Sharia Law Come to America!

A few weeks back, uniformed police in the heavily Muslim Detroit suburb of Dearborn, Michigan, arrested four Christian missionaries for the offense of handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on a public street outside an Arab festival. (Can you even imagine uniformed cops interfering with (much less arresting) Islamic preachers who were handing out copies of the Koran inside a Christian festival (much less on a public street). The Christian missionaries were charged with disorderly conduct and their camera was seized. As the tape showed, there wasn’t anything disorderly about them and they were engaged in behavior that is absolutely legal under the U.S. Constitution. Proselytism of Christianity, however, is an offense against sharia — that’s what the police, in effect, were enforcing. See John Hinderaker’s report (with some video) at Powerline, here. The Detroit News confirmed this story.

Now comes this story out of New Jersey: A Muslim woman was raped by her Muslim husband (who was about to divorce her). However, a state judge refused to find that there had been a sexual assault or any kind of criminal sexual misconduct because, under sharia principles, a wife may not refuse her husband’s requests for sex. As the man told the crying woman, “This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

Robert Spencer has the story at Jihad Watch, along with some of the relevant Islamic scripture. (Robert tips his cap to Eugene Volokh). The judge reasoned as follows:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

Thankfully, this ruling has been reversed by an appellate court, which has reaffirmed — at least for now — the principle that we are still ruled by American law:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

Expect to see lots more of this as long as sharia’s apologists inhabit high places.

ALAH AKBAR

Mexican Law Enforcement in the U.S.

SAN DIEGO (AP) – A Mexican law enforcement official who worked with U.S. authorities was charged with passing along classified information to drug traffickers and arranging the arrests of his drug boss’ rivals, according to an indictment unsealed Friday.

—

KNX 1070 Radio in Los Angeles reported this story today. A total of 43 people were arrested in the San Diego Drug Cartel Sting.

This was easily predicted as I did.

Failure of Government Bureaucracy

Despite the Tea Party’s crusade for less government there is ample evidence that what is needed is improved government effectiveness. The lax enforcement of government regulation is the real issue. A very good example is our neighbor to the north. Canada does have more government enforcement than the United States. They do have a one payer health care system that does provide longer life than the United States. Canada’s Gross domestic product rose an annualized 6.1% during the three months ended March 31, 2010. The United States domestic product rose at a revised 2.7%. Canada is the country that has been derided by many people as having too much government control. Precisely the opposite of the Tea Party groups that think America needs less government.

The new financial overhaul legislation is reported to be 2,000 pages long. Who, other than lawyers and geeks, will be able to understand the new law let alone implement any worthwhile or significant changes? The SEC and the MMA have reportedly been using government computers to search for porn sites. Those two departments alone have had too cozy relations with the businesses they are supposed to be regulating.

There were federal regulators that cited the Massey Mine in West Virginia eight times for “substantial” violations relating to the mine’s methane control plans, according to the records. No action was actually taken to stop operations. That cost 25 lives.

Remember the contamination of dry-roasted and oil-roasted peanuts, granulated peanuts, peanut meal, peanut butter and peanut paste. The Peanut Corp. of America was driven into bankruptcy as a result of that situation but it was an exposé on “60 Minutes” that brought this issue to the American public. The FDA was late to the problem.

We don’t lack laws to protect society from bad guys. We do lack the laser beam focus to get the jobs done.

The Day Miranda Rights Were Established

On this day in 1966, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation. It was a case in which the defendant, who was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and rape, claimed his confession was false and coerced. The appeal was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Miranda established that the accused must be informed that he or she has the right to remain silent and that if the suspect chooses not to remain silent that anything said can be used against the suspect in court. Before being interrogated the suspect must also be informed of the right to consult with an attorney, and to have legal counsel present during interrogation.

Additionally, the Miranda rule also requires that if the suspect is indigent that he or she be informed that the court will provide counsel. If the suspect decides to remain silent, then the interrogation must end. Any statements obtained in violation of the suspects’ Miranda rights are inadmissible as evidence in court. If the suspect decides to speak without consulting with an attorney then the prosecutor must prove that the suspect willingly waived Miranda rights.

What Was the Intent of the Second Amendment?

The second amendment to the Constitution, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Los Angeles Times reported late yesterday that “The California Assembly voted Tuesday to ban openly carrying handguns in public. Lawmakers approved the bill as some gun rights activists celebrate their constitutional right to bear firearms by walking the streets with pistols strapped to their hips, like gunslingers from the Wild West. Should the bill become law, that practice would become a crime.

Supporters of the bill, including author Lori Saldana (D-San Diego), argued that the practice intimidates the unarmed and wastes police resources because officers frequently have to respond to worried callers saying there’s a person with a gun outside Starbucks, or a similarly crowded public space. The ban is supported by the California Police Chiefs Assn.

It is currently legal to openly carry a gun in public in California as long as it’s not loaded. Some gun enthusiasts have been known to carry ammunition in a separate pocket, supporters of the bill said.

Opponents argued that there have been no serious incidents associated with openly carrying firearms in California, and called the bill a solution in search of a problem. The bill, AB 1934, now goes to the Senate.”

Although I am in favor of restrictions on the right to bear arms, this law seems to be in conflict with the second amendment.

See how Ridiculous This is? Only in America!

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials
In ages!!! It explains things better than all
The baloney you hear on TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place
Across the country protesting the fact that Arizona
Is addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that
The US might protect its own
Borders, might make it harder
To sneak into this country and,
Once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand
The thinking behind these protests.
Let’s say I break into your house.
Let’s say that when you discover
Me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, ‘No! I like it here.

It’s better than my house. I’ve made all
The beds and washed the
Dishes and did the laundry
And swept the floors. I’ve
Done all the things you don’t
Like to do. I’m hard-working
And honest
(except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house

You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
He is also hard-working and honest, except for that
Breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out,
I will call my friends who will picket your
House carrying signs that proclaim my
RIGHT to be there.

It’s only fair, after all, because you have
A nicer house than I do, and I’m just
Trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working
And honest, person, except for well,
You know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a
Fraction of the cost of my keep, and
There is nothing you can do about it
Without being accused of cold,

Uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
Bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn
MY LANGUAGE!!! So you can
Communicate with me.

Why can’t people see how ridiculous
This is? Only in America .
If you agree, pass it on
Share it if you see the value of it.

Nullification of Federal Law: The Issue Is Back

From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: nullification
Doctrine upholding the right of a U.S. state to declare null and void an act of the federal government. First enunciated in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798), it was expanded by John C. Calhoun in response to the Tariff of 1828. Calhoun maintained that a state “interposition” could block enforcement of a federal law. The South Carolina legislature agreed by passing the Ordinance of Nullification (1832), threatening to secede if the federal government forced collection of the 1828 tariff duties. Pres. Andrew Jackson asserted the supremacy of the federal government. The U.S. Congress passed a compromise tariff bill reducing the duties but also passed the Force Bill, which authorized federal enforcement of the law. The South Carolina legislature rescinded its ordinance, but the conflict highlighted the danger of nullification.

Are we about to re-fight the Civil War? The question of nullification and secession were settled by that war. When the United States won that war over the Confederate States, the right to succeed from the union was settled. Apparently nullification was thought to still be a legal right. However, when President Eisenhower, a Republican, sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas’ Central High School to enforce the order to integrate, that issue was settled. Or was it?

The Tea Party Patriots are using the argument of the right to nullify Federal law by sighting the 10^th amendment to the constitution. The two laws they want to nullify are the new health care law and laws restricting the right to bear arms.

Alaska State Rep. Mike Kelly, sponsor of the Alaska Firearms
Freedom Act is a bill similar to other state’s freedom firearms acts. The proposed law states that if ammunition and weapons are made and used within the state then Federal law does not apply.

I oppose all laws that prohibit the use of Marijuana. Marijuana, for any use, is illegal under Federal law. If the state of California legalizes the use of this substance and it is banned by the U.S. government then I would want congress to change Federal law. I would not be in favor of nullification. My reason is simple. The United States is one nation. It is not a confederation of independent states.

Rand Paul and Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death were the last words of a speech given by Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775 to a Virginia convention. This one famous speech gave Patrick Henry a place in history books but he was never heard again.

Rand Paul has performed a service for all Americans. He has defined the Tea Party position on a multitude of issues. That puts him on the fringe of the political spectrum. Everyone will find some views of his as correct. He seems to have issues with the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and President Barack Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding “really un-American.” Rand Paul just wants to re-make America. (Update: reported late on CBS radio news that he doesn’t want to share his views on Meet the Press.) He is a Libertarian.

I found this appropriate Los Angeles Times editorial page comic commentary.

The reason that the Libertarian Party has not been successful is they hold views that most people find objectionable. Everyone will find something in his views that are acceptable. Just read this list of libertarian positions.

Fiscal Policy: Very right-libertarian. The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals–such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care–are obviously not compatible with this objective.

Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws.

Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership.

Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners.

Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks.

Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security.

Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.

Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth).

The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft.

Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.

LGBT Rights: Opposes “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners.

Immigrants’ Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled–everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Supreme Court – the Liberal Wing is Reinforced

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sworn in as the 107th justice to the United States Supreme Court in August, 1993, she became the second woman to sit in this court (Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman) and the first Jewish justice since 1969. She was born on born March 15, 1933. She has survived two cancer illnesses (colon cancer and pancreatic cancer). At 77 years old she will be the oldest justice on the Supreme Court after John Paul Stevens, who is 89, retires. She is part of the liberal side of the court. Have you seen pictures of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She does not look well. She has said she is healthy and intends to continue her roll on the Supreme Court.

Other older members of the court include: Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia is 74 and is a conservative, Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy is 73 and is a moderate and has swayed in his decision making, Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is 71 and is a liberal.

Elena Kagan is Jewish. She was born in New York City on April 28, 1960. She graduated from Hunter College High School in 1977 and earned her B.A. from Princeton University in 1981. She worked for the Michael Dukakis presidential campaign. She was dean of Harvard Law School. On January 5, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated her to be Solicitor General of the United States. Thus, she became the first woman to hold the office responsible for arguing for the Government of the United States in front of the Supreme Court whenever the government is party to a case. Kagan was a law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court. She was also an associate at the Washington D.C. law firm Williams & Connolly.

Television news shows are all saying that Kagan is a consensus builder. That was an important part of her role as dean of Harvard Law School. She has been known to face controversy particularly her banning of military recruitment on the Harvard campus because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Kagan is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.