OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Nov. 3, 2010 — On Thursday, November 4, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) will hold a news conference with religious and civil rights leaders in the State Capitol Building to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-Islam ballot measure (State Question 755) passed in yesterday’s election.The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.
In the post at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Pastorius makes this very important point:
Let us be clear, it is not simply that they are religious zealots. Sharia law is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries. When a person, or a group of people advocate for the replacement of our system of law with that of another country, that is called Sedition.
In effect, CAIR is advocating the subversion of our law of the land, the United States Constitution.
Read more about CAIR's real agenda HERE at Anti-CAIR. The information at that site has been available for years, yet our government continues to forge ties with CAIR. Why, why, why?
(crossposted from THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, where I'm privileged to have access to posting)
Note the ranting about the "global struggle against imperialism and capitalism." Much more leftist ranting below from Sanchee High School's history teacher Ron Gochez, paid on the taxpayers' dime:
The above consumer of taxpayer dollars spoke at the UCLA La Raza rally.
UPDATE (RELIAPUNDIT) FROM DONALD DOUGLAS/AMERICAN POWER:
We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. It’s about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism… At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement… Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.
Well, we find more on Ron Gochez with a little digging.
In Congressman Phil Hare's own words, when it comes to ObamaKare “I don’t worry about the Constitution...":
Democratic Congressman Phil Hare represents Illinois's 17th congressional district. He took office in January 2007 and at that point took the following oath:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Obviously, Hare doesn't give a hoot about the oath he took. Did he have his fingers crossed behind his back, or what?
This off hand comment is not some GOOF. This is the offhand, unguarded REAL OPERATING FEELING OF RIGHTNESS AND ENTITLEMENT these utter morons work with, and are elected to do.
This guy is not from some downtown, left wing district ...this is farm country and FOLKS WILL DRIVE THIS MORON OUT,,,
IF THEY CARE
Do they?
In my view, now that Hare has decided to disregard the Constitution, he should be drummed out of office and into court for oath breaking and, possibly, treason. Now.
In the meantime, as we await the November 2010 elections, each and all the member of Congress as well as the White House need this reminder drummed into their thick skulls:
"Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34
Note to family and friends: Updates on Mr. AOW are being added to this post.
Added commentary is mine (The Merry Widow) Bill forces citizens to list guns on taxes? Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records' Posted: October 12, 2009 10:30 pm Eastern
A firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.
But while the bill implements sweeping gun-control measures – including one that would prohibit citizens from owning a gun without a license – the income tax provision doesn't exist. Praise be to GOD for SMALL favors! The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.
If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license. Wonder how much THAT would cost, how many classes and psych evaluations would be required(and paid for)? Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including the following information:
1) current passport-sized photo
2) name, address, date and birthplace
3) any other name the applicant has used
4) a clear thumbprint
5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by federal or state law from obtaining a firearm
6) certification that the applicant will keep the firearm safely stored and out of the possession of minors What they consider safely stored and what I consider safely stored would most certainly clash! But then, I spanked my 2 when they were little... 7) certificate showing applicant has passed a written firearms examination on the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of forearms owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate" How many bloody hoops can you jump through in 1 go? 8) authorization to release "to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant" I would probably be disqualified, since I have endogenous depression...even though I'm NOT suicidal. 9) the date on which the application was submitted
10) applicant signature
The bill makes it illegal for "any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm [any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques] to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector" without verifying that the transferee has a valid license. However, this requirement does not apply to "infrequent transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, interstate succession or other means by an individual to a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual, or to any loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other." mutter...mutter...mutter...how very generous of them...:spit: Licensed dealers would be required submit to the attorney general or appropriate state authorities the following information within 14 days of a transfer of a qualifying firearm: 1) manufacturer, 2) model name or number 3) serial number 4) date of transfer 5) number of the transferee's valid firearm license 6) name and address of person who transferred the firearm. And will we have to be TATTOOED with the above information? Within nine months of the bill's passage, the attorney general would be required to establish and maintain a federal system to track sales, including all of the identifying information submitted during a transfer of ownership. Time for the birth of a new bureaucracy. Under H.B. 45, it would be illegal to fail to report lost or stolen firearms or to fail to report change of address within 60 days of the change. Wonder about any snowbirds who are down here for the winter? If they are robbed while they are out of town for 3-4 months? To ensure compliance with the act, the attorney general would be authorized, during regular business hours, to "enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held." Busybodies... The act does not apply to governmental authorities. Heck no! Can't let us interfere with the governmental abuse of powers...
"This bill validates the concerns of sportsmen and gun owners about what … Congress and administration portend for Second Amendment rights," Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice-president/general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told ESPN Outdoors.
Keane continued, "The U.S. Supreme Court definitively said in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment provides individual civil rights to law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. (They don't have to be in a militia to own and keep guns.) This bill, however, would treat those citizens who exercise their civil liberties like criminals."
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons told ESPN the bill focuses primarily on guns as instruments as crime instead of penalizing the people who commit criminal acts. She said, under the bill, law-abiding citizens might become violators of the law. Too right, punish the tool, not the tool user, or misuser! "Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible," she said. "For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5 year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."
She also condemned the licensing requirements in the bill.
"Any kind of bill that would require photographing and fingerprinting for simple possession of a firearm is fundamentally different in opinion from that which the NRA holds," she said. "Any law should target the criminal element, but this law would simply further burden law-abiding people." I do not need anymore "help", thank you! The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and does not have a single co-sponsor, leading many to believe passage is highly unlikely. Praise be to GOD for that! Keane said the legislation is far too far-reaching and repressive to become law.
"If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010)," he said. "The leadership in the House knows that." Politics and politicians! In April, a group of more than 450 gun-rights advocates sent a letter signed by more than 3,000 people to lawmakers in condemnation of H.R. 45.
"We are tired of our rights being denigrated and destroyed," it said. "[A]ny politician who votes for this bill or any bill of this type will be noted, and voted against when they come up for re-election."
The letter noted that more than 200,000 existing gun laws "do nothing to stop or curtail criminals." It states that history and statistics both prove that such bills are destructive to the citizenry.
"If this bills' purpose is to truly 'protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death' then the Congress should realize that the only threats to the public are from a criminal element that this bill … will not address, and from the government itself." BINGO! We need to fear our government...it is attempting to scarf up everything that makes us Americans. And make us into Amerikans...I AM NOT A SLAVE! "With guns, we are 'citizens,'" the letter concludes. "Without them, we are 'subjects.'" I am a subject of GOD Almighty, not human beings!
This is one of my longer posts, so settle in for a lengthy read as I connect the dots. This post will stay here several days as I have a busy week ahead.
(graphic courtesy of GM's Place - disseminate freely)
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
[...]
Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
As one who always reads Pearlstein's columns, which typically often sound financial advice, I have to say that I'm astounded as the position he has taken in this essay.
Those with concerns about ObamaCare are "political terrorists"? Perhaps Pearlstein is a covert disciple of Cass Suntein and Zephyr Teachout. --------- On July 12, 2009, I posted the following about Cass Sunstein:
Based on his own words and statements of intent, Cass Sunstein, appointed to the shadowy post of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will likely have his eye on the Internet, particularly on us bloggers:
When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
[...]
Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.
Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
[...]
"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.
He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.
Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.
Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.
Such suppression of First Amendment rights would be challenged in courts of law, of course. However, the article points out the following disturbing reality:
How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court....
Here is a some additional information about Cass Sunstein:
At the time of my July 2009 posting about Cass Suntein's plans, RaDena commented as follows:
They won't be able to do it, Always, because it will backfire on the far left. They spew more vitriol than anyone...They can't suppress only conservatives and as they can't do anything else except throw around insults they'd be affected by this much worse than you or I would. Americans are not going to tolerate that much of a double standard... at least I hope not!
Hmmmm.... And now we have the White House snitch program and all sorts of trouble at town halls (See recent posts at Gateway Pundit). How things have changed in less than a month from that posting about Sunstein! We shouldn't be surprised at change, of course: the Whitehouse.gov video, which supposedly "debunked" the idea that Obama is pro single-payer, came of out the White House Office of Information, headed by Cass Sunstein. How many of the other videos and documents coming out of the White House bear the mark of Sunstein? A lot of them, I'm sure.
Now, about Zephyr Teachout.
Back on May 31, 2009, I published a post entitled "Are BHO and Company Keeping a List?" at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
How long do we have before we lose the Internet?
I direct you to this column by George F. Will. Complete essay, which is quite long but important for us to discuss, I think:
For several decades, most of the ingenuity that liberal academics have invested in First Amendment analysis has aimed to justify limiting the core activity that the amendment was written to protect -- political speech. These analyses treat free speech as not an inherent good but as a merely instrumental good, something justified by serving other ends -- therefore something to be balanced against, and abridged to advance, other goods.
The good for which Zephyr Teachout would regulate speech is combating corruption, which, as she understands it, encompasses most of contemporary politics. A visiting law professor at Duke, writing in the Cornell Law Review ("The Anti-Corruption Principle"), she makesan astonishingly far-reaching argument for emancipating government from First Amendment restrictions on its powers to regulate political speech -- speech about the government's composition and conduct.
Hitherto, most arguments for such emancipation -- for McCain-Feingold and other measures regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech -- have rested on the supposed need to curb corruption or the "appearance" thereof, with corruption understood as quid pro quo transactions, political favors exchanged for financial favors. But bribery has long been criminalized, and courts are wary about allowing the criminalizing of the constant transactions of mutual support between politicians and factions.
Teachout's capacious definition of corruption includes even an unseemly "attitude" of citizens as well as officeholders "toward public service." She says that the Framers thought limiting corruption was their "primary task." Therefore the "anti-corruption principle" should have "as much weight" as the First Amendment, giving Congress considerable "leeway" to regulate the political "process," which is mostly speech. What Teachout disparagingly calls "the apotheosis of speech" and "the sanctified meme of 'free speech' " is, she says, "a serious problem" requiring a rethinking of "the proper relationship of speech to self-serving public actors."
She advocates, as proponents of an elastic Constitution often do, an "evolving standard," this time a standard about how we define, measure and condemn "self-serving" behavior, aka corruption. This standard might license Congress to restrict speech in order to combat:
"Unequal access" to the political process; "unfair deployment of wealth"; "undue influence" by this or that group; speech that is "distorting" or lacks "proportionality" or results in "drowned voices" or a "passive" or "dispirited" public or that causes a "loss of political integrity" or creates "moral failings for members of Congress." Such speech might not be constitutionally protected if we properly "refine the meaning of the privilege of political speech."
So, political speech is not a right but a privilege, something granted by governmentwhen government deems it consistent with what Teachout calls the "equally important" anti-corruption principle. Imagine the "self-serving" uses incumbent legislators might have for the terms in the paragraph above as reasons for restricting political speech.
The word "corruption" or some permutation of it occurs 58 times in the 85 essays that are the Federalist Papers. James Madison wrote not only many of the papers but also this: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." He saw no conflict between that proscription and efforts to minimize corruption. He and other Framers considered corruption a vice requiring constant vigilance precisely because it is inextricably entwined with a virtue, America's vast scope -- constitutionally protected scope -- for self-interested behavior, including political speech.
Congressional Democrats want to kill a small voucher program that gave some mostly poor and minority students alternatives to the District of Columbia's failing public schools, and the Obama administration spent additional billions to avoid a declaration of bankruptcy by General Motors. Some people think both decisions represented disinterested assessments of the public good. Others think the decisions represented obeisance by Democrats to the teachers and autoworkers unions, respectively. If the decisions were such obeisance, they were, by Teachout's standards, corrupt.
If corruption is as ubiquitous as Teachout's standard ("self-serving" behavior) says, then reasons for restricting political speech also are ubiquitous. Under today's regulatory and redistributionist government, which is busily allocating wealth and opportunity, politics frequently "appears" to many people "self-serving." It will not, however, be prettified by regulating speech.
If Teachout considers the politics produced by today's gargantuan government unlovely, she should not try to further enlarge the government by empowering it to comprehensively regulate speech about government. Instead, she should join the movement to restrain government's incessant regulating and redistributing transactions on behalf of myriad factions -- transactions that create more and more clamorous factions. The movement is called conservatism.
If political speech becomes a privilege, we are doomed!
Are you connecting the dots in the same way that I am?
Right now, with union thugs moving in on town hall meetings, we are seeing political speech becoming a privilege.
Right now, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are painting constituents voicing questions and dissent as "extremists." Watch a few broadcasts on MSNBC to get the drift, but be sure to take your antacids or a stiff drink first. We even have Nancy Pelosi saying that dissenters to ObamaCare are carrying swastikas and deceptive photos circulating. How long before we hear that portrayal as "Angry town hall attendees are political terrorists"? And remember the ideology which drives this administration; Sunstein and Teachout make that ideology clear even though we don't hear their names front and center.
Losing our freedom of speech and even our ability to freely communicate with our elected public servants can't happen in America? Think again.
After all, who would have said a year ago that we'd be seeing these town halls, overt and covert, erupting as they have?
And could you get away with putting this sign in your yard and have your home still remain safe? Could you put this bumper-sticker version on your car and not have your car vandalized? I think that we've already lost those freedoms.
I submit that WE THE PEOPLE are being terrorized by this arrogant, power-grabbing administration and its maniacal devotees, who want us to become WE THE SHEEPLE:
Of course, not all the people are willing to be sheeple (hat tip to Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):
Dedicated to all those who just love Code Pink.... Excerpt from this article from WorldNetDaily on September 16, 2007:
Muslim terrorist leaders are "thankful" for the efforts of activist and congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan, stating in a new book [Info about the book is HERE] Sheehan's anti-Iraq war activities and her statements against President Bush "give us hope" the U.S. will change its Mideast policies.
"You [Sheehan] give us hope and you show us that there are different Americans than those whom we know," stated Ramadan Adassi, chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the West Bank's Anskar Refugee Camp.
"This sincere woman says what we've been saying all these last years – Saddam never threatened America or its security. Now Iraq is being decimated and America is losing. Voices like Sheehan's show things can change," said Adassi.
[...]
Terrorist: 'I thank Sheehan from the deep of my heart'
Palestinian terrorist leaders were elated to hear Sheehan blamed the Iraq war on Israel, according to Klein.
In a letter to ABC News' "Nightline" published on the Internet, Sheehan wrote: "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a neo-con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel."
Responding in "Schmoozing," Ala Senakreh, overall West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, stated:
"I agree with her completely and thank her from deep in my heart when she dares to tell the Americans that their children are killed for the interests of Israel.
"The American security has nothing to do with the atrocities in Iraq and in Palestine. I tell this noble mother that American soldiers and Israeli soldiers receive common training and share their experience in how to turn these atrocities even more cruel. You are losing your sons not for a better life for you, but for Israeli interests," stated Senakreh.
Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, urged Americans to listen to Sheehan.
"I hope that all the Americans will understand what this great mother understood. We hope you do not consider this mother as a humanitarian case who speaks from her own pain, because she is saying the truth. I hope you will take her as a good example."...
Nice, huh? A bunch of moonbats take to the streets of our nation's capital and embolden the enemy, giving them "hope." By the way, whatever happened to her promise last May to cease her anti-war activities?
[Hat-tip to Raven for alerting me to the above article]
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
