausen. "This is about a political movement by sectarian groups where [depicting Mohammed] has now become a primary trigger for political contention. The university pretty much told [Vilks] to shut up and go talk somewhere else, and I find that reaction very dangerous and problematic. It means that the extremists have achieved what they wanted."
Tweet
Elena Kagan On Orrin Hatch's Gun: "It's Beautiful. It's Gorgeous"
This is how you know Elena Kagan really wants the job and will say whatever it takes to get on the Supreme Court:
Tweet
Attorney General Holder Refuses To Say That "Radical Islam" Is A Cause Of Islamic Terrorism
This is political correctness gone mad, and just thinking that this man is the United States Attorney General is a scary thought. The mindset of the current American leadership as seen in this video clip displays a dangerous level of naivete:
Tweet
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
L.A. City Council Boycotts Arizona Over Immigration Law And Councilman Koretz Compares Arizona To Nazis
MSNBC reports that "Los Angeles on Wednesday became the largest city yet to boycott Arizona over its tough new law targeting illegal immigration in a move that likely will affect some $8 million in contracts with the state. The City Council voted 13-1 to bar Los Angeles from conducting business with Arizona unless the law is repealed. The vote followed an emotional council discussion during which many members noted that their ancestors were U.S. immigrants. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa already has said he would approve the boycott."
Councilman Paul Koretz compared Arizona's law to "the very beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany."
Tweet
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Robert J. Samuelson: "What We're Seeing In Greece Is The Death Spiral Of The Welfare State."
To read the article in the Washington Post visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050902443.html. Tweet
Joe Scarborough Responds Valerie Jarrett "Setting The Record Straight" About Elena Kagan By Reading Elena Kagan's Own Words
You can either believe an Obama mouthpiece or the nominee's own words:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
TweetIsraeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman: North Korea Is Shipping Syria WMDs
The AFP reports that "Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday accused nuclear power North Korea of supplying Syria with weapons of mass destruction. Lieberman's office quoted him as telling Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at a meeting in Tokyo that such activity threatened to destabilise east Asia as well as the Middle East... In evidence he cited the December 2009 seizure at Bangkok airport of an illicit North Korean arms shipment which US intelligence said was bound for an unnamed Middle East country. Lieberman said Syria intended to pass the weapons on to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia and to the Islamic Hamas movement, which rules Gaza and has its political headquarters in Damascus. Thai officials at the time said that acting on a tipoff from Washington they confiscated about 30 tonnes of missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons when the North Korean plane landed for refuelling in Bangkok. Israel has accused North Korea in the past of transferring nuclear technology to Syria, which is technically in a state of war with the neighbouring Jewish state, although the two last fought openly in 1973. Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported in 2007 that Israel seized North Korean nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site in Syria and then destroyed the site in an air attack. Syria denied the report. The communist regime in North Korea has denied collaborating on nuclear activity with Syria, while Israel has maintained an official silence on the reported September 2007 raid and strike."
"This cooperation endangers stability in both southeast Asia and also in the Middle East and is against all the accepted norms in the international arena," Lieberman was quoted as telling Hatoyama.
Tweet
VP Joe Biden Defends Kagan's Ban Against Military Recruiters At Harvard: "She Was Right"
And unlike Kagan, a unanimous Supreme Court must have been wrong:
Tweet
Monday, May 10, 2010
Obama: "Information Becomes A Distraction... A Form Of Entertainment... Rather Than The Means Of Epancipation"
No, that is not a typo. To see the video for yourself visit http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/09/obama_criticizes_new_media_ipads_rumors.html. Tweet
Senator Jim Inhofe Explains Why He Is Standing Against The Appointment Of Elena Kagan To The Supreme Court
Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe announced his opposition to Solicitor General Elena Kagan filling the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens.
“As with her nomination to serve as Solicitor General, I remain concerned about Elena Kagan’s record,” Inhofe said. “Now as a nominee to the Supreme Court, her lack of judicial experience and her interpretation of the Constitution also play an important role in my decision to once again oppose her nomination. The position for which she has been nominated has lifetime tenure, and it is concerning that the President has placed such trust in a nominee that has not been properly vetted through a judicial career, having worked mostly in academia and never before as a judge.
“While her service as the Dean of Harvard Law School is an impressive credential, decisions she made in that role demonstrated poor judgment. While there, she banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus, an issue very important to me. She took the issue even further when she joined with other law school officials in a lawsuit to overturn the Solomon amendment, which was adopted by Congress to ensure that schools could not deny military recruiters access to college campuses. Claiming the Solomon Amendment was ‘immoral,’ she filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R opposing the Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against her position and affirmed that the Solomon Amendment was constitutional.
“I am also concerned about the seeming contempt she has demonstrated in her comments about the Senate confirmation process as well as her lack of impartiality when it comes to those who disagree with her position.”
Tweet
Senator Barrasso: I Am Going To Ask Kagan About The Constitutionality Of The Obamacare Individual Mandate
The answer: "I can't answer that question, Senator, as it is an issue that might appear before me on the Supreme Court." And it is this answer along with the general incentive to evade rather than discuss that makes the whole nomination process a joke and waste of time.
Tweet
Congressman Paul Ryan: EU Debt Crisis Could Come To The US
To watch for yourself visit http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6USU8z8z. Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)