Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts

Monday, August 16, 2010

Muslim Radicals DISRESPECT of Ground Zero + More

Muslim Radicals DISRESPECT of Ground Zero (or Lie Softly But Carry a Big Schitck)  ---ed

The Patriot Post  Brief

The Foundation

"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" --Benjamin Franklin

Editor's Note

Last week, the staff of The Patriot Post took an "August recess" to regroup before the hectic election season. However, many readers did not receive our recess notice because The Patriot was erroneously placed on a junk mail list used by several major Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It was a technical issue, not a political one, and we believe it to be resolved. We're back in full swing, with many thanks to the large chorus of readers who let us know that you missed us.

Culture

"A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated. ... Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the [near-Ground Zero] mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists? An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed. ... America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero. Build it anywhere but there." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

Faith & Family

"The word 'ban' is negative. Like 'taboo,' the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior. That's why the media describe California's Proposition 8 constitutional marriage law as a 'ban,' not the codification of something positive and timeless. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been misreported for years as the 'federal ban on gay marriage.' ... The media have turned the meaning of marriage on its head. Calling the law a 'ban' says its only purpose is to discriminate against homosexuals. By this reasoning, any law or policy that defines something is a 'ban.' But a license to practice law or medicine is not a 'ban' on those without law or medical degrees. It is recognition of the holder's qualifications. A state's requirements for a driver's license are not a 'ban' on the underaged or the untrained. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. ... Just because homosexual activists have led the assault is not an excuse to pretend that marriage has only the purpose of excluding them. ... The next time you see someone cite the 'ban on gay marriage,' it's the work of radical cultural activists -- or someone dancing to their tune." --author Robert Knight

For the Record

"After 50 years of being inundated with stories of white racism, and being taught in college that in this white-dominated society, only a white can be a racist, the American public has been properly brainwashed into accepting the otherwise incredible: A black man murdered eight white people at his place of work because they were white, and the media story is about the murderer's alleged experiences of racism. ... Just as leading liberals would not ascribe Islamist motives -- until there was no possibility of denying them -- to recent Muslim attacks on Americans, the liberal media, i.e., almost all news media in America, does not brand these Connecticut murders for what they are: racist. That is why [the murderer, Omar] Thornton told the 9-1-1 operator, 'I wish I could have gotten more of the people (i.e., whites).' We are repeatedly told by liberal whites and blacks that America needs an honest dialogue on race. Needless to say, they don't mean it because the moment a white or black says anything critical of black behavior, he is labeled racist or Uncle Tom. So most non-liberal whites and blacks just keep quiet. One result is this morally upside-down reporting of the murders in Connecticut." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

Government

"I'm getting tired of Alan Greenspan. First, the former Federal Reserve chairman blamed an allegedly unregulated free market for the housing and financial debacle. Now he favors repealing the Bush-era tax cuts. This has a certain sad irony. Recall that Greenspan once was an associate of Ayn Rand, the philosophical novelist who provided a moral defense of the free market, or as she put it, the separation of state and economy. Greenspan even contributed three essays to Rand's book 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' -- one for the gold standard, one against antitrust laws, and one against government consumer protection. ... But now Greenspan, going beyond what even President Obama favors, calls on Congress to let the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts expire -- not just for upper-income people but for everyone. 'I'm in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money....' He says he supported the 2001 cuts because of pending budget surpluses, but now that huge deficits loom, new revenues are needed. Why? ... The deficit has grown not because we are undertaxed but because government overspends. ... [T]he stupidest thing said about tax cuts is the often-repeated claim that 'they ought to be paid for.' How absurd! Tax cuts merely let people keep money they rightfully own. It's government programs, not tax cuts, that must be paid for. The tax-hungry politicians' demand that cuts be 'paid for' implies the federal budget isn't $3 trillion, but $15 trillion -- the whole GDP -- with anything mercifully left in our pockets being some form of government spending. How monstrous! If cutting taxes leaves less money for government programs, the answer is simple: Ax the programs!" --columnist John Stossel


Liberty

"[T]he gap between the consciousness of 'we socialists' and 'we the people' can be seen in the assertion by some liberals recently that the president's collapse in the polls is part of this current reaction to events is but a passing thing. If they think that, they understand nothing of the forces they have unleashed by their tragically imprudent effort to fundamentally transform our country. In 1856, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, in analyzing the causes of his country's revolution, observed, 'Evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested.' A year ago, it seemed possible that a majority of Americans -- rattled by economic collapse and under the sway of a popular, charismatic president -- might buy in to plans to fundamentally transform America away from liberty, prosperity and greatness and toward security and a massive, protective state. ... But as the first details of the transformation were revealed to the nation -- in Obamacare, the stimulus, bailouts, nationalizations and running roughshod over the Constitution -- it became clear that the price for security turned out to be our birthright of liberty. Americans were not that rattled. Now that we who cling to our liberty know we are a majority -- and potentially a very large majority -- we are aroused to the defense of our ancient rights -- and we will not slacken in our efforts until that repulsive plan for transformation has been expurgated from the body politic...." --columnist Tony Blankley

The Gipper

"America is presented with the clearest political choice of half a century. The distinction between our two parties and the different philosophy of our political opponents are at the heart of this campaign and America's future. ... The choices this year are not just between two different personalities or between two political parties. They're between two different visions of the future, two fundamentally different ways of governing -- their government of pessimism, fear, and limits, or ours of hope, confidence, and growth. Their government sees people only as members of groups; ours serves all the people of America as individuals. Theirs lives in the past, seeking to apply the old and failed policies to an era that has passed them by. Ours learns from the past and strives to change by boldly charting a new course for the future. Theirs lives by promises, the bigger, the better. We offer proven, workable answers." --Ronald Reagan

Political Futures

"The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the 'economic collapse.' Oh yes, that was a beaut. The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark. But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries. ... They build nothing, produce nothing, create nothing, invent nothing. They steal. They demand. They demoralize. They are destroyers. What will October's Surprise be?" --columnist Pamela Geller

Reader Comments

"Dear Mark, I think your implementation of the August recess for your staff is great. Enjoy your time off and keep up the good work." --Joyce

"I just saw the note about 'closing up shop' and giving the staff some time for R & R. What a blessing! Enjoy the time with your families, and come back prepared to provide us with the truth (sadly, there are too few outlets willing to publish it, especially if it lacks in popularity with 'the anointed one'!) God bless!" --Paul

"Received this year's copy of 'Essential Liberty' which means I will give it to some deserving recipient. So appreciate your work, the team and The Patriot Post." --Doug

The Last Word

"It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of 'malaise' at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality. Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences. ... The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a 'tingling sensation' when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. ... The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer -- a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation." --columnist Fouad Ajami

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post



Sunday, August 15, 2010

American Muslim Organization Says President Obama is Wrong

AIFD
American Islamic Forum for Democracy

STATEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PHOENIX (August 15, 2010) - Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy issued the following statement regarding remarks from President Obama on the proposed mosque and Islamic Center at Ground Zero:

"As an American Muslim whose family fled persecution in Syria and as someone who has stood in the face of some resistance to the building of many of our houses of worship in the U.S., I fully understand the value of standing for religious freedom in America. But President Obama's statement about the Ground Zero mosque at last night's White House Iftar dinner is the latest example of political correctness gone awry.

The President commented that:
"
Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America."


Yes, Mr. President, this is America and you have fundamentally misunderstood the stakes in this discussion and the sentiments of the American people. Instead, you have focused on the very issue that the Islamist propagandists wish you to-- the narrative that Americans somehow need lectures about Islam, Muslims, and religious freedom.

Your message to Americans will be spun on Al Jazeera and by Islamists across the world that President Obama reassured a friendly global Muslim audience at the White House Ramadan dinner that he was going to remind Americans about the principles of religious freedom for Muslims since they seem to be trampling over those principles in the local dispute at Ground Zero in New York.

Mr. President this is not about religious freedom. It is about the importance of the World Trade Center site to the psyche of the American People. It is about a blatant attack on our sovereignty by people whose ideology ultimately demands the elimination of our way of life. While Imam Faisal Rauf may not share their violent tendencies he does seem to share a belief that Islamic structures are a political statement and even Ground Zero should be looked upon through the lens of political Islam and not a solely American one.

As a Muslim desperate to reform his faith, your remarks take us backwards from the day that my faith will come into modernity. I do not stand to eliminate Imam Rauf's religious freedom; I stand to make sure that my children's religious freedom will be determined by the liberty guaranteed in the American Constitution and not by clerics or leaders who are apologists for shar'iah law and will tell me what religious freedom is.

'Park 51', 'The Cordoba House' or whatever they are calling it today should not be built, not because it is not their right to do it - but because it is not right to do it." Mr. President, your involvement in this issue is divisive not uniting. Your follow-up stating that 'you will not speak to the wisdom of the construction of that mosque and center' indicates a passive-aggressive meddling on your part that only marginalizes those Muslim and non-Muslim voices against it while pretending to understand both sides of the debate.

Contact: 602-254-1840 (office), email: info@aifdemocracy.org, web: www.aifdemocracy.org

About the American Islamic Foundation for Democracy

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD's mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at http://www.aifdemocracy.org/



Monday, May 11, 2009

Prosecuting People Twice To Benefit Illegal Aliens: The Federal Hate-Crimes Bill

The left-wing group MALDEF wants to use the federal hate crimes bill to reprosecute the Pennsylvania teenagers found innocent in state court of a "hate crime" against an illegal alien from Mexico.
Thanks,
Hans Bader   (a Washington lawyer)

Purpose of Hate-Crimes Bill Is To Promote Double Jeopardy and Shred Civil Liberties

On April 29, the House voted 249-to-175 to pass the federal hate crimes bill, which the bill’s supporters explicitly want to use to prosecute people already found innocent in state court all over again in federal court. Such reprosecutions are, sadly, allowed under a Constitutional loophole known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, which says that state and federal governments are different sovereigns, and that double jeopardy only applies when you are prosecuted twice by the same sovereign. (This loophole was established in the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 Bartkus decision, over a stinging dissent by Justice Black).

In the past, the possibility of reprosecutions was viewed as a vice, not a virtue, and civil-rights advocates and lawmakers alike have sometimes cited this risk in opposing bills broadening the reach of federal criminal laws. But civil-rights groups now view double jeopardy as a virtue when it comes to people accused of hate crimes. They consider hate crimes so terrible that not even innocence should be a defense.

The latest example of this comes from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (a coalition of hundreds of liberal civil-rights groups including the ACLU), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in a May 5 blog commentary entitled, “Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law Needed.” It approvingly quotes the General Counsel of MALDEF arguing that the federal hate-crimes bill is needed to get around an acquittal in state court of teenagers accused of a hate crime against an illegal alien from Mexico:

“Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, which will . . . give federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in states where the current law is inadequate. ‘[T] his verdict underscores the importance of the passage of this Act,’ said Henry Solano, MALDEF interim president and general counsel. ‘It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and bring justice to the Ramirez family and send a strong message that violence targeting immigrants will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.’ The Justice Department is currently investigating whether to prosecute the two teenagers under federal civil rights statutes.”

By contrast, four Independent and Republican members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission opposed the federal hate-crimes bill in an April 29 letter, calling it a “menace to civil liberties,” since its “most important effect” will be to circumvent double-jeopardy guarantees.

MALDEF and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are not alone in seeking to reprosecute people found innocent in state court. Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer and law professors like Gail Heriot have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

The hate-crimes bill also violates constitutional federalism safeguards, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison (2000).

Supporters of the hate-crimes bill have all sorts of lame rationalizations for disregarding not-guilty verdicts. Hate-crimes activist Brian Levin, who testified before Congress, claims reprosecutions are needed because local jury pools are biased. NOW Legal Defense Fund told Congress that reprosecutions are appropriate if local prosecutors had “inadequate resources” or were of “questionable effectiveness.” (These rationalizations make no sense and have no principled limits: there is no evidence that state juries are more biased than the federal juries that would hear federal hate-crimes cases, or that they are typically biased; and even well-funded prosecutors have complained of having inadequate resources).

Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”

The bill’s sponsors seldom talk about that controversial aspect of the bill, however, when addressing the general public. Instead, they trumpet the fact that the hate-crimes bill would include gays, lesbians, and transgendered people among the classes of people it covers (the existing federal hate-crimes law only covers race, but not gender, sexual orientation, or disability, and it does not reach most hate-crimes, but rather only those that involve federally-protected activities).

The bill’s supporters, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, claim the law is needed because of the case of Angie Zapata. Zapata is a transgender woman whose lover killed her when he found out she was biologically a man. But this argument makes little sense, given that Zapata’s killer was swiftly convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a Colorado state court, which found the killer guilty of both murder and hate crimes. (The federal hate crimes bill does not provide for the death penalty, and its maximum penalty is the same one that Zapata’s killer got: life without parole).

But precisely for that reason, a federal hate-crimes law is duplicative and unnecessary. Moreover, even the few states that don’t have hate-crimes laws, like Wyoming, still punish hate criminals under their laws against murder and assault. The killers of Matthew Shepard were given life sentences, which is the maximum penalty available under the federal hate-crimes bill. (Ironically, the Wyoming prosecutor wanted them to get the death penalty, while liberal groups like Lambda Legal, which supports the federal hate-crimes bill, oppose the death penalty in all cases). There is no evidence that any state gives people who commit hate crimes lesser sentences on average than people who commit similarly violent crimes not motivated by bias.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the federal hate crimes bill, which is known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. But since it was used as a political wedge issue in the 2008 election by both the Democratic Party and President Obama, who support it, there is little doubt that it will pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.

The ACLU long opposed the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections that the bill is designed to exploit. But it switched its longstanding position in order to back the federal hate crimes bill, apparently believing that civil-liberties must be sacrificed in order to fight hate.

The ACLU’s support for the federal hate-crimes bill is hypocritical for another reason: the bill seeks to circumvent double-jeopardy protections recognized by a treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified (albeit with a long series of reservations, understandings, and declarations — including one dealing with double jeopardy) in 1992. The ACLU has also long argued that the United States should not only comply with that treaty but give it a very expansive interpretation, and not seek to hide behind any reservations made by the U.S. in ratifying the treaty.

Article 14 of the treaty specifically prohibits double jeopardy, without any exception for the loophole relied on by supporters of the federal hate crimes bill, mandating that “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted.”

But the ACLU conveniently ignores the treaty when it comes to the federal hate-crimes bill, even though the ACLU has sought to stretch the treaty’s language to achieve a host of liberal political goals, such as mandating “affirmative action” in the U.S. The ACLU also has argued for an expansive interpretation of the treaty to require benefits for illegal aliens.

For example, the ACLU criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Hoffman Plastics case, which refused to award illegal aliens backpay against employers who fired them. The ACLU’s bizarre interpretations of the treaty conflict not only with its language, but also with the longstanding practices of most ICCPR signatory countries.

Read more informative articles from Open Market.org



Political