Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

CAIR Forces Oregon College to Cancel Class on Islam

June 29, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Export: Radical Islam’s Map to the End of Democracy

June 29, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Best explaination of UnConstitutional Restriction on Free Speech in Dearborn Michigan

April 27, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The end of Free Speech and Assembly because the law is what they say it is

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN MARCH, before Pastor Jones decided to demonstrate in Dearborn, Michigan, yet the contents apply directly to the complete trampling of his Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly. He only said he was going to exercise these rights and he was arrested, went to court and ultimately put into jail WITHOUT EVER HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME! And the whole system KNEW he had committed no crime! This is the USA, not Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, any Islamic Government country. Here, we are SUPPOSE to be guaranteed the GOD GIVEN rights of Freedom. There is no footnote that says, “Except in Dearborn, Michigan”.

In one of the more memorable passages in Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith contemplates the inevitable doom that will follow from the first entry which he is preparing to make in his diary. The act was not illegal, he reflected — there were no laws in Oceania — but its discovery would nevertheless result in ten years in a forced labor camp.

If your tastes tend more to the lowbrow, there’s that great line from National Lampoon’s “Vacation”: “It ain’t illegal. Hell, I oughta know — I’m the sheriff!”

We see an increasing number of instances in the United States and the “Free World” in which citizens can be punished without any specific legal pretext.

To take one example which has been around for a while, there is no written law against carrying large amounts of cash on one’s person, nor any specific statutory definition of the threshold at which the amount of money one carries becomes a criminal offense. Nevertheless, anyone stopped by a police officer and found to be carrying thousands of dollars in cash will be presumed a drug trafficker of some sort, and their money seized according to the usual procedure of “civil forfeiture.”

When ballot measures to decriminalize or liberalize marijuana laws clear all the hurdles and are voted into law, as often or not the cops just quietly ignore them. For example, last October Los Angeles County, California Sheriff Lee Baca baldly stated that he would continue to arrest pot users even if Proposition 19 (which would have legalized it) passed. Baca’s “argument” was that it is still criminalized by federal statute, and that federal law supersedes state law.

Even as explained by the state’s own pet jurists, of course, this was utter nonsense. The functionaries of a state are not bound to enforce federal law. The practical effect of a measure legalizing pot, had it passed, would simply have been to tell the feds to enforce their own law. It would have withdrawn California’s state and local cops from the enforcement effort and dismantled the whole apparatus of interjurisdictional drug task forces. But none of that matters. Because if a cop wants to enforce a “law” badly enough, he’ll make one up.

Just about every week, Radley Balko reports on someone being arrested for filming cops, on the pretext that they’re “hindering apprehension,” “interfering with police business,” or “violating the wiretap laws,” or some such bull-hockey. Never mind that there’s no actual law criminalizing the act of recording public functionaries performing public duties in a public place, or that there’s even a law on the books specifically exempting such activity from the wiretap statutes.

If you’re willing to fight it out before judges or police commissioners, for weeks or months, you may or may not get a decision overruling the cop’s actions. But in the meantime you’ve had your camera (and maybe your nose) smashed, spent time in a holding cell, had your name dragged through the dirt, and maybe lost your job. And meanwhile, the cops just keep on doing it anyway. I mean, seriously, they can kill innocent people and wind up on paid administrative leave pending a wrist-slap, so how worried do you think they are about breaking a camera and roughing up some dirty effing hippie?

As I write, functionaries within the US national security apparatus are busily looking for any pretext on which Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — can be extradited from the United Kingdom. All three are ostensibly countries which share the common law tradition’s procedural protections of the accused, and which pay a great deal of lip service to the “rule of law.”

Yet nobody can state, in anything resembling clear terms, a plausible explanation of just what law Assange is supposed to have violated. Treason? He’s not a U.S. citizen. Espionage? If publishing classified documents leaked by someone else is a crime, please explain the difference between Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked diplomatic cables and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. So far they’ve failed to torture Bradley Manning into testifying that Assange suborned the leaked documents from him.

But if one expedient doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. The law doesn’t really matter. If the spooks, cops and prosecutors want to get somebody bad enough, they’ll come up with a bespoke “law” tailored to their needs. The custom manufacture of pretexts is a cottage industry for them.

In practice, the law is whatever they say it is.

April 26, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Response to Dearborn Mayors Open Letter

Mr Mayor, reading your open letter was painful in the obvious errors in thinking it expressed.


1. All of the United States of America is a FREE SPEECH ZONE that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Permit Free Zones? That is clearly Un-American and has no basis from the Constitution. The only reason a permit is needed for Free Speech Demonstrations is to notify the local government of the Demonstration so that it may adequately prepare any necessary security and area clean-up as needed.


2. You are mistaken regarding no illegal behavior occurring in the mosques of Deerborn. Failure to investigate or to prosecute jihadist behavior, support, or illegal activity does NOT mean it isn’t occurring. And behaviors that are not illegal, but against the interests of the United States of America are still Un-American behavior and Un-welcomed.


3. “It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.” – This is purely your opinion and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Anyone has a right of free speech regardless of the subject matter. The Supreme Court has repeated affirmed this right is guaranteed in the Constitution, even if the content of the free speech is abhorrent to must people.


4. Your defense of smut outlets and the use of them, a sausage factory and The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village as “proof” that Sharia Law isn’t being implemented in Deerborn is ludicrous. None of these three paragraphs has anything to do with the Constitution, the Dhimmi support of the Deerborn Muslim community, or the objections to the planned demonstration or Pastor Jones exercise of his free speech rights.

Mayor O’Reilly: An Open Letter to Pastor Jones

April 20, 2011

“Dear Pastor Jones:

I watched you on television speaking about the Constitution and Dearborn, and it appears you need more information about both before you come to our city. I can provide insight on the Constitution, and expertise on Dearborn.

First of all, Dearborn supports the Constitution as well as any city in America. Our commitment to the Constitution is unwavering, not merely convenient, which makes your hyperbole about Sharia Law being practiced in the courts or civil law of Dearborn nonsensical. So, you are coming to protest against an imaginary threat that doesn’t exist in our community. Not in our courts, not at our City Hall, not on our streets and not in any of our places of worship.

Still, because we do understand the Constitution here, we are not preventing you from expressing your free speech. In fact, in Dearborn, we’ve even gone one step farther than most communities in support of free speech. We established, by ordinance, “Permit Free Zones” intended for demonstrations and free speech.

One of those zones is at City Hall, where from my office I have heard many rallies being conducted in response to international, national or regional issues. This is a high-visibility spot, seen by thousands of motorists but safe from traffic, with plenty of public space for protestors, supporters and the media. It is where we are asking you to conduct your demonstration. The steps of City Hall can even make an impressive platform for speeches.

And, if you are unhappy with what you think is going on in Dearborn, then what better place to protest than with City Hall as the back drop?

Instead you insist on protesting in an area that has no public property to accommodate crowds, spectators, parking or the media. There is just a small public road with limited access which can’t be blocked and an adjacent grassy area for drainage. It is parallel to a major state road, but the small shoulder can accommodate people only when they have auto emergencies.

And, this property you are focusing on, in front of the Islamic Center of America, is also adjacent to four Christian churches, all of which will be hosting Good Friday services, adding to the traffic flow and congestion. It is ironic that the road that you want to protest near is called Altar Road, so named because it was first constructed to provide access to a row of churches constructed in the 1950s reflecting Dearborn’s diverse faith communities.

But I can understand if you don’t know the details of the site, or the particulars about Dearborn. But you should know about the Constitution that you claim to be defending.

The Constitution says that your rights must be balanced with the rights of others under the same document. Your free speech rights do not allow you to trespass on the private property of others or prevent them from the Constitutional right to freely practice their religion. I am not just talking about Muslims, but members of all faiths.

The members of the Christian churches on Altar Road asked me last week if they should cancel their Good Friday services because of your planned visit. I assured them that they should not because the Constitution does not allow you to violate their rights. I don’t know why you selected Good Friday, but it wasn’t very considerate of the significant Christian services being held at that time. I assure you that you will not make them forfeit their services.

You claim that you are coming to protest the radicalism of Islam. Like all of America, we are concerned about the radicalization of any religion that would rationalize extreme actions. However we have not let this concern turn into a twisted paranoia that promotes fear-mongering and misleading generalizations. You state that you are coming to the Islamic Center of America because it is the largest mosque in America. What does that have to do with the radicalism of Islam? While size may matter to you, we prefer to focus on actual behavior. And according to our Police Department and the anti-terrorism agencies they work with, there has never been evidence of any wrongdoing in any of Dearborn’s mosques.

It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.

There is no Sharia Law in Dearborn, only Constitutional Law. Sharia Law is church- or faith-based law that is applicable only to the followers of that faith. For me it is Cannon Law of Catholicism, in Judaism it is Torah Law, and for Muslims it is Sharia Law. The actual originator of the event you plan to hold in Dearborn, Frank Fiorello of the Fraternal Order of the Dragon, accepted my invitation to learn more about Dearborn, and after seeing the truth, he canceled his protest.

But, if you don’t believe that Dearborn follows the Constitution, here are some realistic facts for you. Businesses in Dearborn lawfully meet the diverse needs of our Greater Detroit area, but if Dearborn practiced Sharia Law, would we have three adult entertainment bars and more alcohol licensed bars and restaurants per capita than most other cities? None of that should be allowed under Sharia Law.

How about this? A business we boast about, the nationally known Dearborn Sausage, opened more than 60 years ago across the street from the first mosque in Dearborn and is famous for its sausages and spiral-sliced hams. It is one of many meatpacking operations in our City and no one has ever objected.

Dearborn is also famous for The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, where more than 1.5 million visitors come each year from across the country and the world to learn about the foundations of our American way of life.

Dearborn is a diverse, safe and unified city that is addressing its future in a proactive manner. We cherish the American Dream that brought so many people here during the last century to earn a decent wage and enjoy a high quality of life thanks to Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company. And for Dearborn, our success and our identity is tied to welcoming people of all backgrounds who have chosen to make America, and our community, their home. We are proud to have welcomed them.

As we work hard to balance your rights with the rights of others in Dearborn, you will be extended every courtesy during your visit–as long as you follow the law based on the Constitution’s protection of everyone’s rights. That should be a familiar statement to you.

You have said over and over that “Muslims are welcome as long as they follow the Constitution.” Surely, then, you wouldn’t ask less of yourself.”

April 21, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: