Illegal alien lawsuits clog courtrooms in California
Well-funded illegal alien activists in Southern California have found a new way to attack Americans fighting for secure borders and enforcement of current immigration laws. The fight has moved from the streets where they wave the their Mexican flag to America's civil courtrooms.
“Allow me to understand this correctly. Illegal aliens, people who have committed a crime by entering this country illegally, and who continue to commit additional crimes by using counterfeit documents to project a status they are not entitled to, are suing cities and citizens for "disrupting their RIGHT to work in the US, even though they have no such right? If any immigrant "rights" organization or other advocacy group is responsible for the filing of such suits, either directly or indirectly, they should be counter claimed against for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. It's time for the good citizens of this country to fight back through the courts,” said retired ICE Agent John Sampson who now runs CSI Consulting and Investigations.
The beef about an upcoming lawsuit in San Diego against Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, stems from a violent attack on Los Angeles anti-illegal immigration activist John Monti in November 2006 at the Rancho Penasquitos day-labor site in San Diego.
“Controversial San Diego attorney Daniel Gilleon was hired by La Raza operatives more than three years ago to go after San Diego Minutemen and other pro-security activists,” says Schwilk.
Monti had gone to the infamous makeshift hiring site to photograph the day laborers and the law-breaking employers hiring illegal workers. “It is still a felony to hire illegal aliens in the U.S. and studies have shown that almost all day laborers are illegal aliens from Latin America, Schwilk explains.
While photographing the street-side hiring process, Monti was suddenly jumped from behind by at least seven Hispanic men. “They punched him, tried to steal his professional camera, and pushed him into the busy boulevard. Several passersby’s witnessed the attack and called 911. When police arrived two minutes later, they found a bloody and shaken Mr. Monti,” witnesses reported.
Once the police were called to the scene, all of the attackers had made a run for it. Luckily, Monti photographed many of the laborers prior to the attack and was able to show San Diego Police Department. The next day the victim, Monti, sent the same pictures via email to local San Diego activists so they could call the police if the suspects returned to the day labor site where they usually look for employment every day. At this point Schwilk received the pictures and forwarded them to his local law enforcement contacts and other concerned residents in the area.
Their claim was defendants were disseminating pictures of the suspects with Monti's statement and pointed out that they were wanted for questioning by SDPD regarding day-labor site scuffle. The flyer indicated if anyone had any information about the incident to phone the police.
Police records show the suspects were being sought for questioning and most of them were eventually found and questioned. No charges against the suspects were ever filed, as they all, not surprisingly, claimed that Monti attacked them first. According to Schwilk, local illegal alien activists were seen speaking with the suspects soon after the attacks.
“Witnesses who saw Monti being attacked and beaten were ignored by investigators and the city attorney, who were under extreme pressure from the so-called ‘Mexican mafia’ to protect the suspects (most of them Mexican citizens) from prosecution,” Schwilk contends. Fox News' and Monti's lawsuits were eventually dismissed or settled, but Schwilk demanded a trial to prove that this was just another unfounded, frivolous lawsuit and malicious prosecution meant to harass and silence those who oppose illegal immigration.
This defamation suit also accuses Schwilk of putting up Monti's "wanted posters" in the area around the day labor site - a charge Schwilk denies. Schwilk and a few other concerned citizens did use Monti's pictures to identify two of the suspects standing at the sidewalk hiring area three days after the attack.
"When we saw two of the suspects back at their sidewalk loitering area, we immediately called SDPD. The lead detective of the nearby division came to the scene and explained to us that they had already questioned and released those two men and that an arrest had been made," Schwilk said. “The officers refused to elaborate further, but they told us they were fully investigating the assault on Monti and hoped to bring all of the guilty day laborers to justice.”
The lead attorney in this so-called lawsuit is Dan Gilleon of Del Mar(??). In emails from Gilleon obtained by the Examiner, Gilleon repeatedly seems to be asking Schwilk to settle the case over the past year. In the most recent email sent on Feb. 6, Gilleon again offers to Schwilk, "If you want to settle, we'll take $1,000 for each plaintiff, cash now, or $10,000 each in stipulated judgments."
Schwilk has repeatedly told the plaintiff’s attorney Gilleon that he has no intention of settling this case because he is the victim not the other way around. In addition to last minute attempts to avoid taking this case to trial, Gilleon failed to depose Schwilk for 2 1/2 years and recently convinced the judge to allow a last-minute deposition just days before the trial is set to commence.
In a voicemail message from Gilleon, he declined to comment on this pending case. However he claims there is a new lawsuit pending against Schwilk. However, court records show no new lawsuits have been filed.
Schwilk, who is now defending himself, says he strongly opposes a deposition at this late date because he believes Gilleon lied to the judge about trying to depose him in October. Evidence submitted to the court last week clearly shows that Gilleon claimed to have served Schwilk a notice of a deposition at a long-abandoned store in Oceanside. Schwilk says he has asked Judge Styn to rescind his recent deposition order and the motion is pending.
The trial begins on Thursday. It is worth pointing out, the attorney for the plaintiffs admitted that all his clients were living in Mexico and may not be able to enter the country legally to attend the trial, according to Schwilk.
It is a sad commentary that the civil court system is filled with well-funded foreign interests who hire activist lawyers to gain control of the country for their illegal clients.
The Minutemen vow to keep fighting no matter how many lawsuits La Raza activists file against them. "Our cause to make our cities and our country safe and secure is too great to be deterred by these people who make a mockery of our legal system," Schwilk finishes.
In another lawsuit filed in Costa Mesa, California, MALDEF the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund charges the city’s anti-solicitation ordinance is unconstitutional. Joining in on the February 2, 2010 lawsuit is the ACLU of Southern California and the National Day Laborer’s Organizing Network (NDLON).
The civil rights groups filed the lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa on behalf of the Association de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa and the Colectivo Tonantzin, whose members have been restricted from peaceably expressing their need and availability for employment in the city’s public areas due to the ordinance.
Claiming his client’s first Amendment right, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz said, "Free speech, one of our most cherished rights, belongs to everyone in society. Day laborers seeking work have as much right to express themselves as the largest corporation employing hundreds of thousands. Costa Mesa’s anti-solicitation ordinance violates this vital and longstanding constitutional principle."
“The city’s anti-solicitation ordinance prohibits any person standing on a sidewalk or other public area from soliciting employment, business or contributions in any manner deemed to be intended to attract the attention of traveling vehicles. The ordinance subjects day laborers and other solicitors to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment up to six months. The ordinance violates the day laborers’ First and Fourteenth amendments rights under the United States Constitution,” according Saenz.
"Day laborers have contributed to the Costa Mesa economy for decades," says Pablo AlvaradoPablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "Particularly during these tough times, the hard work they provide the community should be rewarded and not the target of destructive law enforcement practices."
The ruling of federal courts throughout the country in the past have ruled in favor of preserving the free speech rights of day laborers, which allows them to continue to solicit work.
“The contention that the civil rights of illegal day laborers are being violated is pure malarkey and if anything at all, the advocates can be criminally charged and prosecuted for aiding and abetting illegal alien immigration,” says Vince Johnson in a letter to the city of Costa Mesa.
He goes on to explain this frivolous lawsuit should be recognized as such by any federal judge who may incorporate immigration law regarding employment by undocumented immigrants.
“I suggest that you utilize the resources of Homeland Security/ICE, the US Department of Labor and the US Justice Department to promptly stop this court action and affirm that this country can not be controlled by people who do not even have the right to be in this country. Any meddling by the Mexican government is a clear-cut violation of American law and sovereignty,” Johnson finished.
The meddling of Mexico continues to play out on both sides of the border. It was reported by the M3 report (a publication put out by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers) that all political parties of the Mexican Senate must reproached the policy change of direction of President, Barack ObamaBarack Obama, “who has decided to go back on the promise he made to all the Hispanic groups that supported him, and now he insists on closing the border. The government of Barack Obama seeks to increase the funds to reinforce border security with $4.6 billion to support 20,000 agents of the Border Patrol, as well as to finish the first portion of the ‘virtual fence,’” the report stated.
The Mexican government continues by “announcing that he (Obama) will build the missing portion of the ‘virtual fence’ by means of which everyone who crosses, undocumented or illegally, will be detected and can be immediately jailed and later expelled, (and also) reinforcing the number of agents for customs, as well as for the border. From now on we Mexicans will not know what to believe when we speak with the President of all the Americans, because he is a President who fails to keep his word,” according to a member of the Mexican Senate.
One thing is certain Mexico continues to demand the rule of law be tweaked in their favor when it comes to illegal immigration. This will surely set up a very contentious immigration reform debate, one the American people have clearly stated Amnesty will not be a part of the legislation.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Union Socialism
The Problem Is Government Unions
by Phyllis Schlafly
The Senate's decisive defeat of confirmation of radical labor lawyer Craig Becker is the first tangible result of the Massachusetts Miracle, which made Scott Brown the 41st Republican in the U.S. Senate. Two red-state Democrats also voted not to proceed toward a vote on President Obama's nomination of Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Becker is a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union, which spent $60 million to elect Obama. SEIU's boss, Andy Stern, was the most frequent visitor to Obama's White House last year.
The NLRB is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor disputes. Becker had other plans for the NLRB. He was expected to try to implement what is called "Card Check" even though Congress has declined to pass it.
Card Check is a bill to eliminate the secret ballot by which employees have the right to vote yea or nay on authorizing a union as their bargaining agent. Card Check would replace the secret ballot with allowing union officials to intimidate employees into just signing a card.
Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
The left-wing magazine "In These Times" wrote that Becker "helped lay the intellectual foundation" for Card Check. He wrote a law review article to propose using the NLRB's regulatory power to achieve the goals of Card Check without action by Congress.
While working for the SEIU, Becker also helped write three pro-labor executive orders that Obama signed just a week after taking office.
Older Americans may fondly remember bygone days when some unions played a positive role in our free economy. In the 1950s, many unions expelled communist agitators.
Today's unions, by contrast, promote big-government solutions to every problem. That's because of the dramatic change in the membership of powerful unions.
An important milestone was reached last year when, for the first time, the majority of union members (51.4 percent) were federal or state government employees. The political power of government workers unions is a major reason why government spending is now out of control.
The average pay of federal workers is over $71,000 (in Washington, D.C., it's $94,047), whereas the average pay in the private sector (if you have a job) is $50,028. Annual raises are a matter of course, and government employees enjoy close to lifetime job security and benefits including retirement.
Rising star Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, commented, "I about fell off my chair when I saw that the number of federal employees making more than $150,000 have more than doubled in the last 18 months."
Another Washington labor lawyer, Joseph Sandler, who is described as a "renowned expert on election law," has created a crow's nest of front groups whose goal is to undermine the Tea Party movement. These groups have funneled vast amounts of union dues money, including $10 million from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), into fronts with innocuous names such as "Patriot Majority" and "Citizens for Progress."
To defeat Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to protect traditional marriage, the SEIU spent $500,000 and the California teachers union spent $1,250,000. After the voters approved the measure, over 50 unions (including the national AFL-CIO) signed a brief asking the courts to overturn the will of the people.
SEIU plays rough. It was a bunch of SEIU thugs, clearly identified by their purple shirts emblazoned with "SEIU," who attended a Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., Town Hall Meeting and beat up Kenneth Gladney, a black man passing out flags that read "Don't Tread On Me."
The day after the Senate rejected Becker, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a measure to abolish the Senate filibuster, and thereby nullify the value of Scott Brown becoming the 41st Republican. That bill isn't going to pass because it would take 67 votes, which Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can't round up.
Some namby-pamby Republicans think that the president is entitled to get confirmation of all his judicial nominees despite the Senate's constitutional power to accept or reject them. The defeat of Becker should give all Republicans the backbone to use the filibuster to reject any court nominee who believes in a "living" Constitution.
The prospective nominees who are reputed to be on Obama's short list for the next Supreme Court vacancy are weirdos of various flavors. One says it's OK for the Indiana Legislature to open with an invocation honoring Allah but not Jesus; another calls himself a transnationalist and wants to integrate foreign law into U.S. domestic law; and another wants dogs to have lawyers and says the government owns the organs of any person who may soon die, and can remove the organs without any consent.
Now that Republicans have 41 senators, our republic can be saved from such nonsense by a filibuster. So, go to it, Republicans.
by Phyllis Schlafly
The Senate's decisive defeat of confirmation of radical labor lawyer Craig Becker is the first tangible result of the Massachusetts Miracle, which made Scott Brown the 41st Republican in the U.S. Senate. Two red-state Democrats also voted not to proceed toward a vote on President Obama's nomination of Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Becker is a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union, which spent $60 million to elect Obama. SEIU's boss, Andy Stern, was the most frequent visitor to Obama's White House last year.
The NLRB is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor disputes. Becker had other plans for the NLRB. He was expected to try to implement what is called "Card Check" even though Congress has declined to pass it.
Card Check is a bill to eliminate the secret ballot by which employees have the right to vote yea or nay on authorizing a union as their bargaining agent. Card Check would replace the secret ballot with allowing union officials to intimidate employees into just signing a card.
Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
The left-wing magazine "In These Times" wrote that Becker "helped lay the intellectual foundation" for Card Check. He wrote a law review article to propose using the NLRB's regulatory power to achieve the goals of Card Check without action by Congress.
While working for the SEIU, Becker also helped write three pro-labor executive orders that Obama signed just a week after taking office.
Older Americans may fondly remember bygone days when some unions played a positive role in our free economy. In the 1950s, many unions expelled communist agitators.
Today's unions, by contrast, promote big-government solutions to every problem. That's because of the dramatic change in the membership of powerful unions.
An important milestone was reached last year when, for the first time, the majority of union members (51.4 percent) were federal or state government employees. The political power of government workers unions is a major reason why government spending is now out of control.
The average pay of federal workers is over $71,000 (in Washington, D.C., it's $94,047), whereas the average pay in the private sector (if you have a job) is $50,028. Annual raises are a matter of course, and government employees enjoy close to lifetime job security and benefits including retirement.
Rising star Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, commented, "I about fell off my chair when I saw that the number of federal employees making more than $150,000 have more than doubled in the last 18 months."
Another Washington labor lawyer, Joseph Sandler, who is described as a "renowned expert on election law," has created a crow's nest of front groups whose goal is to undermine the Tea Party movement. These groups have funneled vast amounts of union dues money, including $10 million from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), into fronts with innocuous names such as "Patriot Majority" and "Citizens for Progress."
To defeat Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to protect traditional marriage, the SEIU spent $500,000 and the California teachers union spent $1,250,000. After the voters approved the measure, over 50 unions (including the national AFL-CIO) signed a brief asking the courts to overturn the will of the people.
SEIU plays rough. It was a bunch of SEIU thugs, clearly identified by their purple shirts emblazoned with "SEIU," who attended a Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., Town Hall Meeting and beat up Kenneth Gladney, a black man passing out flags that read "Don't Tread On Me."
The day after the Senate rejected Becker, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a measure to abolish the Senate filibuster, and thereby nullify the value of Scott Brown becoming the 41st Republican. That bill isn't going to pass because it would take 67 votes, which Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can't round up.
Some namby-pamby Republicans think that the president is entitled to get confirmation of all his judicial nominees despite the Senate's constitutional power to accept or reject them. The defeat of Becker should give all Republicans the backbone to use the filibuster to reject any court nominee who believes in a "living" Constitution.
The prospective nominees who are reputed to be on Obama's short list for the next Supreme Court vacancy are weirdos of various flavors. One says it's OK for the Indiana Legislature to open with an invocation honoring Allah but not Jesus; another calls himself a transnationalist and wants to integrate foreign law into U.S. domestic law; and another wants dogs to have lawyers and says the government owns the organs of any person who may soon die, and can remove the organs without any consent.
Now that Republicans have 41 senators, our republic can be saved from such nonsense by a filibuster. So, go to it, Republicans.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
MUSLIM HOOLIGANISM
CAL. SENATORIAL CANDIDATE RESPONDS TO MUSLIM HOOLIGANISM
By Rabbi Nachum Shifren
February 13, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Orange County, CA — Here is an "Alice in Wonderland" campus reality — in which the characters are deadly serious, and the suckers are us.
Let's be clear: these are not campus "rowdies," or rude and disrespectful "students." These “students” are the front line of an army of Muslims that is waiting patiently to take over and subvert our country.
Confrontation and disruption is their job. This is what they’ve been trained for, and they are right on target. As their numbers and influence grow, they will be attempting a political takeover, and if that doesn’t work, they will turn to further intimidation, murder and terrorism — just as they’ve already proved in dozens of countries around the world.
Here are eight Rules that guide muslim “students”:
Rule #1: East is East, and West is West, and the two worlds will forever remain divergent. Witness the throngs of thousands mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. Why? Why was the Muslim world remorseful about the demise of this butcher of at least one million of his own countrymen? Because for the Arab, he represented strength. No matter if he was feared and pushed Iraq 1,000 years into darkness. The rule that we in the West refuse to acknowledge is simply that to the muslim, whoever is perceived as strong, will be feared and will survive; and whoever is seen as weak, irresolute, or wavering, will be despised and will be vanquished.
When Muslim students at UC Irvine see their chancellor pleading, begging, supplicating for "dialog," and "respect," they are not only sickened by such weak-kneed exhibitions, they are emboldened to greater acts of anarchy and contempt for everything that we in the West hold dear.
Rule #2: Muslims expect total control and iron discipline in their own countries. There are no "student unions." There, the students would not dare raise their heads in disobedience, because they know what awaits them (no, you will not find an Islamic version of the ACLU). But they can get away with running amok here at UC Irvine, where we stupidly "accommodate" those who advocate our demise.
Rule #3: This will be a hard bullet for America to bite, but we are at war with Islam! Those who deny this are quislings or fifth-columnists — and very often, university professors and chancellors. With strong leadership, there would be no notions of "academic freedom" for those who come here to subvert and destroy.
Unfortunately, the last California administrator with courage and real leadership abilities was S.I. Hayakawa. Hayakawa would have donned his tam o’shanter cap and confronted the student disrupters. Instead, at Irvine, the Muslim students will get a slap on the wrist and be released, emboldening them a thousand times more.
Make no mistake: these students are the probing squads that are testing the waters to see what they can get away with, positioning themselves to ultimately shut down the entire campus when they please. These are among the first salvos in a war that, until now, has been only academic and ideological — at least in this country.
If you want to see where we are headed, if we don’t find the courage to stand up to and defeat these muslim terrorists-in-training, just look to France, Spain, England and other countries where muslims have been allowed to get a toe-hold. Or consider the carnage caused by just one insane muslim terrorist at Fort Hood, then multiply that many times over, as more muslim terrorists consolidate their power base in our country — and our state and their favorite breeding grounds, our campuses!
Rule #4: Jewish guilt uber alles. There is something sad, even sinister about a people that has suffered pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and now jihad intifadas — and yet, tragically (psychotically?) refuses to understand that they are on the chopping block of these marauders and brigades from Hell.
In every campus where there is a Muslim Student Union, there is a Jewish Student Union. When do we ever hear about "in your face" actions against Muslim perfidy on these campuses (mini war zones) by Jewish Students? Where are the rabbis, the Hillels, the Jewish communities raising their voices loudly and stridently against these invaders of the America that has let Jews find refuge and miraculous opportunity, in an otherwise ugly world? How can this lemming-like behavior be explained? Muslim students don’t bother explaining, they just exploit the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of the Jewish community.
Rule #5: Where there is a vacuum, something will occupy it. Muslims judge that decadent America, so obsessed with excess and titillation, has run its course. And who can refute them? Corruption in our country is the order of the day! Teen drop-ous, gangs and crime, greed and political abandonment of our Constitutional principles all support the muslim’s view of our nation.
Without strength of character in our leaders, and the courage of our people, we are poised to become just another chapter in history — right next to the debauched and pillaged societies of Greece and Rome. The muslim onslaught is at the gates; they are weary of our self-indulgence and they abhor our eroding social mores and valueless culture. They are sharpening the long knives, knowing that their time will come shortly.
Rule #6: Jihadists and Muslim radicals cannot subvert our country by themselves. They need a willing entourage of leftist and communist sympathizers, fellow travelers, progressives and socialist utopians. As the Prophet so clearly stated: "From your haters and destroyers, they shall come forth."
As school teachers, we witness our students being soft-balled the "religion of peace" so often, that to denounce it for the bloodthirsty, contentious plague that it is, is to be accused of "hate crimes." So it is we, the teachers, who must bear the burden of dumbing down several generations of Americans, teaching “feel good” lessons, diluting the uniqueness of the American Revolution, diminishing the strength of character that built a strong, free nation, and the altar on which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacrificed. No wonder teachers are so despised in nearly every school in the land!
And so, when the media and the rest of the sheeple gawk and are “shocked, simply shocked” over one of our students who is caught in Afghanistan fighting against our soldiers, who among us can still be shocked, let alone surprised? We have seen the enemy on our campuses and universities, and it is us!
For if we educators, knowing what we do about the spread of Islam and the subjugation of peoples and continents under its yoke, the lack of freedom for women, the loss of freedom of speech and thought, and the murderous credo of the Koran, do not stand up for truth in teaching, what respect can we deserve? In our vanity, we think of ourselves as the elite of society, serving as mentors to succeeding generations of youth yearning for truth in knowledge — yet we have perverted the truth and accepted a revisionist treatment of the story of man, of the history of the world and of the greatness of the successful American experiment in liberty.
Should we be surprised at the disdain of our students, who know they are not being held to the high standards of their forebears? Shall we be surprised when the great body of Americans shun and punish us for being the primary tool of “progressives” that causes our once great land to fall into the abyss of socialism, and then tyranny — as has been the history of other great nations?
What to do? Is this dark drama irreversible on our campuses? No, not irreversible, but it will take a revolution in thought and action. It must start with we educators who see America as more than just a "job" and a cool vacation. It will take a daily struggle for truth — and the best place to start is with the dictum: those who wish respect, will do well to show self-respect. The Muslim riffraff did not badmouth and malign that which they feared and respected at UC Irvine!
Those who will incite and seek to undermine our institutions using our own openness and sense of fair play must be removed from our campuses and our soil. Until we have the courage to do that, we shall not be able to sustain a country where men of good will can dialogue and debate ideas for the good of society.
© 2010 Nachum Shifren - All Rights Reserved
By Rabbi Nachum Shifren
February 13, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Orange County, CA — Here is an "Alice in Wonderland" campus reality — in which the characters are deadly serious, and the suckers are us.
Let's be clear: these are not campus "rowdies," or rude and disrespectful "students." These “students” are the front line of an army of Muslims that is waiting patiently to take over and subvert our country.
Confrontation and disruption is their job. This is what they’ve been trained for, and they are right on target. As their numbers and influence grow, they will be attempting a political takeover, and if that doesn’t work, they will turn to further intimidation, murder and terrorism — just as they’ve already proved in dozens of countries around the world.
Here are eight Rules that guide muslim “students”:
Rule #1: East is East, and West is West, and the two worlds will forever remain divergent. Witness the throngs of thousands mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. Why? Why was the Muslim world remorseful about the demise of this butcher of at least one million of his own countrymen? Because for the Arab, he represented strength. No matter if he was feared and pushed Iraq 1,000 years into darkness. The rule that we in the West refuse to acknowledge is simply that to the muslim, whoever is perceived as strong, will be feared and will survive; and whoever is seen as weak, irresolute, or wavering, will be despised and will be vanquished.
When Muslim students at UC Irvine see their chancellor pleading, begging, supplicating for "dialog," and "respect," they are not only sickened by such weak-kneed exhibitions, they are emboldened to greater acts of anarchy and contempt for everything that we in the West hold dear.
Rule #2: Muslims expect total control and iron discipline in their own countries. There are no "student unions." There, the students would not dare raise their heads in disobedience, because they know what awaits them (no, you will not find an Islamic version of the ACLU). But they can get away with running amok here at UC Irvine, where we stupidly "accommodate" those who advocate our demise.
Rule #3: This will be a hard bullet for America to bite, but we are at war with Islam! Those who deny this are quislings or fifth-columnists — and very often, university professors and chancellors. With strong leadership, there would be no notions of "academic freedom" for those who come here to subvert and destroy.
Unfortunately, the last California administrator with courage and real leadership abilities was S.I. Hayakawa. Hayakawa would have donned his tam o’shanter cap and confronted the student disrupters. Instead, at Irvine, the Muslim students will get a slap on the wrist and be released, emboldening them a thousand times more.
Make no mistake: these students are the probing squads that are testing the waters to see what they can get away with, positioning themselves to ultimately shut down the entire campus when they please. These are among the first salvos in a war that, until now, has been only academic and ideological — at least in this country.
If you want to see where we are headed, if we don’t find the courage to stand up to and defeat these muslim terrorists-in-training, just look to France, Spain, England and other countries where muslims have been allowed to get a toe-hold. Or consider the carnage caused by just one insane muslim terrorist at Fort Hood, then multiply that many times over, as more muslim terrorists consolidate their power base in our country — and our state and their favorite breeding grounds, our campuses!
Rule #4: Jewish guilt uber alles. There is something sad, even sinister about a people that has suffered pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and now jihad intifadas — and yet, tragically (psychotically?) refuses to understand that they are on the chopping block of these marauders and brigades from Hell.
In every campus where there is a Muslim Student Union, there is a Jewish Student Union. When do we ever hear about "in your face" actions against Muslim perfidy on these campuses (mini war zones) by Jewish Students? Where are the rabbis, the Hillels, the Jewish communities raising their voices loudly and stridently against these invaders of the America that has let Jews find refuge and miraculous opportunity, in an otherwise ugly world? How can this lemming-like behavior be explained? Muslim students don’t bother explaining, they just exploit the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of the Jewish community.
Rule #5: Where there is a vacuum, something will occupy it. Muslims judge that decadent America, so obsessed with excess and titillation, has run its course. And who can refute them? Corruption in our country is the order of the day! Teen drop-ous, gangs and crime, greed and political abandonment of our Constitutional principles all support the muslim’s view of our nation.
Without strength of character in our leaders, and the courage of our people, we are poised to become just another chapter in history — right next to the debauched and pillaged societies of Greece and Rome. The muslim onslaught is at the gates; they are weary of our self-indulgence and they abhor our eroding social mores and valueless culture. They are sharpening the long knives, knowing that their time will come shortly.
Rule #6: Jihadists and Muslim radicals cannot subvert our country by themselves. They need a willing entourage of leftist and communist sympathizers, fellow travelers, progressives and socialist utopians. As the Prophet so clearly stated: "From your haters and destroyers, they shall come forth."
As school teachers, we witness our students being soft-balled the "religion of peace" so often, that to denounce it for the bloodthirsty, contentious plague that it is, is to be accused of "hate crimes." So it is we, the teachers, who must bear the burden of dumbing down several generations of Americans, teaching “feel good” lessons, diluting the uniqueness of the American Revolution, diminishing the strength of character that built a strong, free nation, and the altar on which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacrificed. No wonder teachers are so despised in nearly every school in the land!
And so, when the media and the rest of the sheeple gawk and are “shocked, simply shocked” over one of our students who is caught in Afghanistan fighting against our soldiers, who among us can still be shocked, let alone surprised? We have seen the enemy on our campuses and universities, and it is us!
For if we educators, knowing what we do about the spread of Islam and the subjugation of peoples and continents under its yoke, the lack of freedom for women, the loss of freedom of speech and thought, and the murderous credo of the Koran, do not stand up for truth in teaching, what respect can we deserve? In our vanity, we think of ourselves as the elite of society, serving as mentors to succeeding generations of youth yearning for truth in knowledge — yet we have perverted the truth and accepted a revisionist treatment of the story of man, of the history of the world and of the greatness of the successful American experiment in liberty.
Should we be surprised at the disdain of our students, who know they are not being held to the high standards of their forebears? Shall we be surprised when the great body of Americans shun and punish us for being the primary tool of “progressives” that causes our once great land to fall into the abyss of socialism, and then tyranny — as has been the history of other great nations?
What to do? Is this dark drama irreversible on our campuses? No, not irreversible, but it will take a revolution in thought and action. It must start with we educators who see America as more than just a "job" and a cool vacation. It will take a daily struggle for truth — and the best place to start is with the dictum: those who wish respect, will do well to show self-respect. The Muslim riffraff did not badmouth and malign that which they feared and respected at UC Irvine!
Those who will incite and seek to undermine our institutions using our own openness and sense of fair play must be removed from our campuses and our soil. Until we have the courage to do that, we shall not be able to sustain a country where men of good will can dialogue and debate ideas for the good of society.
© 2010 Nachum Shifren - All Rights Reserved
Friday, February 12, 2010
Media Lies About A Corrupt Politician
John Murtha: Requiem for a Corruptocrat
by Michelle Malkin
We are not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But those whom the deceased viciously smeared and humiliated deserve to be defended. Entrenched Democratic Rep. John Murtha passed away on Feb. 8 after a botched gallbladder surgery. He has been hailed as a "military advocate" (Associated Press) and "one of the greatest patriots ever to serve in Congress" (former Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr.). These obsequious obituaries leave out inconvenient truths:
John "Jack" Murtha was an unrepentant smear merchant and corruptocrat to the bitter end.
In May 2006, during an MSNBC TV show appearance that Marines and their families will never forget or forgive, Murtha accused U.S. troops of wantonly killing some two dozen civilians, including children, in the terrorist stronghold of Haditha, Iraq. Bellowed Murtha: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha publicly indicted the Marines before military investigations had been completed. His remarks opened military-bashing floodgates around the world.
In the wake of Murtha's reckless blabbing, MSNBC executioner Keith Olbermann accused the Haditha Marines of "willful targeted brutality." The Nation magazine claimed that "members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre." The New York Times dubbed Haditha the "defining atrocity" of the Iraq war. International papers piled on with Vietnam-era "My Lai" allusions. Murtha cold-bloodedly sat back and enjoyed the ride while the Marines were left twisting in the wind.
By 2008, seven of the Marines charged in the incident had been exonerated or had charges against them dropped. Lt. Andrew Grayson was acquitted. Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, Capt. Lucas McConnell, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani all had their cases dismissed. Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the last of the Marines facing charges, awaits a long, dragged-out trial this year.
Murtha, the so-called "military advocate," went to his deathbed refusing to apologize or retract the attacks on the Haditha Marines (several of whom unsuccessfully sued him for libel to restore their honor). Decent people would call this intransigent treachery. Murtha's friends apparently consider it great patriotism.
The ego-bloated, big-mouthed lawmaker treated his own constituents with trademark contempt. During his last congressional campaign, he mocked voters in his district as bigots. "There's no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area," he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Responding to mounting criticism on both sides of the aisle about his logrolling orgies on the Hill, he sniffed: "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district."
First, foremost and forever, Jack Murtha took care of Jack Murtha. The glowing encomiums from his liberal colleagues have glossed over the 19-term Democrat's defining moment of political self-service. In 1980, Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive bribery probe -- in which undercover FBI agents videotaped Murtha entertaining a $50,000 bribe from agents posing as emissaries for Arab sheiks trying to enter our country illegally. From transcripts of those conversations published by the late newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, Murtha's true colors shined:
"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period. … After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind. …"
"I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way," he boasted. "There's no question about it."
Murtha worried not about his integrity or how his constituents might be harmed, but about getting ratted out:
"All at once," he said, "some dumb (expletive deleted) would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say (expletive deleted), this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the (S.O.B.) falls apart."
"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.
"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"
"Well, you tell me."
By the time of his death, Murtha had been caught intervening on behalf of a law-breaking Pennsylvania company convicted of selling military equipment parts illegally overseas; had steered unprecedented billions in federal earmarks to friends, family and donors; had earned multiple "most corrupt in Congress" designations from both the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the right-leaning Judicial Watch; and had remained intimately tied to PMA Group, a former lobbying firm under federal investigation, and Kuchera Industries, a defense contractor also under federal investigation.
From his character assassination of innocents to his insatiable appetite for pork and power, Jack Murtha embodied everything that is wrong with Washington. If only the culture of corruption he serviced could be buried six feet under with him.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Unions Have Become Leeches
Public-Sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers to Help Dems
Michael Barone
Growing up in Michigan in the heyday of the United Auto Workers, I long assumed that labor unions were part of the natural order of things.
That's no longer clear. Last month, the Labor Department reported that private-sector unions lost 834,000 members last year and now represent only 7.2 percent of private-sector employees. That's down from the all-time peak of 36 percent in 1953-54.
But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.
In my view, the outlook for both private- and public-sector unionism is problematic.
Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage. Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year, General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped.
Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned non-union auto firms.
The results are in. Yes, clueless management at the Detroit firms for years ignored problems with product quality and made bonehead investment mistakes. But adversarial unionism made it much, much harder for Detroit to produce high-quality vehicles than it was for non-unionized companies.
As economist Barry Hirsch points out, non-union manufacturing employment rose from 12 million to 14 million between 1973 and 2006. In those years, union manufacturing employment dropped from 8 million to 2 million. "Unionism," Hirsch writes, "is a poor fit in a dynamic, competitive economy."
Moreover, federal laws passed since the 1950s now protect workers from racial and sex discrimination, safety hazards and pension failure. They don't need unions to do this any more.
Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.
The results are plain to see. States like New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy. Not surprisingly, Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower.
Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions.
One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.
Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party.
But it may not turn out to be a perpetual-motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. Or they may move, as so many have already done, to states like Texas.
Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."
Michael Barone
Growing up in Michigan in the heyday of the United Auto Workers, I long assumed that labor unions were part of the natural order of things.
That's no longer clear. Last month, the Labor Department reported that private-sector unions lost 834,000 members last year and now represent only 7.2 percent of private-sector employees. That's down from the all-time peak of 36 percent in 1953-54.
But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.
In my view, the outlook for both private- and public-sector unionism is problematic.
Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage. Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year, General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped.
Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned non-union auto firms.
The results are in. Yes, clueless management at the Detroit firms for years ignored problems with product quality and made bonehead investment mistakes. But adversarial unionism made it much, much harder for Detroit to produce high-quality vehicles than it was for non-unionized companies.
As economist Barry Hirsch points out, non-union manufacturing employment rose from 12 million to 14 million between 1973 and 2006. In those years, union manufacturing employment dropped from 8 million to 2 million. "Unionism," Hirsch writes, "is a poor fit in a dynamic, competitive economy."
Moreover, federal laws passed since the 1950s now protect workers from racial and sex discrimination, safety hazards and pension failure. They don't need unions to do this any more.
Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.
The results are plain to see. States like New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy. Not surprisingly, Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower.
Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions.
One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.
Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party.
But it may not turn out to be a perpetual-motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. Or they may move, as so many have already done, to states like Texas.
Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Judge Moore Rides Again
New 'bill of particulars' cites Obama failings
By Chelsea Schilling
Citing American patriots such as Thomas Paine, James Madison, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, Judge Roy Moore lit a fire in the hearts
of tea partiers tonight – inspiring four impassioned standing ovations with his reading of a "bill of particulars" against President Obama.
Moore, WND columnist, author of "So Help Me God" and candidate for governor in Alabama, began by quoting Thomas Paine as he made his case for independence from England:
"These are the times that try men's souls," he told a packed banquet room at the first national tea-party convention in Nashville.
"Once again we live in a trying time, not just trying to the souls of men and women, but the soul of our nation," he continued. "Once again, people across our country are rising up, tired of politics as usual, angry about the direction of our country."
The recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts send a strong message to the Democratic Party that Americans are weary of the direction in which the nation is headed, he said.
"Equally, if not more importantly, the election in New York sent a strong message to the Republican Party that we're tired of liberal Republicans who don't hold the principles of their party," he told a cheering crowd.
Moore condemned "senseless treaties" like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. He said the nation's borders have been opened to criminals and terrorists, the Constitution discarded, the federal government grown in size and scope "far beyond anything our founders ever imagined," and the nation's debt is soaring.
"Our state sovereignty, routinely ignored by an all-powerful federal bureaucracy, and our concept of virtue and morality has been distorted and twisted to a point that good is now called evil, and evil is now called good," Moore said. "I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we not only find ourselves in a great economic recession, but in a great moral and spiritual depression as well."
Visit the one and only "tea-party store" now
The convention attendees took to their feet as the room instantaneously exploded in cheers.
"I admit that often it is not easy to identify those responsible for these ills in our society, for they call themselves Democrats and Republicans," he continued. "They call themselves conservatives and liberals. They pose as Christians and non-Christians."
However, Moore said those responsible have a few things in common.
"They hate our country and our past," he said. "They have no regard for our beloved Constitution. They have a love of wealth and power more than of liberty and freedom."
He added that they have yet another thing in common: They don't quit.
"One of those who said he didn't quit is our current president, Barack Obama," Moore noted.
He then began to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. But rather than addressing grievances to the king of Britain, Moore presented Obama with his own "bill of particulars":
He has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He's elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June last to celebrate Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender pride.
He now threatens to change our law, 10 U.S.C. Section 654, to allow homosexuality in our military in direct opposition to the law which says that the attempt to engage in homosexuality will create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
He has apologized to the Arab world for our past, subjugated our national sovereignty by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia.
He has pursued a socialist agenda by taking control of private companies and pushing a national health-care plan with a public option. Backed by a willing Congress, he has bought off our senators and our representatives with our own money in an effort to mandate this agenda. And when opposed by members of the Senate, he smugly smiled and said, "I won."
Moore concluded his list with a direct quote from the Declaration: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Once again, the crowd went wild with applause.
Then Moore recalled a moving speech from another famous patriot – Patrick Henry.
"Our chains are forged!" he declared. "Their clanking may be heard [in the halls of Congress] on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come! I repeat, we must let it come.
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. … Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
The room erupted in cheers and booming applause once more – this time lasting several minutes.
"This tea-party movement is big," Moore explained. "It's waking up our country. There is a battle around this great nation. Every one of you – black, white, young, old, Republican, Democrat, Christian and non-Christian – is part of that battle."
He continued, "We will either preserve our republic and our faith in God, or we'll have them taken from us. Go forth, armed with the holy cause of liberty."
As the speech ended, tea partiers streamed out of the banquet room doors, armed with copies of Moore's book, "So Help Me, God."
Ron Foreman, an attendee from Arkansas, reacted to Moore's speech:
"Outstanding!" he exclaimed.
St. Louis, Mo., resident Glenn O'Bryan called the speech "terrific," saying he was motivated to come to the convention by his love for the country.
O'Bryan said, "I'd like to see the tyranny put in check."
Jack and Joan Billman, residents of Greencastle, Ind., said they believed the speech was "very appropriate."
"Certainly the comparison between what took place with the founders and what needs to be taking place now is so very, very apparent," Jack told WND. "Everybody talks about the need for fewer taxes and smaller government. But if our politicians would just follow the Constitution, all of those problems would be taken care of."
By Chelsea Schilling
Citing American patriots such as Thomas Paine, James Madison, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, Judge Roy Moore lit a fire in the hearts
of tea partiers tonight – inspiring four impassioned standing ovations with his reading of a "bill of particulars" against President Obama.
Moore, WND columnist, author of "So Help Me God" and candidate for governor in Alabama, began by quoting Thomas Paine as he made his case for independence from England:
"These are the times that try men's souls," he told a packed banquet room at the first national tea-party convention in Nashville.
"Once again we live in a trying time, not just trying to the souls of men and women, but the soul of our nation," he continued. "Once again, people across our country are rising up, tired of politics as usual, angry about the direction of our country."
The recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts send a strong message to the Democratic Party that Americans are weary of the direction in which the nation is headed, he said.
"Equally, if not more importantly, the election in New York sent a strong message to the Republican Party that we're tired of liberal Republicans who don't hold the principles of their party," he told a cheering crowd.
Moore condemned "senseless treaties" like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. He said the nation's borders have been opened to criminals and terrorists, the Constitution discarded, the federal government grown in size and scope "far beyond anything our founders ever imagined," and the nation's debt is soaring.
"Our state sovereignty, routinely ignored by an all-powerful federal bureaucracy, and our concept of virtue and morality has been distorted and twisted to a point that good is now called evil, and evil is now called good," Moore said. "I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we not only find ourselves in a great economic recession, but in a great moral and spiritual depression as well."
Visit the one and only "tea-party store" now
The convention attendees took to their feet as the room instantaneously exploded in cheers.
"I admit that often it is not easy to identify those responsible for these ills in our society, for they call themselves Democrats and Republicans," he continued. "They call themselves conservatives and liberals. They pose as Christians and non-Christians."
However, Moore said those responsible have a few things in common.
"They hate our country and our past," he said. "They have no regard for our beloved Constitution. They have a love of wealth and power more than of liberty and freedom."
He added that they have yet another thing in common: They don't quit.
"One of those who said he didn't quit is our current president, Barack Obama," Moore noted.
He then began to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. But rather than addressing grievances to the king of Britain, Moore presented Obama with his own "bill of particulars":
He has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He's elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June last to celebrate Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender pride.
He now threatens to change our law, 10 U.S.C. Section 654, to allow homosexuality in our military in direct opposition to the law which says that the attempt to engage in homosexuality will create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
He has apologized to the Arab world for our past, subjugated our national sovereignty by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia.
He has pursued a socialist agenda by taking control of private companies and pushing a national health-care plan with a public option. Backed by a willing Congress, he has bought off our senators and our representatives with our own money in an effort to mandate this agenda. And when opposed by members of the Senate, he smugly smiled and said, "I won."
Moore concluded his list with a direct quote from the Declaration: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Once again, the crowd went wild with applause.
Then Moore recalled a moving speech from another famous patriot – Patrick Henry.
"Our chains are forged!" he declared. "Their clanking may be heard [in the halls of Congress] on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come! I repeat, we must let it come.
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. … Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
The room erupted in cheers and booming applause once more – this time lasting several minutes.
"This tea-party movement is big," Moore explained. "It's waking up our country. There is a battle around this great nation. Every one of you – black, white, young, old, Republican, Democrat, Christian and non-Christian – is part of that battle."
He continued, "We will either preserve our republic and our faith in God, or we'll have them taken from us. Go forth, armed with the holy cause of liberty."
As the speech ended, tea partiers streamed out of the banquet room doors, armed with copies of Moore's book, "So Help Me, God."
Ron Foreman, an attendee from Arkansas, reacted to Moore's speech:
"Outstanding!" he exclaimed.
St. Louis, Mo., resident Glenn O'Bryan called the speech "terrific," saying he was motivated to come to the convention by his love for the country.
O'Bryan said, "I'd like to see the tyranny put in check."
Jack and Joan Billman, residents of Greencastle, Ind., said they believed the speech was "very appropriate."
"Certainly the comparison between what took place with the founders and what needs to be taking place now is so very, very apparent," Jack told WND. "Everybody talks about the need for fewer taxes and smaller government. But if our politicians would just follow the Constitution, all of those problems would be taken care of."
Friday, February 5, 2010
Climategate Worsens
Climategate spreads like an ozone hole
Scientists at the heart of the Climategate controversy face new allegations which cast further doubt about global warming. Analysis shows researchers had tried to suppress key details of their findings for twenty years.
New allegations swirl in Climategate, which began last November with an email leak at the University of East Anglia, suggesting that one of the world’s foremost centres for climate research had been manipulating data to prove the existence of man-made global warming.
Now, it turns out data manipulation has been going on since at least 1990.
Read more
The head of the university’s climate research unit, Professor Phil Jones, has come under fresh suspicion due to a paper he released 20 years ago, claiming urban warming wasn’t a factor in higher temperature readings he’d recorded. But he doesn’t seem to be able to show where his information came from.
“That research was paid for with public money so everyone should have access to it, and if we’re spending that kind of money to stop climate change then the fundamental data should be open to anyone who wants to check it,” International Climate Science Coalition executive director Tom Harris says.
That same paper was used as evidence in the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel has also recently come under fire for falsely claiming in one of its own reports that all Himalayan glaciers could completely melt down by 2035.
The head of the panel has refused to apologise, calling the error “an isolated mistake”. However, global warming skeptics say such occurrences mean we essentially know nothing about the climate.
“It means that we do not have a measure of how temperatures have changed over the last 50-100 years, that we can say, well, one year is warmer than the other but the relative amounts, like 2002 compared with the 1930’s, was that it warmer or colder, but we do not actually know,” Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction says.
More worrying, another case suggests the whole system of scientists reviewing their colleagues’ work has been corrupted. Some of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit refer to a paper that Professor Jones reviewed and deliberately suppressed.
What emerged was an analysis of data from weather stations around Russia’s Lake Baikal. It showed much less warming than Professor Jones’ own analysis using much the same data.
“The other things which they have been doing which are grossly unacceptable – is trying to prevent the publication of valid scientific opinion and research which goes against what they believe, and that is absolutely monstrous! So they not only suppress the scientific opinion they don’t like, but they actively avoid commissioning work which I’m certain would have appeared in print, but to the fact that they have a total grip and bias against anything they don’t agree with,” Corbyn adds.
The University of East Anglia continues to call its data “rock solid”.
These latest Climategate revelations show this scandal is far from over. And all through it, the voices of the skeptics are getting louder. They’re asking, if man-made climate change is such an unassailable fact, why does it have to be proven using manipulated data?
Scientists at the heart of the Climategate controversy face new allegations which cast further doubt about global warming. Analysis shows researchers had tried to suppress key details of their findings for twenty years.
New allegations swirl in Climategate, which began last November with an email leak at the University of East Anglia, suggesting that one of the world’s foremost centres for climate research had been manipulating data to prove the existence of man-made global warming.
Now, it turns out data manipulation has been going on since at least 1990.
Read more
The head of the university’s climate research unit, Professor Phil Jones, has come under fresh suspicion due to a paper he released 20 years ago, claiming urban warming wasn’t a factor in higher temperature readings he’d recorded. But he doesn’t seem to be able to show where his information came from.
“That research was paid for with public money so everyone should have access to it, and if we’re spending that kind of money to stop climate change then the fundamental data should be open to anyone who wants to check it,” International Climate Science Coalition executive director Tom Harris says.
That same paper was used as evidence in the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel has also recently come under fire for falsely claiming in one of its own reports that all Himalayan glaciers could completely melt down by 2035.
The head of the panel has refused to apologise, calling the error “an isolated mistake”. However, global warming skeptics say such occurrences mean we essentially know nothing about the climate.
“It means that we do not have a measure of how temperatures have changed over the last 50-100 years, that we can say, well, one year is warmer than the other but the relative amounts, like 2002 compared with the 1930’s, was that it warmer or colder, but we do not actually know,” Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction says.
More worrying, another case suggests the whole system of scientists reviewing their colleagues’ work has been corrupted. Some of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit refer to a paper that Professor Jones reviewed and deliberately suppressed.
What emerged was an analysis of data from weather stations around Russia’s Lake Baikal. It showed much less warming than Professor Jones’ own analysis using much the same data.
“The other things which they have been doing which are grossly unacceptable – is trying to prevent the publication of valid scientific opinion and research which goes against what they believe, and that is absolutely monstrous! So they not only suppress the scientific opinion they don’t like, but they actively avoid commissioning work which I’m certain would have appeared in print, but to the fact that they have a total grip and bias against anything they don’t agree with,” Corbyn adds.
The University of East Anglia continues to call its data “rock solid”.
These latest Climategate revelations show this scandal is far from over. And all through it, the voices of the skeptics are getting louder. They’re asking, if man-made climate change is such an unassailable fact, why does it have to be proven using manipulated data?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Importance Of Our Constitution
Our Sacred Honor ... to Support and Defend
By Mark Alexander
In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document that affirmed their God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By attaching their signatures to our great Declaration of Independence, they, in effect, were signing their potential death warrants.
Indeed, the last line of our Declaration reads, "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Many of these men, and many of their countrymen, the first generation of American Patriots, would die fighting for American liberty.
A decade later, their liberty having been won at great cost, our Founders further codified their independence and interdependence by instituting yet another historic document, our Constitution.
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Bound by Oath to support...
The Constitution also prescribes the following oath to be taken by the president-elect: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Preserve, protect and defend...
Commissioned and enlisted military personnel are also required by statute to "solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...", though the officer's oath doesn't include any provision that they obey orders.
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
Notably, all these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not the so-called "living constitution" as amended by judicial activists populating what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become "the despotic branch."
While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, not the least of which is the forced redistribution of income to benefit their constituency groups which, in turn, dutifully re-elect them.
Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for -- re-election.
On that note, the latest crop of Leftists on their way to Washington under the supervision of President-elect Barack Obama are destined to make a greater mockery of our Constitution than any administration in history. Clearly, Obama and his ilk have no history of honoring, or intention to honor, their oaths and, in fact, have no context for such honor.
A small cadre of liberals who believe themselves to be "patriots" have asked, "Can't I be a bona fide Patriot and support Barack Obama?"
In a word ... NO, unless in a state of solemn repentance.
In the spirit of charity, perhaps Obama supporters, who self-identify as patriots, are just grossly misinformed about our Constitution, our history and their own civic duty. Of course, they would likewise be grossly deluded about their identity, but perhaps the delusion is temporary.
I would suggest that Obama "patriots" are nothing more than "sunshine patriots," as Thomas Paine wrote, who "will in crisis, shrink from the service of his country."
At its core, the word "patriot" has direct lineage to those who fought for American independence and established our constitutional republic. That lineage has descended most directly through our history with those who have been entrusted "to support and defend" our Constitution -- more specifically, those who have been faithful to, and have abided by, that oath. As previously noted, by "our Constitution," I am referring to the United States Constitution, not the adulterated vestigial remains that liberals call "the living constitution."
I have taken oaths five times in the service of our country. But I did not have to take any oath to understand my obligations as a citizen "to support and defend" our Constitution.
So, does the title of "Patriot" apply to an individual who votes for a man who has not honored his public oaths of office previously, and has given no indication he intends to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" as president -- a man who subscribes to the errant notion of a "living constitution" which, in his own words, "breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?
No authentic Patriot would support those who violate their sacred oaths.
Unfortunately, in this most recent election, we saw even a handful of flag-rank military officers who have no more reverence for their oaths than Obama. However, they are the exception, not the rule.
Obama's mantra, "change," is a euphemism for constitutional abrogation -- an incremental encroachment on liberty until, at last, liberty is lost.
Our nation's second president, John Adams, warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
As for Obama's deception about his own patriotic pedigree, I commend the words of our nation's first president, George Washington: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"
Regarding the Presidential Oath of Office, Justice Joseph Story wrote: "[T]he duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose." He wrote further that if the president does not honor his oath, his office "will be utterly worthless for ... the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people."
Of course, Barack Obama proposes to further constrain the rights of the people by advancing centralized government control by way of economic regulation and forced income redistribution, all in the name of "happiness, good order, and safety of the people," but in direct violation of his oath.
Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office? Indeed, anyone having take that oath would be in direct violation of its mandate to "support and defend THE Constitution" should they support extra-Constitutional orders from superiors who do not honor their sacred oath.
By Mark Alexander
In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document that affirmed their God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By attaching their signatures to our great Declaration of Independence, they, in effect, were signing their potential death warrants.
Indeed, the last line of our Declaration reads, "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Many of these men, and many of their countrymen, the first generation of American Patriots, would die fighting for American liberty.
A decade later, their liberty having been won at great cost, our Founders further codified their independence and interdependence by instituting yet another historic document, our Constitution.
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Bound by Oath to support...
The Constitution also prescribes the following oath to be taken by the president-elect: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Preserve, protect and defend...
Commissioned and enlisted military personnel are also required by statute to "solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...", though the officer's oath doesn't include any provision that they obey orders.
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
Notably, all these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not the so-called "living constitution" as amended by judicial activists populating what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become "the despotic branch."
While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, not the least of which is the forced redistribution of income to benefit their constituency groups which, in turn, dutifully re-elect them.
Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for -- re-election.
On that note, the latest crop of Leftists on their way to Washington under the supervision of President-elect Barack Obama are destined to make a greater mockery of our Constitution than any administration in history. Clearly, Obama and his ilk have no history of honoring, or intention to honor, their oaths and, in fact, have no context for such honor.
A small cadre of liberals who believe themselves to be "patriots" have asked, "Can't I be a bona fide Patriot and support Barack Obama?"
In a word ... NO, unless in a state of solemn repentance.
In the spirit of charity, perhaps Obama supporters, who self-identify as patriots, are just grossly misinformed about our Constitution, our history and their own civic duty. Of course, they would likewise be grossly deluded about their identity, but perhaps the delusion is temporary.
I would suggest that Obama "patriots" are nothing more than "sunshine patriots," as Thomas Paine wrote, who "will in crisis, shrink from the service of his country."
At its core, the word "patriot" has direct lineage to those who fought for American independence and established our constitutional republic. That lineage has descended most directly through our history with those who have been entrusted "to support and defend" our Constitution -- more specifically, those who have been faithful to, and have abided by, that oath. As previously noted, by "our Constitution," I am referring to the United States Constitution, not the adulterated vestigial remains that liberals call "the living constitution."
I have taken oaths five times in the service of our country. But I did not have to take any oath to understand my obligations as a citizen "to support and defend" our Constitution.
So, does the title of "Patriot" apply to an individual who votes for a man who has not honored his public oaths of office previously, and has given no indication he intends to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" as president -- a man who subscribes to the errant notion of a "living constitution" which, in his own words, "breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?
No authentic Patriot would support those who violate their sacred oaths.
Unfortunately, in this most recent election, we saw even a handful of flag-rank military officers who have no more reverence for their oaths than Obama. However, they are the exception, not the rule.
Obama's mantra, "change," is a euphemism for constitutional abrogation -- an incremental encroachment on liberty until, at last, liberty is lost.
Our nation's second president, John Adams, warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
As for Obama's deception about his own patriotic pedigree, I commend the words of our nation's first president, George Washington: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"
Regarding the Presidential Oath of Office, Justice Joseph Story wrote: "[T]he duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose." He wrote further that if the president does not honor his oath, his office "will be utterly worthless for ... the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people."
Of course, Barack Obama proposes to further constrain the rights of the people by advancing centralized government control by way of economic regulation and forced income redistribution, all in the name of "happiness, good order, and safety of the people," but in direct violation of his oath.
Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office? Indeed, anyone having take that oath would be in direct violation of its mandate to "support and defend THE Constitution" should they support extra-Constitutional orders from superiors who do not honor their sacred oath.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Fight For Free Speech
First Court Challenge to Federal “Hate Crimes” Act Filed by Three Pastors and a Pro-Family Advocate
February 2, 2010
Religious - Holy Bible & FlagANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, this morning filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act. The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan (AFA-Michigan). [Read Complaint].
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.”
Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election. The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”
“Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In fact, the greatest threat of violence to ‘homosexuals’ comes not from Christians but from other ‘homosexuals, ’ according to statistics compiled by their own advocacy groups, ” said Thompson.
The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, ” was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act, ” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a majority of Democrats. The Act itself is poorly written, based on erroneous facts and internally incoherent principles.
Pastor Yuille is the Pastor of The Bible Church, which is located in Michigan. He is also the National Director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress and the host of Joshua’s Trail, a radio talk show that airs in Michigan and can be heard in parts of Canada. Pastor Yuille is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate crimes law for his public ministry similar to how ministers and other religious persons in Canada are being silenced by that country’s “hate crimes” legislation. As an African-American, Pastor Yuille finds it offensive to equate the so-called “civil rights” struggle of persons who engage in homosexual behavior with the real civil rights struggle of African-Americans.
Pastor Ouellette is the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, Michigan, which has approximately 7,000 members. He is the author of five books as well as many pamphlets and Bible tracts. Pastor Ouellette travels across the country preaching God’s Word, which includes the Biblical teaching on homosexuality.
And Pastor Combs is the lead Pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church, and The River Church, all of which are located in Michigan. Pastor Combs pastors approximately 10,000 church members. He too preaches the Biblical teaching on homosexuality as part of his public ministry.
The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, ” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”
Consequently, the new hate crimes law “subjects Plaintiffs to increased government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation on account of their strong, public opposition to homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, thereby causing a tangible and concrete deterrent, inhibitory, and chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities and their rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion” in violation of the United States Constitution.
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
Under a related federal criminal statute, anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense under the new hate crimes law is liable as if the person committed the violent crime.
All of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching. As president of AFA-Michigan, Gary Glenn is often publicly described and listed as an “enemy” of those who promote “gay rights” and other aspects of the homosexual agenda. In 2006, for example, The Advocate, a “gay-rights” periodical, described Glenn as “ relentless foe of gay rights in every context.”
It is a favored tactic of homosexual activists to accuse pastors and other Christians of responsibility for violent acts on account of their public opposition to homosexual behavior.
The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the new federal law, publicly stated, “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.”
The former executive director of the Triangle Foundation publicly stated the following regarding “hate crimes”: “The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK. . . . If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime. So, too, are the people who own the words that incite violence.”
Thompson commented further, “Indeed, in many other jurisdictions, so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation is being used to prosecute and jail pastors and priests for giving sermons or homilies that reflect the Christian view toward homosexuality. That’s why it was critical for us to file this lawsuit. This anti-Christian agenda must be stopped now.”
In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.
In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent crime and vindicate its victims, ” and “here is no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims.”
The lawsuit notes that the link between the activity punished by this new law and interstate commerce “is so attenuated that it places no real limit on Congress’ power to regulate.” Moreover, as the lawsuit points out, reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are “bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual orientation.
In fact, Eric Holder, a supporter of the new federal law, was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch in a hearing whether there was any evidence of a trend that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the State level. Holder stated without reservation that there was no such evidence and that, in fact, States were, by and large, doing a fine job in this area. Consequently, as the lawsuit alleges, there is no national problem associated with “bias” motivated crimes on account of the victim’s “sexual orientation” to warrant federal involvement.
Even in the this liberally-controlled Congress, to garner enough votes for passage, the politically-divisive “hate crimes” law had to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, even though the law is non-germane and non-related to defense. Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”
As Congressman Todd Akin noted, special prosecutions for so-called “hate crimes” are inherently divisive. Congressman Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[This new hate crimes law] increases hatred in America. . . . The law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice, . . Lady Justice does not notice. [The new hate crimes law] violates that basic principle. It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it creates hatred.”
Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs.
February 2, 2010
Religious - Holy Bible & FlagANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, this morning filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act. The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan (AFA-Michigan). [Read Complaint].
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.”
Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election. The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”
“Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In fact, the greatest threat of violence to ‘homosexuals’ comes not from Christians but from other ‘homosexuals, ’ according to statistics compiled by their own advocacy groups, ” said Thompson.
The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, ” was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act, ” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a majority of Democrats. The Act itself is poorly written, based on erroneous facts and internally incoherent principles.
Pastor Yuille is the Pastor of The Bible Church, which is located in Michigan. He is also the National Director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress and the host of Joshua’s Trail, a radio talk show that airs in Michigan and can be heard in parts of Canada. Pastor Yuille is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate crimes law for his public ministry similar to how ministers and other religious persons in Canada are being silenced by that country’s “hate crimes” legislation. As an African-American, Pastor Yuille finds it offensive to equate the so-called “civil rights” struggle of persons who engage in homosexual behavior with the real civil rights struggle of African-Americans.
Pastor Ouellette is the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, Michigan, which has approximately 7,000 members. He is the author of five books as well as many pamphlets and Bible tracts. Pastor Ouellette travels across the country preaching God’s Word, which includes the Biblical teaching on homosexuality.
And Pastor Combs is the lead Pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church, and The River Church, all of which are located in Michigan. Pastor Combs pastors approximately 10,000 church members. He too preaches the Biblical teaching on homosexuality as part of his public ministry.
The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, ” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”
Consequently, the new hate crimes law “subjects Plaintiffs to increased government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation on account of their strong, public opposition to homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, thereby causing a tangible and concrete deterrent, inhibitory, and chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities and their rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion” in violation of the United States Constitution.
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC who is handling the case, observed, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
Under a related federal criminal statute, anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense under the new hate crimes law is liable as if the person committed the violent crime.
All of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching. As president of AFA-Michigan, Gary Glenn is often publicly described and listed as an “enemy” of those who promote “gay rights” and other aspects of the homosexual agenda. In 2006, for example, The Advocate, a “gay-rights” periodical, described Glenn as “ relentless foe of gay rights in every context.”
It is a favored tactic of homosexual activists to accuse pastors and other Christians of responsibility for violent acts on account of their public opposition to homosexual behavior.
The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the new federal law, publicly stated, “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.”
The former executive director of the Triangle Foundation publicly stated the following regarding “hate crimes”: “The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK. . . . If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime. So, too, are the people who own the words that incite violence.”
Thompson commented further, “Indeed, in many other jurisdictions, so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation is being used to prosecute and jail pastors and priests for giving sermons or homilies that reflect the Christian view toward homosexuality. That’s why it was critical for us to file this lawsuit. This anti-Christian agenda must be stopped now.”
In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.
In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent crime and vindicate its victims, ” and “here is no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims.”
The lawsuit notes that the link between the activity punished by this new law and interstate commerce “is so attenuated that it places no real limit on Congress’ power to regulate.” Moreover, as the lawsuit points out, reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are “bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual orientation.
In fact, Eric Holder, a supporter of the new federal law, was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch in a hearing whether there was any evidence of a trend that “hate crimes” were going unpunished at the State level. Holder stated without reservation that there was no such evidence and that, in fact, States were, by and large, doing a fine job in this area. Consequently, as the lawsuit alleges, there is no national problem associated with “bias” motivated crimes on account of the victim’s “sexual orientation” to warrant federal involvement.
Even in the this liberally-controlled Congress, to garner enough votes for passage, the politically-divisive “hate crimes” law had to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, even though the law is non-germane and non-related to defense. Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.”
As Congressman Todd Akin noted, special prosecutions for so-called “hate crimes” are inherently divisive. Congressman Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[This new hate crimes law] increases hatred in America. . . . The law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is always supposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when you appear before Lady Justice, . . Lady Justice does not notice. [The new hate crimes law] violates that basic principle. It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, it creates hatred.”
Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Diagnosis
SOMETHING WRONG IN AMERICA TODAY: LOU GEHRIG’S DISEASE
By Frosty Wooldridge
Yankee legend Lou Gehrig walked into the batter’s box for 2,130 baseball games. No other player in history, before Cal Ripkin, Jr., boasted such a remarkable feat as playing in an unimaginable unbroken streak of games. They called Gehrig the “Iron Horse.” He played hard, stayed honest, hit home runs and led the Yankees to more pennants after the exit of the great Babe Ruth.
But ‘something’ broke down his ability to run, hit and catch. No one understood his condition. On May 2, 1938, he took himself out of the game, which ended his phenomenal sweep at 2,130 games. Later, when diagnosed with ALS, now known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”, 62,000 Yankee fans, along with Babe Ruth, stood to hear the Iron Horse speak.
“Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.
“Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day? Sure, I’m lucky. Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Sure, I'm lucky.
“When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift — that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies — that’s something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter — that's something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so that you can have an education and build your body — it's a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed — that's the finest I know.
“So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for. Thank you.” — Lou Gehrig at Yankee Stadium, July 4, 1939
Gehrig exuded the caliber of America once common. Gehrig died two years later at 37 years of age.
THE UNITED STATES EPITOMIZES LOU GEHRIG’S DISEASE IN 2010
How could the United States, a very young country at 234 years of age find itself at the doorstep of incredible internal turmoil and fiscal collapse?
1. We disregard a $12 trillion national debt.
2. How about a $700 billion annual trade deficit?
3. Over 20 million unemployed citizens while Congress authorizes millions of jobs to be shipped out of our country via insourcing, outsourcing and offshoring.
4. Illegal employers defraud American workers and taxes as they employ 20 plus million illegal alien migrants for major profits while taxpayers pick up medical, educational and incarceration costs of $346 billion annually. ( Source: www.thesocialcontract.com)
5. Thirty five million citizens subsisting on food stamps.
6. Thirteen million American children living in poverty.
7. Two million citizens and non-citizens reside in prisons at taxpayer costs.
8. We borrow $2 billion daily from foreign countries to float our economy.
9. Our high schools nationwide suffer from 50 to 76 percent flunkout rates.
10. Our minorities wallow in pregnancies, crime, drugs, hopelessness and despair. Why? Joblessness for starters.
11. Our 535 members of Congress invite another 2.4 million unskilled, uneducated and culturally incompatible immigrants from disparate countries annually.
Advertisement
12. Home-grown Muslim terrorists try to blow up themselves along with our citizens. Muslims behead or shoot their wives here in the USA. Father’s kill their daughters via honor killings in our country. U.S. mosques fund terrorism abroad. (Four being investigated in New York currently.)
13. And the list grows and grows on multiple levels.
“As I look at America today, I am not afraid to say that I am afraid.”—Bertram Gross
John W. Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, said, “We are embroiled in global wars against enemies that seem to attack from nowhere. The amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is nearing $1 trillion and is estimated to total somewhere in the vicinity of $3 trillion before it’s all over. That does not take into account the ravaged countries that we occupy, the thousands of innocent civilians killed, or the thousands of American soldiers who have been killed or irreparably injured or who are committing suicide at an alarming rate.”
DISPLACING OURSELVES WITH DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM
When Congress and the media pitch catchwords like “multiculturalism”; “diversity”; “globalization”; and “one world government”—you discover nothing in those terms supports America and our culture, language and civilization.
On NPR Sunday, January 31, 2010, Jamie Tarabay, “Virginia Islamic schools expansion met protests”, told a story about the Islamic Saudi Academy demanding more expansion. But the townspeople wanted them shut down. Why?
Tarabay said, “A former valedictorian of the school is serving a life sentence for plotting to assassinate President Bush. A former principal was arrested because instead of reporting a complaint from one of his students about sexual abuse at home, he deleted the report and returned the child to her father.”
This happens right here in the United States. Our Congress imported an astounding eight million Muslims within 20 years. Their religion and their culture counter everything in America and its culture.
It’s like our Congress consists of a bunch of naive high school kids in a chemistry class. With no teacher in the room, everybody throws some chemicals into a big pot to see what happens. At some point, the chemicals erode the pot at the bottom or blow the entire room to kingdom come!
One look at Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami or Detroit and you will find a population river pouring in from all over the world—they speak everything but English and they could care less about America—multiculturalism’s finest hour.
Precious few Americans understand the ramifications of adding the projected 70 million immigrants to our civilization within 25 years. On a sociological level, environmental scale or cultural level—such numbers promise horrific consequences. If we continue along our current path, we will end up like Lou Gehrig: first incapacitated, and ultimately, taken out. (Refer back to the 13 points.)
The bulk of delinquent Congressional reps dare you to call their bluff this November. If you vote them back in, they will continue on the same destructive path.
We must vote only senators and House reps that will lead this civilization back toward viability. This means that most citizens must kick MOST of the current members of Congress out on their elitist/narcissistic rear-ends. For starters, we must enact a 10 year moratorium on all immigration into the United States. We need to take care of our citizens, our culture and our country. We cannot keep doing this to ourselves. Join www.numbersusa.com; www.thesocialcontract.com; www.fairus.org; www.capsweb.org; www.alipac.us; www.firecoalition.com
By Frosty Wooldridge
Yankee legend Lou Gehrig walked into the batter’s box for 2,130 baseball games. No other player in history, before Cal Ripkin, Jr., boasted such a remarkable feat as playing in an unimaginable unbroken streak of games. They called Gehrig the “Iron Horse.” He played hard, stayed honest, hit home runs and led the Yankees to more pennants after the exit of the great Babe Ruth.
But ‘something’ broke down his ability to run, hit and catch. No one understood his condition. On May 2, 1938, he took himself out of the game, which ended his phenomenal sweep at 2,130 games. Later, when diagnosed with ALS, now known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”, 62,000 Yankee fans, along with Babe Ruth, stood to hear the Iron Horse speak.
“Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.
“Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day? Sure, I’m lucky. Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Sure, I'm lucky.
“When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift — that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies — that’s something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter — that's something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so that you can have an education and build your body — it's a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed — that's the finest I know.
“So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for. Thank you.” — Lou Gehrig at Yankee Stadium, July 4, 1939
Gehrig exuded the caliber of America once common. Gehrig died two years later at 37 years of age.
THE UNITED STATES EPITOMIZES LOU GEHRIG’S DISEASE IN 2010
How could the United States, a very young country at 234 years of age find itself at the doorstep of incredible internal turmoil and fiscal collapse?
1. We disregard a $12 trillion national debt.
2. How about a $700 billion annual trade deficit?
3. Over 20 million unemployed citizens while Congress authorizes millions of jobs to be shipped out of our country via insourcing, outsourcing and offshoring.
4. Illegal employers defraud American workers and taxes as they employ 20 plus million illegal alien migrants for major profits while taxpayers pick up medical, educational and incarceration costs of $346 billion annually. ( Source: www.thesocialcontract.com)
5. Thirty five million citizens subsisting on food stamps.
6. Thirteen million American children living in poverty.
7. Two million citizens and non-citizens reside in prisons at taxpayer costs.
8. We borrow $2 billion daily from foreign countries to float our economy.
9. Our high schools nationwide suffer from 50 to 76 percent flunkout rates.
10. Our minorities wallow in pregnancies, crime, drugs, hopelessness and despair. Why? Joblessness for starters.
11. Our 535 members of Congress invite another 2.4 million unskilled, uneducated and culturally incompatible immigrants from disparate countries annually.
Advertisement
12. Home-grown Muslim terrorists try to blow up themselves along with our citizens. Muslims behead or shoot their wives here in the USA. Father’s kill their daughters via honor killings in our country. U.S. mosques fund terrorism abroad. (Four being investigated in New York currently.)
13. And the list grows and grows on multiple levels.
“As I look at America today, I am not afraid to say that I am afraid.”—Bertram Gross
John W. Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, said, “We are embroiled in global wars against enemies that seem to attack from nowhere. The amount of money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is nearing $1 trillion and is estimated to total somewhere in the vicinity of $3 trillion before it’s all over. That does not take into account the ravaged countries that we occupy, the thousands of innocent civilians killed, or the thousands of American soldiers who have been killed or irreparably injured or who are committing suicide at an alarming rate.”
DISPLACING OURSELVES WITH DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM
When Congress and the media pitch catchwords like “multiculturalism”; “diversity”; “globalization”; and “one world government”—you discover nothing in those terms supports America and our culture, language and civilization.
On NPR Sunday, January 31, 2010, Jamie Tarabay, “Virginia Islamic schools expansion met protests”, told a story about the Islamic Saudi Academy demanding more expansion. But the townspeople wanted them shut down. Why?
Tarabay said, “A former valedictorian of the school is serving a life sentence for plotting to assassinate President Bush. A former principal was arrested because instead of reporting a complaint from one of his students about sexual abuse at home, he deleted the report and returned the child to her father.”
This happens right here in the United States. Our Congress imported an astounding eight million Muslims within 20 years. Their religion and their culture counter everything in America and its culture.
It’s like our Congress consists of a bunch of naive high school kids in a chemistry class. With no teacher in the room, everybody throws some chemicals into a big pot to see what happens. At some point, the chemicals erode the pot at the bottom or blow the entire room to kingdom come!
One look at Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami or Detroit and you will find a population river pouring in from all over the world—they speak everything but English and they could care less about America—multiculturalism’s finest hour.
Precious few Americans understand the ramifications of adding the projected 70 million immigrants to our civilization within 25 years. On a sociological level, environmental scale or cultural level—such numbers promise horrific consequences. If we continue along our current path, we will end up like Lou Gehrig: first incapacitated, and ultimately, taken out. (Refer back to the 13 points.)
The bulk of delinquent Congressional reps dare you to call their bluff this November. If you vote them back in, they will continue on the same destructive path.
We must vote only senators and House reps that will lead this civilization back toward viability. This means that most citizens must kick MOST of the current members of Congress out on their elitist/narcissistic rear-ends. For starters, we must enact a 10 year moratorium on all immigration into the United States. We need to take care of our citizens, our culture and our country. We cannot keep doing this to ourselves. Join www.numbersusa.com; www.thesocialcontract.com; www.fairus.org; www.capsweb.org; www.alipac.us; www.firecoalition.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)