Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 04:42:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105830 Posts in 2395 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 215 216 [217] 218 219 ... 307
10801  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 06, 2010, 10:39:30 PM
So the stealth jihad to impose sharia on the western world should be ignored? The victimization of women in the UK sharia courts there is no big deal to you?
10802  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: November 06, 2010, 10:35:30 PM
What cards would those be?
10803  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Let's see how uncivil this gets on: November 06, 2010, 09:21:37 PM
http://city-journal.org/2010/eon1103fs.html

Indebted and Unrepentant
New York and California stand virtually alone against the rest of the country.
10804  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: November 06, 2010, 09:05:30 PM
It could. It could here as well.
10805  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, & the US Dollar on: November 06, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html   

Before World War I Germany was a prosperous country, with a gold-backed currency, expanding industry, and world leadership in optics, chemicals, and machinery. The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar. That was in 1914. In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. Most Germans were taken by surprise by the financial tornado.

"My father was a lawyer," says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, "and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread." The Berlin publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote that an American visitor tipped their cook one dollar. The family convened, and it was decided that a trust fund should be set up in a Berlin bank with the cook as beneficiary, the bank to administer and invest the dollar.

In retrospect, you can trace the steps to hyperinflation, but some of the reasons remain cloudy. Germany abandoned the gold backing of its currency in 1914. The war was expected to be short, so it was financed by government borrowing, not by savings and taxation. In Germany prices doubled between 1914 and 1919.

After four disastrous years Germany had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Versailles it was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks, and it was due to lose part of the production of the Ruhr and of the province of Upper Silesia. The Weimar Republic was politically fragile.

But the bourgeois habits were very strong. Ordinary citizens worked at their jobs, sent their children to school and worried about their grades, maneuvered for promotions and rejoiced when they got them, and generally expected things to get better. But the prices that had doubled from 1914 to 1919 doubled again during just five months in 1922. Milk went from 7 Marks per liter to 16; beer from 5.6 to 18. There were complaints about the high cost of living. Professors and civil servants complained of getting squeezed. Factory workers pressed for wage increases. An underground economy developed, aided by a desire to beat the tax collector.

On June 24, 1922, right-wing fanatics assassinated Walter Rathenau, the moderate, able foreign minister. Rathenau was a charismatic figure, and the idea that a popular, wealthy, and glamorous government minister could be shot in a law-abiding society shattered the faith of the Germans, who wanted to believe that things were going to be all right. Rathenau's state funeral was a national trauma. The nervous citizens of the Ruhr were already getting their money out of the currency and into real goods -- diamonds, works of art, safe real estate. Now ordinary Germans began to get out of Marks and into real goods.

Pianos, wrote the British historian Adam Fergusson, were bought even by unmusical families. Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day. As prices went up, the amounts of currency demanded were greater, and the German Central Bank responded to the demands. Yet the ruling authorities did not see anything wrong. A leading financial newspaper said that the amounts of money in circulation were not excessively high. Dr. Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (equivalent to the Federal Reserve) told an economics professor that he needed a new suit but wasn't going to buy one until prices came down.

Why did the German government not act to halt the inflation? It was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination. The vengeful French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations, and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. In 1919 Communists had tried to take over, and severe unemployment might give the Communists another chance. The great German industrial combines -- Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, Stinnes -- condoned the inflation and survived it well. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."
10806  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 06, 2010, 07:44:16 PM
Remember, CAIR leaders have stated:

    “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.”  ~ Omar Ahmad

    “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” ~ Ibrahim Hooper

Any jews that have said anything like the above, JDN?
10807  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 06, 2010, 07:35:03 PM
Last time I checked, there was no jewish version of a stealth jihad to impose sharia law on the western nations. Do you know of anything similar from  jews? Again, why should American judges enforce religious law?
10808  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / American Muslim organization applauds Oklahoma anti-shariah law on: November 06, 2010, 01:38:31 PM
AIFD PRESS RELEASE: American Muslim organization applauds Oklahoma anti-shariah law
November 5, 2010
AIFD
American Islamic Forum for Democracy



SQ755 protects the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and the rule of One Law

PHOENIX (November 5, 2010) - Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) issued the following statement regarding the passage of Oklahoma's State Question 755.

"As Muslims dedicated to modernity, reform and our one law system in the west and in the United States, AIFD applauds the people of Oklahoma for passing State Question 755 and making "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures" off-limits to Oklahoma courts and specifically denying the use of Sharia Law.

The issue is simple. As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. SQ755 reaffirms the First amendment to the Constitution and prevents the Establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific shariah legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western shariah courts seen in places like Britain.

By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a sharia law system. They are using the American cover of religious freedom to try and knock down a simple law that prohibits the domination of one religion over others.

SQ755 is not about religious freedom or minority rights. It is about the inviolable sanctity of the U.S. constitution and our country's foundational belief in a legal system based in one law that is based in reason and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The law has no impact on the personal practice of Islam or the personal interpretation of "shariah" (God's law to a Muslim), but rather SQ755 focuses on shariah as a total legal system that the people of Oklahoma wanted to make clear shall not be used or respected systemically in deciding law in Oklahoma. CAIR's assertion that it is akin to France's ban of the hijab or personal head covering for women is absurd. There is no evidence that this law prevents any of the personal manifestation of the practice of Islam or the use of personal religious principles in arguing law based in reason in state or federal court. Shariah as a legal system can just not be used as prima facie evidence in court.


SQ755 also thus prevents the establishment of separate shariah or Islamic courts in Oklahoma. As we have seen in Britain, Islamists have transformed the British arbitration system to the point that they are operating upwards of 85 shariah courts now. These courts are mostly operated out of mosques in Britain. While they claim that the courts are voluntary, as Canadians voiced loudly in their rejection of shariah courts, these groups exploit tribal pressures and coercion within Muslim communities in order to circumvent the one law and one legal system of Britain and western nations. It is naïve and ignorant to believe that such courts are purely "voluntary". Just ask many of the women who get pressured through them and pressured to stay "out of western un-Islamic courts."

CAIR's lawsuit proves that they are part of an Islamist establishment in America that do not and will not believe in the separation of mosque and state and that they promote the ideology of political Islam. This ideology is based in a belief in the supremacy of Islamic legal systems and is often a conveyer belt toward radicalization. CAIR shows once again that they are part of the problem not the solution.

To those who say "Why Oklahoma?", we say "Why not Oklahoma?" The Oklahoma precedent and example is important. It has already showed CAIR's hand and where they place shariah law in relation to the Constitution. CAIR flippantly states that the law is not necessary. By implying that Islam and shariah are inseparable they demonstrate a willful denial of the internationally pervasive draconian shariah law systems around the world in places like Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia to name a few, and how academically clear the legal system of shariah law is. Note should be made of how CAIR's response to SQ755 does not address any of the harms instituted against Muslims and non-Muslims around the world in the name of shariah law.

AIFD and most reformist Muslims believe a ban on shariah courts is necessary to protect the rights of the individual and in particular the rights of women."

About the American Islamic Forum for Democracy

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

Media contact:

office 602-254-1840
email: info@aifdemocracy.org
10809  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Video: Rubio gives GOP address, calls 2010 the Republican “second chance” on: November 06, 2010, 01:18:12 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/06/video-rubio-gives-gop-address-calls-it-the-republican-second-chance/

If you want to see why Democrats feared Marco Rubio so much that they tried to stick a knife in the back of their own candidate to stop him, this video demonstrates just how powerful a figure he will become with a national platform on which to speak. The GOP may not have had a speaker like Rubio since Ronald Reagan, excelling at both the message and the mechanics of oratory — and even Reagan didn’t have this kind of compelling backstory. Rubio reminded listeners of his origins from a people exiled from their birthplace because of their desire for freedom, and the dream of a better life that is a “sacred duty” for this generation to deliver to the next, not to mortgage from the next generation for our own exploitation.
10810  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 06, 2010, 01:08:08 PM
Irfan Aleem v. Farah Aleem, No. 108, September Term 2007
HEADNOTE: The Court declines to afford comity to the Pakistani talaq divorce. The
alleged Pakistani marriage contract and the Pakistani statutes addressing the division of
property upon divorce conflict with the public policy of Maryland and the Maryland courts
will not afford comity to such contracts and foreign statutes.

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2008/108a07.pdf
10811  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: November 06, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1327158/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-China-A-nation-edge-superpower-anarchy.html

The China powder keg: JOHN HUMPHRYS on a nation that's either on the edge of becoming THE superpower - or exploding into anarchy

10812  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 06, 2010, 12:29:36 PM
Once there is an agreement to arbitrate, the ruling of the arbitrator is enforceable by the power of the state, yes? Should we as a society have the secular state enforcing a codified law based on a religious text?
10813  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India and India-afpakia (and China?) on: November 06, 2010, 12:13:09 PM
In reading a variety of foreign writers thoughts on America, the only ones who really seemed to get us were Indian.
10814  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, & the US Dollar on: November 06, 2010, 12:04:27 PM
China tees up G20 showdown with US

By Alan Beattie in Washington, Geoff Dyer in Beijing, Chris Giles in London

Published: November 5 2010 06:56 | Last updated: November 5 2010 19:03

China has curtly dismissed a US proposal to address global economic imbalances, setting the stage for a potential showdown at next week’s G20 meeting in Seoul.

Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back “to the days of planned economies”.

“We believe a discussion about a current account target misses the whole point,” he added, in the first official comment by a senior Chinese official on the subject. “If you look at the global economy, there are many issues that merit more attention – for example, the question of quantitative easing.”

China’s opposition to the proposal, which had made some progress at a G20 finance ministers’ meeting last month, came amid a continuing rumble of protest from around the world at the US Federal Reserve’s plan to pump an extra $600bn into financial markets.

Officials from China, Germany and South Africa on Friday added their voices to a chorus of complaint that the Fed’s return to so-called quantitative easing would create instability and worsen imbalances by triggering surges of capital into other currencies.

Tim Geithner, the US Treasury secretary, has proposed using what the US refers to as current account “guidelines” to accelerate global rebalancing, partly as a way of changing the debate away from simply pressing China to allow faster appreciation in the renminbi.

But on Thursday and Friday, governments focused instead on the global impact of the Fed’s action. “With all due respect, US policy is clueless,” Wolfgang Schäuble, German finance minister, told reporters. “It’s not that the Americans haven’t pumped enough liquidity into the market,” he said. “Now to say let’s pump more into the market is not going to solve their problems.”

Pravin Gordhan, finance minister of South Africa, a key member of the emerging market bloc, said the decision “undermines the spirit of multilateral co-operation that G20 leaders have fought so hard to maintain during the current crisis”, and ran counter to the pledge made by G20 finance ministers to refrain from uncoordinated responses.

The US Treasury declined to comment on Friday.

Experts say the mood has soured since the G20 Toronto summit in June and worry that unless the summit can patch up differences on trade imbalances and exchange rates, the outlook for international economic agreement is poor.

Ousmène Mandeng of Ashmore Investment Management and a former senior International Monetary Fund official, said: “The G20 will also have to show [in Seoul] it can work on the issue or its very existence will be in question.”

In recent weeks, there had been some hints that China was favourable to the idea of current account targets. Yi Gang, a deputy central bank governor, said China aimed to reduce its surplus to 4 per cent of GDP in the medium-term

But Mr Cui’s comments suggest that China’s senior leaders have decided to reject Mr Geithner’s proposal. “We believe it would not be a good approach to single out this issue and focus all attention on it,” he said.

Separately, the deputy foreign minister also had a stern message for European leaders, warning them not to attend next month’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Liu Xiaobo, an imprisoned Chinese democracy activist.
10815  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Smackdown from China on: November 06, 2010, 08:02:55 AM
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03567a28-e8a3-11df-a383-00144feab49a.html#ixzz14VT3P5S8

China has curtly dismissed a US proposal to address global economic imbalances, setting the stage for a potential showdown at next week’s G20 meeting in Seoul.

Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back “to the days of planned economies”.

“We believe a discussion about a current account target misses the whole point,” he added, in the first official comment by a senior Chinese official on the subject. “If you look at the global economy, there are many issues that merit more attention – for example, the question of quantitative easing.”

China’s opposition to the proposal, which had made some progress at a G20 finance ministers’ meeting last month, came amid a continuing rumble of protest from around the world at the US Federal Reserve’s plan to pump an extra $600bn into financial markets.
10816  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 09:43:48 PM
I can't find a transcript where the FBI intercepted Joe Agosto bragging that Harry"Mr. Cleanface" Reid was on his payroll.
10817  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 08:05:45 PM
http://gsting.blogspot.com/

An interesting primer on Nevada politics and the "g-sting" scandal.
10818  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Covert Entry Search Warrants on: November 05, 2010, 07:16:34 PM
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/covert-entry-search-warrants-transcript.html/?searchterm=search%20warrant

Covert Entry Search Warrants (podcast transcript)

Solari: Hi. This is Jenna Solari from the FLETC Legal Division. I’m here today with Mr. Keith Hodges, also from the Legal Division to talk to you about some more legal tools for your investigative tool box. Mr. Hodges, let’s talk about covert entry search warrants as provided in the USA Patriot Act. Now I’m pretty sure I’ve also heard these referred to as sneak and peek warrants. Can you start us off with a little background about these?

Hodges: Sure. The USA Patriot Act amended or added a lot of provisions to the US Code. One of the amended provisions was 18 US Code §3103a concerning procedural requirements when executing search warrants. Now you remember from your training that after you execute a search warrant we have to leave a return. The amendment permits officers, with a magistrate’s approval, to delay providing a return on the results of a search. Covert entry warrants have been around for a long time and the value of the Patriot Act is that it now provides specific statutory authority to use them.

Solari: Well I think you’ve already given me a little bit of a preview, but how specifically does a covert entry search warrant differ from a regular search warrant?

Hodges: That’s a killer question. Covert entry warrants are exactly the same as a regular warrant, except that with a covert entry warrant, the officers request, and the magistrate can authorize, a delay in providing a return to the subject of the search and that return as we’ve already said, advises the subject of the search that a search was conducted and if evidence is taken from the search, what evidence was taken. Now, the officers still have to convince a magistrate there’s probable cause to search and they must still execute and serve a return. But the main difference of a covert entry warrant and a traditional search warrant is that there’s a delay in providing a return to the target of the search.

Solari: Well it seems like that the provision then would be primarily useful in an investigation where the officers don’t want to tip off the subject of the search.

Hodges: Jenna, that’s exactly its value. If officers immediately execute a return, the subject will know he is the target of an investigation. And when that happens, the defendant will have a chance to destroy evidence that was not discovered, and he may tip off his criminal partners, flee the jurisdiction, threaten witnesses or otherwise possibly jeopardize the investigation.

Solari: Well that makes sense then. Now why the nickname, why have some commentators called covert entry warrants sneak and peeks?

Hodges: I’ll tell you it’s not necessarily an inaccurate description. A covert entry warrant comes in two types. In the first type, agents can enter the target’s home, look around, take pictures, go through files, hop on the computer to look at emails or data, and make copies of what’s seen. The scope of their looking around will be based on the facts in the affidavit and what the magistrate approves. In this type of covert entry warrant, the agents are not authorized to seize anything. So, a sneak and peek is not a bad way to characterize this type of covert entry warrant. In the other types of covert entry warrants, the officers are specifically allowed to seize evidence that’s listed in the warrant.

Solari: Well now how would the officers know which type of warrant they have? In other words, how do they know whether they can seize evidence?

Hodges: Well it depends on whether the officers asked the magistrate to seize evidence, and the justification provided to the magistrate that requested the cover entry warrant. Now a magistrate can authorize a delay in return notification if reasonable cause is shown that providing immediate notification of the search will have an adverse result. If that’s all that’s shown, in other words, all the officers have is reasonable cause; the officers can only get a sneak and peek. They can’t seize evidence. If however it’s shown that there’s a reasonable necessity for a seizure of evidence, then the magistrate can authorize not only the entry and a delay in the return, but also the seizure of evidence.

Solari: Alright, well let’s back up one second. You just said that if the agents can show a potential adverse result from notification then they can get a sneak and peek warrant. Now what is an adverse result, and could you give me some examples?

Hodges: Sure. That term is defined in 18 US Code §2705. An adverse result means that if the officers provide an immediate return after execution of the warrant that immediate return might endanger someone’s life or physical safety, or it might cause flight from prosecution by the bad guys notifying their confederates, it may result in the tampering or destruction of evidence, or result in the intimidation of potential witnesses, or otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial. This provision that provides us the authority to delay giving notification is a really valuable tool and if you think you’re going to go in and you need to execute a search warrant especially, a sneak and peek just to look around, and don’t want to tip off the confederates this is the tool to use.

Solari: This sounds like a great tool. Now how long the return could be delayed?

Hodges: Well for as long as the judge decides, and the statute also allows for extensions. It all depends on what facts are provided to the magistrate and what the magistrate decides to do.

Solari: Alright, so again just sort of grounded in reasonableness I guess. Now because this provision is in the USA Patriot Act, there’s gotta be a catch, so is it fair to say that this search warrant, this sneak and peek, has to somehow be connected to a terrorism investigation?

Hodges: Well as you well know, many Patriot Act provisions are terrorism-related, but not this one. While certainly useful in terrorism investigations, covert entry warrants can be used whenever officers can articulate an adverse result and the judge approves the covert entry warrant. It doesn’t have to be a terrorism investigation.

Solari: So just to be clear then, a magistrate could under the right circumstances approve a covert entry warrant in a fraud case that has nothing to do with terrorism?

Hodges: Yes, exactly. For example, if I have a probable cause that Joe is engaged in a fraud scheme with several other persons and that evidence of that scheme is located in his house, I might request a covert entry warrant to look around to determine the scope of the fraud, who are the actual or future fraud victims, where the proceeds of the fraud are being concealed, and very importantly, who the co-conspirators are. By using the covert entry warrant, I can see the evidence without tipping off criminal associates and causing them to flee or destroy evidence.

Solari: That’s a really powerful tool. Now in some public reporting, we’ve had people argue pro and con certain provisions of the Patriot Act. I think I’ve heard these warrants actually described by some of the people on the con side as nothing more than legalized burglary. Can that fairly be said to be an accurate description of sneak and peek warrants?

Hodges: I kind of like it, but I would tend to emphasize the word “legalized,” which would further mean there is no burglary; and I have read those claims and there are three things that opponents to covert entry warrants want to ignore. First, while the statutory provision wasn’t codified until 2001, these warrants have been around and used by the courts for a long, long time. Secondly, I think the operative word in “covert search warrant” is warrant. Like any search warrant, it has to be approved by a magistrate and supported by probable cause. And as we discussed earlier, the only difference between a covert entry and garden variety search warrant is that an immediate return - that immediate notification after execution of the warrant - is not required and the notification can be delayed. And finally is that for a covert entry warrant to be useful, the search has to be conducted when no one’s at home. The fact is there’s never been a requirement that a person be at home when a search warrant is executed.

Solari: That makes sense to me. These covert entry warrants appear to be an extremely useful tool for law enforcement officers, it seems they come in especially handy at the beginning of an investigation by not jeopardizing what comes later - like you said by tipping off confederates.

Hodges: Well I agree. Now, of course, with a garden variety warrant which requires an immediate return, the investigation can be severely impaired because the suspects know that officers are investigating. Covert entry warrants prevent that from happening. In addition, in complex cases with many defendants and wholesale concealing of evidence at various locations, these warrants can be used to ensure that all the defendants are identified and all the evidence is found. And again I like to remind folks of a couple things. First, it does not have to be a terrorism-related investigation; it can be for general crimes. Secondly, there two different types of covert entry warrants; one is a straight sneak and peek when you get to go in and look around, the other type is that you are actually allowed to actual seize evidence. And lastly, it’s the magistrate judge who is going to decide whether or not you get a sneak and peek. And so if you need a sneak and peek or a covert entry warrant, we need to include that in the affidavit and specifically tell the judge that that’s what you want, how long you want a delay for, and to articulate your reasons for that.

Solari: Well thank you Mr. Hodges for outlining for us the provisions and requirements of covert entry a/k/a sneak and peek warrants. I really appreciate that. Those of you out there who want to listen to some other of our podcast can find them at our website which is located at www.fletc.gov/legal.
10819  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 06:51:09 PM
http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses/14197159-1.html

When the Mob Museum opens in mid-2011, I'll be looking for what is omitted.

Will it include the roughest period of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's life, when mobsters dubbed him "Cleanface"?

Will it include graphic photos of Anthony Spilotro's brutal murder, when his family still lives in Las Vegas?

Will it be a paean to Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, the longtime mob mouthpiece? Or will he be a bit player, despite taking the lead to create the museum and preserve the old courthouse/post office?

The museum's creative director, Dennis Barrie, doesn't have all the answers yet. He doesn't know whether "Cleanface" will be part of the museum or how Spilotro's murder will be portrayed, although he assured me Frank Rosenthal will be included. Of course, it would be really odd if Rosenthal (a Goodman client) wasn't featured, since he and Spilotro were our city's leading mob figures in the '70s and '80s.

**Snip**


When the final decisions on what's in and what's out are made in April, I bet the Spilotro photos are in, and Cleanface is out.

Reid has said many times that the period in the late 1970s, when he was receiving death threats and was suspected of corruption, was the worst time of his life. In 1979, wiretaps were released of an eight-hour secret meeting in a Kansas City basement where Sicilian mobster Joe Agosto told Kansas City mobsters about the skimming at Las Vegas hotels and gossiped about local notables. Nicknames were used and there were references to Cleanface and Mr. Clean. "I gotta Cleanface in my pocket," Agosto said.

Reid, the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, was Cleanface. But was he corrupt? Nevada gaming officials hired outside investigators, who, after a five-month investigation, concluded Agosto was bragging. But the moniker stuck. Google Cleanface and one of the first items up references Harry Reid.

A video of a Gaming Commission meeting in which Rosenthal screams at Reid and claims Reid somehow betrayed him exists, but I doubt that ends up in the museum either.
10820  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: November 05, 2010, 06:34:18 PM
Covert/delayed notification search warrants as well as covert entries to install title III wiretaps are legally authorized acts.
10821  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: November 05, 2010, 05:22:39 PM
Felony prosecution, imprisonment. In my state, some years back a retired state trooper was elected sheriff. He decided that he wanted to target some local alleged drug dealer with illegal wiretaps. The illegal taps were discovered, the sheriff was prosecuted and went to prison as a result. In Nevada, some years back, a NDI Agent and a DEA agent were discovered by other DEA agents engaging in illegal wiretaps. They were prosecuted and convicted of violating the federal wiretap statutes.
10822  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: November 05, 2010, 05:15:32 PM
Funny, hearing german spoken or english with german accent elicits all sorts of unhappy WWII images with me as well.
10823  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 05:08:53 PM
The Kansas City mob has older and deeper hooks.
10824  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 04:41:01 PM
Funny that the polling tended to show them in a dead heat, then Reid wins by a much larger margin.
10825  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: November 05, 2010, 04:35:24 PM
The tea party isn't hip and cool, like Jon "I'm afraid of being identified as jewish" Stewart or Snooki.
10826  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 05, 2010, 04:31:42 PM
Education is a local level issue. We need to explain to the public that the money that comes from the Dept. of Ed is actually the money taken from them, run through Washington and then a much smaller portion comes back to them. If you get DC out of the equation, you'll actually have more money for your local schools. There are roles for the federal gov't, education isn't one of them.

Anything said about social security will be used to panic seniors. So the other option is to keep Obama in office for a second term and really end social security when our economy is utterly destroyed.
10827  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / It's all Rahm's fault! on: November 05, 2010, 01:45:30 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/05/obama-wh-finds-culprit-for-midterm-debacle/

Under the Obamabus.
10828  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 05, 2010, 01:43:04 PM
Right now, it's best to not discuss entitlements until after 2012. We have hard choices to make and an economy to rescue, if possible. We start by making major cuts to the federal government. Dept. of Education, Energy, NEA gone. Anything not required for national security, borders. Gone. Defund NPR and not one penny for Obamacare or the states. We can salvage the dollar if we demonstrate that the US is serious about fixing these issues. Obama won't triangulate. He doesn't have it in him.
10829  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Don’t need a Weatherman to know Obama’s not happy to see Bernardine Dohrn pop he on: November 05, 2010, 12:55:27 PM
Don’t need a Weatherman to know Obama’s not happy to see Bernardine Dohrn pop her head up again
By Jim Treacher | Published: 12:39 PM 11/05/2010 | Updated: 12:55 PM 11/05/2010


Here’s the “former” radical, explaining to Newsclick India why you’re the crazy one:


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/05/dont-need-a-weatherman-to-know-obamas-not-happy-to-see-bernardine-dohrn-pop-her-head-up-again/#ixzz14QpTmq7w

#Invalid YouTube Link#

10830  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 05, 2010, 12:51:14 PM
Here I was thinking Reid won because of vote fraud.
10831  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: November 05, 2010, 11:51:29 AM
If you as a peace officer were to breach into an area covered under "reasonable expectation of privacy" without legal authorization, you open yourself up to criminal prosecution and civil liability.
10832  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / O-Barry's India trip on: November 05, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-04/obamas-india-trip-to-save-an-alliance/

As the president hits India this weekend, he will find it is still George W. Bush country. Tunku Varadarajan on an alliance that Obama has allowed to wither on the vine.

Barack Obama’s visit to India, starting Saturday, may offer him some small respite from the drubbing that has made this week the nadir of his political life; but if he’s looking (a la Elizabeth Gilbert/Julia Roberts) for some Eastern salve for his battered soul, he isn’t going to find it in Mumbai or New Delhi. Obama will encounter a hospitable people, of course: Indians are never unkind to their guests. Why, they’re even stripping coconuts from trees that line a path he’s scheduled to walk down, lest a hard nut ping him on his un-turbanned head. But he will find little of the spontaneous warmth and genuine bonhomie that was lavished on George W. Bush when the latter visited India in 2006.

Two years after Bush’s departure from the White House, India is still Bush Country—a giant (if foreign) Red State, to use the American political taxonomy. By that I mean that the political establishment and much of the non-leftist intelligentsia still looks back with dewy-eyed fondness to the time when India’s relations with the United States flowered extravagantly under Bush. It wasn’t just a matter of securing a mold-breaking nuclear deal with Washington; it was a case of India dealing, for the first time in the uneven history of its relations with the United States, with an American president who saw India as a partner-in-civilization.

Bogged down in health care and bailouts at home, and in “Afpak” abroad, Obama has let the alliance with India wither on the vine. This has frustrated India deeply, especially as a perception came to grip New Delhi that some of Obama’s neglect was payback to India for its closeness to his predecessor. India pushed back hard and furiously at Obama’s early, tone-deaf attempt to foist Richard Holbrooke on the Indian subcontinent as some sort of “Kashmir czar,” and New Delhi has returned, to a noticeable extent, to the pre-Bush method of dealing with America: watch first, and closely; trust later, and sparingly. It is remarkable how an alliance that had seemed so electrifying—indeed, one that had all the hallmarks of a “paradigm shift” in international relations—has been so quickly squandered.
10833  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 05, 2010, 09:41:20 AM
Sharia? What Sharia?
by  Robert Spencer
10/19/2010


As Sharron Angle, Newt Gingrich and others have started making Islamic law (Sharia) part of the national debate, and Oklahoma actually moves to outlaw it, there is a new attempt to confuse the American people about the nature of the threat we face. It’s a large-scale mainstream media effort to deny both that there is any attempt to bring Sharia to the United States, and that Sharia is anything to be concerned about in the first place. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence of attempts to establish the primacy of Islamic law over American law, and much to indicate that Sharia is anything but benign.

Characteristic of the media campaign was a Saturday Religion News Service story by Omar Sacirbey, which asserted that “no one in Oklahoma, Michigan or anywhere else is calling for Shariah — including and especially Muslims.” Sacirbey quoted Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – without noting, of course, CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, the jihad terror convictions of various former CAIR officials, or the Islamic supremacist statements made by Hooper and CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad. Hooper said: “This is another right-wing fantasy that started on the hate blogs and worked its way into the mainstream media. Where is the evidence of the takeover?”

The RNS story goes on to cite as evidence the New Jersey judge who declined to charge a Muslim with sexual assault on his wife because under Sharia, a woman may not deny sex to her husband at any time under any circumstances. This remarkable introduction of Islamic law into American jurisprudence was overturned, leading those who would dismiss the threat of Sharia to claim that its spread in the U.S. is simply a matter of one lone example. Unfortunately, there are more.


There have been successful attempts by Muslim workers at meat packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado to force their employers to restructure the work schedule to give them special breaks at times for Islamic prayer. These efforts initially met with protests from non-Muslim workers, who complained to no avail that the special breaks given to Muslims forced the non-Muslims to work longer hours, and thus discriminated against them. The result? Muslims in these plants have special privileges that other workers do not have – in accord with the privileged status Muslims enjoy over non-Muslims in Sharia societies.

Another example of Sharia insinuating itself into American life are the footbaths that have been constructed in airports and schools for the ablutions prescribed before Islamic prayers. Imagine the outcry if holy water fonts were being placed in airports for Catholic travelers – but Islamic footbaths have been dismissed as non-religious, on the pretext that anyone can use them. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a non-Muslim tried.

Yet Sharia, claims Jehan S. Harney, an Egyptian-American filmmaker writing in the Huffington Post, “is simply the rules that govern the lives of Muslims from daily prayers and fasting to inheritance. Sharia does not -- and never will -- apply to non-Muslims.”

Harney doesn’t mention the Christian women who have been threatened and sometimes even killed in Iraq and elsewhere for not wearing the Islamic headscarf. Nor does she mention the elaborate superstructure of Sharia laws governing the conduct of non-Muslims in Islamic societies, and mandating for them a second-class status that deprives them of basic rights. Just this week, Catholic bishops have been meeting in a synod to discuss the plight of Christians in the Middle East. Reports on the status of those Christians noted that they routinely face job discrimination (in accord with the Sharia provision that non-Muslims must not hold authority over Muslims) even in states where Sharia is not fully enforced; they have immense difficulty getting permits to build new churches (which is forbidden by Sharia); and converts from Islam must always live under the threat of death (in accord with Sharia’s death penalty for apostasy).

Eventually Sharia advocates will attempt to bring even those elements of Sharia to the U.S.: there is no form of Sharia that does not contain them. But if the mainstream media has its way, Americans will sleep on as those advocates continue to work.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad (both from Regnery—a Human Events sister company) and most recently coauthor of Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency (Simon & Schuster).
10834  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 05, 2010, 09:37:08 AM
The constitution emerged from judeo-christian civilization, but our legal system is secular in nature. Judges should only concern themselves with the constitution and the laws of this nation when rendering a decision. If someone wants to live under sharia law, they need to leave the US. If someone wants to live under another judicial system, they need to move to where that system is the law. Enough of those that come here to subvert this country and the leftists that see nothing wrong with the subversion.
10835  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coexist-explained on: November 05, 2010, 07:36:40 AM
10836  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Whoops! on: November 05, 2010, 12:06:20 AM
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_16517629?IADID

Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company's plans to hire 1,000 workers.

Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

The moves mean that instead of having 2,000 workers in Fremont, Solyndra will cap its work force at 1,000, which is about the current level. Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.

The company seeks to slash production costs amid fierce competition from rival manufacturers in China and the United States.

"Solar has become incredibly competitive," Miller said.

The factory retrenchment adds to what has already been a tough year for Solyndra.

"Solyndra is facing the heat," said Shyam Mehta, an analyst with GTM Research, which tracks alternative-energy markets. "Many higher-cost solar manufacturers are doing well. It's alarming for Solyndra to be cutting back when others are expanding."

The company's fortunes sparkled in September 2009, when the Obama administration announced $535 million in taxpayer loans to finance construction of a new solar-equipment
Advertisement
factory.

In December 2009, the company filed for an initial public offering of its stock expected to raise $300 million. In May, Obama toured the Solyndra facilities in Fremont.

The company's fortunes dimmed soon after. In June, Solyndra canceled its IPO, and the following month its chief executive officer, Chris Gronet, quit. Brian Harrison, a former Intel executive, took over as CEO.

**Read it all.**
10837  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. dollar printing is huge risk -China c.bank adviser on: November 04, 2010, 08:36:45 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE6A301Q20101104

Nov 4 (Reuters) - Unbridled printing of dollars is the biggest risk to the global economy, an adviser to the Chinese central bank said in comments published on Thursday, a day after the Federal Reserve unveiled a new round of monetary easing.

China must set up a firewall via currency policy and capital controls to cushion itself from external shocks, Xia Bin said in a commentary piece in the Financial News, a Chinese-language newspaper managed by the central bank.

"As long as the world exercises no restraint in issuing global currencies such as the dollar -- and this is not easy -- then the occurrence of another crisis is inevitable, as quite a few wise Westerners lament," he said.

As an academic adviser on the central bank's monetary policy committee, Xia does not have decision-making power but does provide input to the policy-making process.

The Federal Reserve launched a fresh effort on Wednesday to support the struggling U.S. economy, committing to buy $600 billion in government bonds despite concerns the programme could do more harm than good.
10838  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Watching QE2 on: November 04, 2010, 08:33:32 PM
I really feel sick. It's like being in a slow motion car wreck, waiting for the final impact.


Tell me I'm wrong and these people know what they are doing.
10839  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2010 Elections; 2012 Presidential on: November 04, 2010, 08:20:08 PM
I feel that there was a lot crooked shiite that went down in various races and the candidacy of Murkowski was just one example. It seems that AK is operating like Huey Long's Louisiana.
10840  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 04, 2010, 02:18:55 PM
JDN is 100% fact-proof.

So please explain how CAIR has legal standing to challenge Oklahoma's constitution.
10841  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: November 04, 2010, 10:47:57 AM
Is it possible that the dynamics of meth addiction are different than alcohol? Is the prohibition of alcohol the best example? The brits fought two wars with China to end China's prohibition of opium, with the end result of about a quarter of the chinese population addicted to the drug with all the serious social impacts one would expect from that degree of addiction.
10842  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: November 04, 2010, 10:29:36 AM
Issues aren't in check and they are only quiet as the US MSM hasn't really covered them. China and Russia have already long concluded that the US is no longer willing to stop them. Hillary's 3 party talks invitation to resolve the disputed islands claimed by Japan and China was rejected with obvious contempt by China.
10843  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: November 04, 2010, 10:09:45 AM
And what legal standing would you argue that the muslim brotherhood's US front has to litigate this constitutional amendment?
10844  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: November 04, 2010, 09:59:51 AM
Of course.  wink


California unemployment rate: 12.4%

Oklahoma: 6.9%


10845  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: November 04, 2010, 09:32:05 AM
But the will of the collective free people voted on this one.


70% of the voters in OK in the last election voted for the sharia ban. Funny how your reverence for the will of the people is less than consistent. 
10846  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: November 04, 2010, 09:26:19 AM
So as long as high grade meth was able to be purchased at Walmart, then the children of the addicted would be well taken care of?
10847  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 04, 2010, 03:50:17 AM
**JDN, if a slave was purchased lawfully per sharia law outside the US, should those islamic property rights apply within the US? If not, why not?**
A shadow cast by the strength and perdurability of Islamic slavery can be seen in instances where Muslims have managed to import this institution to the United States. A Saudi named Homaidan Al-Turki, for instance, was sentenced in September 2006 to 27 years to life in prison, for keeping a woman as a slave in his home in Colorado. For his part, Al-Turki claimed that he was a victim of anti-Muslim bias. He told the judge: “Your honor, I am not here to apologize, for I cannot apologize for things I did not do and for crimes I did not commit. The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.” The following month, an Egyptian couple living in Southern California received a fine and prison terms, to be followed by deportation, after pleading guilty to holding a ten-year-old girl as a slave. And in January 2007, an attaché of the Kuwaiti embassy in Washington, Waleed Al Saleh, and his wife were charged with keeping three Christian domestic workers from India in slave-like conditions in al-Saleh’s Virginia home. One of the women remarked: “I believed that I had no choice but to continue working for them even though they beat me and treated me worse than a slave.”

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27440
10848  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 04, 2010, 02:28:52 AM
**Sharia law as part of the marriage contract allows the husband to physically punish his wife and have sex with her as he wishes, regardless her wishes. Should US courts enforce this contract?**
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/

The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law with 30 comments Print This Post

Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists. Fortunately, the New Jersey appellate court refused to tolerate the trial judge’s “mistaken” and unsustainable decision. The appellate court chastised the trial judge’s ruling, holding among other things that he held an “unnecessarily dismissive view of defendant’s acts of domestic violence,” and that his views of the facts in the case “may have been colored by his perception that…they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable – -a view we soundly reject.” Although appellate courts typically defer to findings of fact by trial judges, under the circumstances, this appellate court correctly refused to do so, and reversed the trial court and ordered the permanent restraining order to issue.

The truth is that imposition of Sharia law in the United States, especially when mixed with a perverted sense of political correctness, poses a danger to civil society. Just last year, a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York beheaded his wife in what appeared to be an honor killing, again using his faith to justify his actions. It is doubtful that the domestic violence and rape in this recently overturned case will be the last Americans see of Sharia being impermissibly used to justify brutal acts on our soil. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney wrote recently:

Sharia is no less toxic when it comes to the sorts of democratic government and civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to this legal code of Saudi Arabia and Iran, only Allah can make laws, and only a theocrat can properly administer them, ultimately on a global basis.

The trial opinion in this case shows that, indeed, the global reach of Sharia law is expanding. The trial court allowed the testimony of an Imam to be entered so that his account of Sharia’s standards could supercede the standards set by the New Jersey legislature. This is not just about cultural defenses, which by themselves are not proper under United States law, but about giving up control of the law to a religious code citizens of this country have no control over, a theocratic code world famous for its antidemocratic, sexist nature and its human rights abuses.

So-called “cultural defenses” have existed in other contexts for a long while and, for the most part, such defenses have been rejected. As a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego, I ran across a case where the accused was charged with assault for punching his girlfriend, and the defense wanted to introduce an expert in Latin cultures. The expert was to testify that in Latin culture, it is acceptable for a man to strike “his woman” as punishment as long as it doesn’t cause serious lasting injury. This was rejected outright by the court, as it should have been. These attempts are not uncommon, but the cultural relativism they espouse is different than the more dangerous trend here.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the husband’s defense for sexually assaulting his wife was not just another attempt to erode the protection of our own social mores. The specific threat that comes from attempting to establish Sharia law in the United States is that justification for doing so has been couched in the protections of the First Amendment. As noted by the appeals court in its decision overturning what amounted to the replacement of New Jersey’s rape law with Sharia, “the judge determined to except [the] defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs.” Doing so was contrary to several Supreme Court decisions, which hold that an individual’s responsibility to obey generally applicable law—particularly those that regulate socially harmful conduct—cannot be made contingent up on his or her religious beliefs.

The U.S. Constitution cannot and should not be used to subvert legislatures and allow brutes such as the husband in this case to harm others simply because their actions are legal under Sharia law. It was impermissible for the trial court to act as it did in this case, and the appellate judges very correctly overturned the ruling below. This is not the last we will hear of such attempts, however, as Sharia-loving extremists are determined to establish an Islamic Caliphate around the world, especially in America. As Andy McCarthy has written, “Our enemies are those who want Sharia to supplant American law and Western culture.” We cannot allow that to happen.

10849  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 04, 2010, 12:21:49 AM
It's not a law, it's an amendment to Oklahoma's constitution. Do you understand the difference? I think not.
10850  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sharia 101 on: November 03, 2010, 11:40:06 PM

H.RES.372 -- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws,... (Introduced in House - IH)

HRES 372 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 372

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 3, 2007

Mr. FEENEY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. HERGER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ISSA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Ms. FOXX, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. CAMPBELL of California, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FORBES, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. FORTUN.AE6O, Mr. MACK, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. CARTER, Mr. POE, and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas the Declaration of Independence announced that one of the chief causes of the American Revolution was that King George had `combined to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws';

Whereas the Supreme Court has recently relied on the judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions to support its interpretations of the laws of the United States, most recently in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2474 (2003);

Whereas the Supreme Court has stated previously in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 921 n.11 (1997), that `We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution . . .';

Whereas Americans' ability to live their lives within clear legal boundaries is the foundation of the rule of law, and essential to freedom;

Whereas it is the appropriate judicial role to faithfully interpret the expression of the popular will through the Constitution and laws enacted by duly elected representatives of the American people and our system of checks and balances;

Whereas Americans should not have to look for guidance on how to live their lives from the often contradictory decisions of any of hundreds of other foreign organizations; and

Whereas inappropriate judicial reliance on foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncments threatens the sovereignty of the United States, the separation of powers and the President's and the Senate's treaty-making authority: Now, therefore, be it

      Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial interpretations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based in whole or in part on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
Pages: 1 ... 215 216 [217] 218 219 ... 307
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!