Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 03, 2016, 11:10:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94286 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 270
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bono giving lecture to Senate Committee? Why? on: April 14, 2016, 07:32:35 AM
Exactly why is THIS guy sitting in front of a Senate appropriations committee discussing his opinion and recommendations on foreign policy anyway?

Exactly why do celebrities get to sit in front of Senate committees so frequently?  Are the committee members interested in autographs for their kids?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/13/frank-gaffney-obama-bono-migration-advocates-truly-blind-nature-enemy-facing/

As qualified as Obama or Trump. This is where we are in 2016 America.
52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 13, 2016, 11:27:19 AM
My assessment is that there is no hope until the reboot. This country, or what's left of it has to hit bottom before recovery.
53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 13, 2016, 10:00:26 AM
Frankly, at this point the republican party needs to burn.
54  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Crafty says hi from Germany on: April 13, 2016, 12:59:07 AM
Would like to encourage all to keep adding to the forum until he get back.
55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences on: April 09, 2016, 07:14:49 PM
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/ag-loretta-lynch-wants-to-let-nation-break-law-without-consequences/

AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences
By Paul Sperry March 27, 2016 | 6:00am
Modal Trigger AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences


Black Democrats pitch Loretta Lynch for Supreme Court
As New York moves to decriminalize low-level offenses, arguing enforcement is “rigged against communities of color,” other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department to do the same thing.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has issued a warning to municipal and state judges across the country that their courts could lose federal funding if they don’t ease up on fines and arrest warrants for minor crimes involving poor offenders, indigent minorities in particular.

In lieu of fines and jail time, Lynch urges the nation’s 6,500 municipal courts to provide an avenue for offenders to perform “community service” or take advantage of “amnesty days,” whereby outstanding arrest warrants are cleared for nominal fees.

Failure to comply with these policies could trigger a Ferguson-style discrimination investigation. Already, Lynch says she’s “evaluating discrimination complaints against several court systems.”

A strongly worded “guidance” letter, written by her civil rights team, warns that a local court policy of enforcing warrants for failure to pay court fines and fees can have an adverse “disparate impact” on African-Americans, who are fined and/or arrested for outstanding warrants at “disproportionate” rates versus whites.

Federal data also show that blacks tend to break both felony and misdemeanor laws at a disproportionate rate. Even if applied evenly across all races and in neutral, color-blind fashion, such policies could be found by Justice to be discriminatory.

“In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race,” the nine-page letters states.

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.
This is the same dubious legal threat the administration is using to force the nation’s public schools to back off suspending unruly — even violent — black students, and to force cops to avoid stopping, frisking and arresting minority offenders.

The Supreme Court has ruled that disparate impact doesn’t violate Title VI, only “intentional” discrimination does. “The administration is quite wrong to say that Title VI incorporates a ‘disparate impact’ standard,” Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity points out. “The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it does not.”

This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has scaled back its aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses only to see both minor and serious crime rebound. Already cops have backed off public urination and other public nuisance violations, while overlooking outstanding warrants for many other misdemeanor crimes.

Even a senior Justice Department official predicts the decriminalization-cum-deincarceration movement will backfire in higher crime nationwide. “In five years the crime rate is going to be crazy again,” he said.

The official, who oversees probation of felons paroled from federal prisons and who requested anonymity, worries the new department policy will be abused.

“I don’t see liberal judges even attempting to make people pay or spending the time making an accurate determination of a person being ‘indigent,’ ” he said. “It’s another way of not holding people accountable for their actions.”

Modal Trigger
The Justice guidance defines “indigent” as anybody who might be “eligible for public benefits,” but not actually receiving them. “Jurisdictions may benefit from creating statutory presumptions of indigency for certain classes of defendants,” the source said.

The administration claims cops and courts conspire to exploit poor blacks to generate city revenue in some kind of shakedown. But data show blacks fail to pay their fines at far greater rates than whites, so why not target whites if cash extortion is the objective?

Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.

“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.

Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.

Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.

Former federal civil rights attorney Hans Bader, now with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes the latest reforms as a “massive assault on the criminal justice system.”

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration.”
56  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: April 09, 2016, 05:17:03 PM
"Many states, mine included consider an intoxicated person in possession of their keys in the car to be DUI."

Well in that case I understand it.

Thanks for clarification.

Just trouble shooting.  If one comes out of a bar and goes in the back seat to sleep it off till next morning then that person too is DUI?

What if they have a van and go in the back to sleep?  

Basically one cannot sleep in their car if under the influence even if she/he does not drive?

Well he was in parking lot on someone's else's property...........but if the owner of the property does not complain........ undecided


The best course of action in that scenario is to lock your keys in your trunk or another locked container before going to sleep.
57  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: So what on: April 09, 2016, 04:28:20 PM
If you are a war hero your arrested and face is all over the news.  Fact is he wasn't driving.   He was sleeping in his car.   If you are Democrat Presidential candidate with an organized mob behind you  and you repeatedly  thumb your nose over national security for years it is a "right wing conspiracy" or much to do about nothing, etc.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-navy-seal-says-killed-bin-laden-charged-171750737.


Many states, mine included consider an intoxicated person in possession of their keys in the car to be DUI. Personally, I think that's a bogus arrest.
58  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Plowhorse-tastic! on: April 08, 2016, 10:09:02 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/08/first-quarter-economy-looks-bleaker-by-the-day.html

59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Leftist AGs move to punish thoughtcrimes on: April 08, 2016, 08:48:08 PM
http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
Hans von Spakovsky   / @HvonSpakovsky / Cole Wintheiser   / April 04, 2016 / 551 comments 23.k

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks alongside former Vice President Al Gore. Neither Gore nor the “AGs United for Clean Power” has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate. (Photo: Reuters/Mike Segar/Newscom)
COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky
@HvonSpakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.
Cole Wintheiser
Cole Wintheiser is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the “heretics” with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.

One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.

As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.

Standing next to Schneiderman throughout the press conference was the grand inquisitor himself, former Vice President Al Gore, who has stepped into the role of Tomas de Torquemada.

Gore, who narrated a climate change propaganda film in 2006 entitled “An Inconvenient Truth,” praised the coalition, stating that “what these attorneys general are doing is exceptionally important.” Neither Gore nor the “AGs United for Clean Power” has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate.

When pressed on the effect such investigations and prosecutions will have on free speech, General Schneiderman claimed that climate change dissenters are committing “fraud” and are not protected by the First Amendment.

This comes on top of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitting that the Justice Department is discussing the possibility of pursing civil actions against climate change deniers, and that she has already “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which” federal law enforcement could take action.

As we have said before, “[l]evel-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of great debate.” And yet that is exactly what the AGs United for “Political” Power are going to do.

Fortunately, there are other state attorneys general who understand the importance of the rule of law as opposed to what they say is an “ambition to use the law to silence voices with which we disagree.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said they would not be joining this coalition:

Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do. This scientific and political debate is healthy and should be encouraged. It should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence. It is inappropriate for State Attorneys General to use the power of their office to attempt to silence core political speech on one of the major policy debates of our time.

Although the Spanish Inquisition ended almost 200 years ago, the American Climate Change Inquisition appears to be just getting started. By threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe their climate theories, the attorneys general in this coalition are trying to end the debate over climate change, declaring any dissent to be blasphemy regardless of what many scientists believe.

This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.
60  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Progressive Fascism in Scotland on: April 02, 2016, 09:38:00 PM

Could never happen here.

http://mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamist-terrorism-french-president


https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/29/cuban-internet-censorship-the-nation
61  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: April 02, 2016, 08:09:05 PM
1)  Sometimes we need to know what the other side is saying.

2) Let's be real-- it's not like there aren't some operators out there capable of cutting corners and fouling the water table.  This is a proper area for regulatory oversight IMHO.


Well, hopefully the EPA can break away from from causing it's own environmental disasters and porn to investigate. If the Daily Kos even got 5% of the story right, I would be surprised.
62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fracking and keeping the water clean on: April 02, 2016, 07:24:09 PM

Daily Kos?   rolleyes
63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Who could have seen this coming? Bathroom gender bender on: April 02, 2016, 07:13:13 PM

 rolleyes My shocked face.
64  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Despite our cranial rectal interface things are getting worse on: April 01, 2016, 11:51:03 PM

Hey, someone has to play golf and tango in Cuba.
65  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gay in Saudi Arabia on: April 01, 2016, 11:50:18 PM

Cue the crickets, as the left will studiously ignore this.
66  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 31, 2016, 03:34:30 PM
The GOPe will torpedo both Trump and Cruz. The convention will be more rigged than a North Korean election.
67  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China, Obama Faces a Tough Balancing Act Over South China Sea on: March 31, 2016, 03:32:20 PM
This is especially hard when you have a US President who is uninformed, disengaged and unprincipled. 

I wonder how those daily briefings are going - that he missed on the Middle East...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/asia/obama-xi-jinping-meeting-washington.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Obama Faces a Tough Balancing Act Over South China Sea

"Expectations that anything of substance will be accomplished in the 90-minute meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi are minimal."



The Chinese are openly contemptuous of Buraq.
68  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: March 30, 2016, 09:09:28 PM
Seriously?

Yes. Not one more cent for defending a suicidal culture.
69  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 30, 2016, 05:52:07 PM
We have heard the number of 150 before.  Months ago.

And look at this at the end of the article:

"The media continues to scandalize Hillary Clinton during the FBI's probe, even though legal experts have repeatedly explained that Clinton is unlikely to face prosecution and have termed an indictment "ridiculous."

Liberals just have no shame

" legal experts have repeatedly explained that Clinton is unlikely to face prosecution and have termed an indictment "ridiculous."

A sad commentary on our legal profession.  Well, I have seen many physicians disappoint me over the years.  Not that I profess to be a saint but I have seen many with zero shame.
That's the way it goes.


Laws are for the little people.
70  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: March 30, 2016, 05:06:30 PM
Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

https://vimeo.com/12915013

Don"t Date Robots!

I don't....nor would I. I still think there are enough that would though, that it would open many legal and social issues.

Yup.
71  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The mouse that could roar in Belgium on: March 30, 2016, 05:04:04 PM

We need to pull our forces out of Europe anyway.
72  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Italian Food in Arabic countries on: March 29, 2016, 03:12:26 PM

It makes more sense when you recognize the clothing is meant to be a portable jail cell.
73  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Risks of FGM here in America? on: March 28, 2016, 03:58:57 PM

Female Gender Mutilation.  Maybe we make the lifting of a US Muslim immigration pause contingent on a total, worldwide, Islamic repudiation and ending of this practice.  Then the ball is in their court.  Remove this barbaric practice from the face of the world and then get back in line if you want.  Don't bring your savagely cruel ways here.

It isn't a theoretical issue, it has and does happen here.
74  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Steyn looks even more correct as time goes on on: March 28, 2016, 08:51:28 AM
http://www.steynonline.com/7495/i-was-only-good-at-enjoying-it#pq=SseTH3

Yes Andrew?
75  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: March 28, 2016, 08:11:33 AM
Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

https://vimeo.com/12915013

Don"t Date Robots!
76  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mexico's Glass House on: March 28, 2016, 08:02:37 AM
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/01/13/mexicos-glass-house-2/
J. Michael Waller
Mexico’s Glass House
mexico_southern_border
Articles | January 13, 2009 | Borders

     EmailPrint
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

 

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.  Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country."  Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

 

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States – as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny.  The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

– – –

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

 

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.
77  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mexico's Glass House on: March 28, 2016, 08:01:36 AM
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/01/13/mexicos-glass-house-2/
J. Michael Waller
Mexico’s Glass House
mexico_southern_border
Articles | January 13, 2009 | Borders

     EmailPrint
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

 

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.  Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country."  Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

 

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States – as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny.  The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

– – –

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

 

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.
78  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: March 27, 2016, 06:10:53 PM
GM, if you have a moment please post that in the Mexico threads and the Electoral thread.  TY.

Sorry, about to go to work.
79  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Let's use their laws: Mexico's Glass House on: March 27, 2016, 05:38:47 PM
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/01/13/mexicos-glass-house-2/
J. Michael Waller
Mexico’s Glass House
mexico_southern_border
Articles | January 13, 2009 | Borders

     EmailPrint
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

 

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.  Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country."  Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

 

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States – as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny.  The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

– – –

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

 

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.
80  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: March 27, 2016, 05:28:28 PM
Nice to know that Mexicans seem to think that their money should be used to influence US politics. They are organizing money and voices of non US citizens in an effort to derail a US candidate.

Sorry the article is not in English, but the Spanish speakers here will get the just of it.

I have to say, I wonder what the reaction would be if Americans were organizing to influence which Mexican candidates would be successful. It's a fair question.

http://ljz.mx/2016/03/27/clubes-de-migrantes-realizan-campana-con-zacatecanos-para-evitar-que-voten-por-trump/

It is a CRIME under Mexican law for foreigners to attempt to influence Mexican elections.
81  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: And now for something different on: March 27, 2016, 03:39:58 PM

So, shockingly, the article from Huffpo is utter garbage.

In case you missed it, go back to the last two posts. wink
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: And now for something different on: March 27, 2016, 03:30:50 PM

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php



004.060
YUSUFALI: Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Evil One, though they were ordered to reject him. But Satan's wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right).
PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them? Satan would mislead them far astray.
SHAKIR: Have you not seen those who assert that they believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They desire to summon one another to the judgment of the Shaitan, though they were commanded to deny him, and the Shaitan desires to lead them astray into a remote error.
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: And now for something different on: March 27, 2016, 03:13:58 PM

http://www.islamictreasure.com/2511-fabricated-hadeeth-love-for-ones-homeland-is-from-faith/

Fabricated Hadeeth – Love for one’s Homeland is from Faith
Nowadays mawdoo’ (fabricated) ahaadeeth, false reports and made-up stories have become widespread. Many people have become used to repeating these reports without checking whether they are saheeh and without examining their real nature.
This is haraam according to sharee’ah and is an insult to common sense.
These ahaadeeth are falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It is not permissible to narrate them or quote them without clearly stating that they are false.
Regarding the hadeeth: حُبُّ الْوَطَنِ مِنَ الإِيمَانِ (Hubbul-Watan Min al-Eemaan)
Translation: “Love of one’s homeland (country) is from faith”
Source: Kashf al-Khafa’ wa Muzil al-Ilbas (1102), al-Silsilah al-Hadeeth ad-Da’eefah (36) and reported by al-Saghaanee in his al-Mawdhoo’at (81)
The above hadeeth is not the saying of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and is a very good example of fabrication and falsehood which are attributed to the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam). It is mentioned by the scholars in their books as an example of Hadeeth fabrication and lies.
● The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’ was asked regarding the hadeeth, they replied:
ما ذكرته من الجمل ليست بأحاديث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وإنما هي كلمات جرت على ألسنة الناس.
وبالله التوفيق. وصلى الله على نبينا محمد، وآله وصحبه وسلم.
“The phrases you mentioned are not Hadith reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him); they are just sayings that people have become accustomed to using.
May Allaah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad his family, and Companions!”
Members: ‘Abdullah ibn Qa`ud, ‘Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan, Deputy Chairman: ‘Abdul-Razzaq `Afify, Chairman: ‘Abdul-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Baz
Source: Third question from fatawa number 5729, Volume 4 page 465.
● Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Abdullaah bin Abdur Rahmaan ar-Raajhee said in his explanation of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s “al-Waseeah al-Kubra” under the heading “Categories of Fabricated and False ahadeeth”:
وقد يكون هذا الحديث الذي ينسبونه إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كلاماً لبعض السلف، أو كلاماً لبعض العلماء، مثل قول بعض الناس: (حب الوطن من الإيمان)
“It may be that the hadeeth which is attributed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, be sayings of some of the salafs, or sayings of some scholars, such as the saying of some people (love of the homeland is from Faith).”
Source: “Sharh al-Waseeah al-Kubra li-Ibn Taymiyyah”, Volume 5, page 7.
● Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) said:
وما يذكر من أن ((حب الوطن من الإيمان)) وأن ذلك حديث عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم كذب.
حب الوطن إن كان لأنه وطن إسلامي فهذا تحبه لأنه إسلامي. ولا فرق بين وطنك الذي هو مسقط رأسك، أو الوطن البعيد من بلاد المسلمين؛ كلها وطن الإسلام يجب أن نحميه.
“Furthermore, it ought not to be mentioned that ‘Love for one’s homeland is from faith’, nor that this is a narration from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam), for this is a fabrication.
We are obliged to love our country if it is an Islamic nation, there being no distinction between an individual’s country of birth or a country distant from the lands of the Muslims, both are deemed Islamic lands and dictate that they are protected.”
Source: Sharh Riyadh as-Saaliheen, Volume 1 page 66.
● al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned regarding the hadeeth:
قَالَ الزَّرْكَشِيُّ لَمْ أَقِفْ عَلَيْهِ
وَقَالَ السَّيْدُ مَعِينُ الدِّينِ الصَّفَوِيُّ لَيْسَ بِثَابِتٍ
وَقِيلَ إِنَّهُ مِنْ كَلَامِ بَعْضِ السّلف
az-Zarkashi said: “I am not aware of it.”
as-Saeed Ma’een uddin as-Safawiyyu said: “It is not proven”
And it was said that it is from the sayings of some salafs.
Source: “Al-Asrar Al-Marfoo’a fee Al-Akhbaar Al-Mawdoo’at” by al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (may Allaah have mercy on him), page 180 under hadeeth number 164.
Regarding whether the meaning of the phrase is correct or not, the scholars have clarified that it’s meaning is strange and wrong.
● Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah), mentioned about this hadeeth in “al-Silsilah al-Hadeeth ad-Da’eefah” (Volume 1, page 110 number 36), and classed it as being Mawdoo’ (fabricated).
He said:
موضوع. كما قال الصغاني (ص 7) وغيره.
ومعناه غير مستقيم إذ إن حب الوطن كحب النفس والمال ونحوه، كل ذلك غريزي في الإنسان لا يمدح بحبه ولا هو من لوازم الإيمان، ألا ترى أن الناس كلهم مشتركون في هذا الحب لا فرق في ذلك بين مؤمنهم وكافرهم؟ !
“This hadeeth is Mawdoo’ (fabricated) and it was said by al-Saghaanee (page 7) and other than him.
And the meaning of the hadeeth is not correct, because love of homeland is like love of oneself, money, and the like. All of these are inborn in humans. There is no praise for this love and neither is it from Eemaan (faith). Do you not think that all of the people involved in this love (i.e love of ones homeland), there is no difference in that between the believers and kaafir alike? !”
● Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) said:
ومثله “حب الوطن من الإيمان” وهو مشهور عند العامة على أنه حديث صحيح، وهو حديث موضوع مكذوب، بل المعنى أيضاً غير صحيح بل حب الوطن من التعصب.
“Like for example ‘Love for one’s homeland is from faith’. It is famous near the general people, that this is a saheeh hadeeth, (but) this hadeeth is fabricated and false. It’s meaning is also not correct, rather, love of one’s homeland is from prejudice.”
Source: “Sharh al-Manzuma al-Bayquniyya fee Mustalah al-Hadeeth” page 70
● Shaykh Ismail ibn Muhammad al-‘Ajaloonee mentioned this hadeeth as Mawdoo’ in his book “Kashf al-Khafa’ wa Muzil al-Ilbas” (1102), Volume 1 pages 398-399 and said:
قال الصغاني: موضوع، وقال في المقاصد: لم أقف عليه، ومعناه صحيح،
ورد القاري قوله ومعناه صحيح بأنه عجيب، قال: إذ لا تلازم بين حب الوطن وبين الإيمان، قال: ورد أيضا بقوله تعالى: {وَلَوْ أَنَّا كَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ} النساء: 66,
فإنها دلت على حبهم وطنهم، مع عدم تلبسهم بالإيمان؛ إذ ضمير عليهم للمنافقين، لكن انتصر له بعضهم بأنه ليس في كلامه أنه لا يحب الوطن إلا مؤمن، وإنما فيه أن حب الوطن لا ينافي الإيمان, انتهى.
“al-Saghaani said: Mawdoo’ (fabricated). And he said in al-Maqaasid: I am not aware of it, and its meaning is correct. Al-Qaari replied to his saying that its meaning is not saheeh and that It is strange.
al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: As there is no correlation between the love of Country and the matters of Eemaan (faith) and this view (i.e. the view of those who consider the meaning of the hadeeth to be correct) could be refuted by what Allaah Said :
“And if We had ordered them (saying), “Kill yourselves (i.e. the innnocent ones kill the guilty ones) or leave your homes,” very few of them would have done it; but if they had done what they were told, it would have been better for them, and would have strengthened their (Faith)” [Qur’an Surah an-Nisa’ 4:66]
So this is an evidence of their (the hypocrite’s) love to the Homeland/Country without mixing it with the matters of Eemaan, as the pronoun (alayhim/upon them) is for the hypocrites.
And some (scholars) also said that there is nothing in his mentioned words that proves that no one can love his country except a Believer. But rather, it shows that there is no contradiction between Love of the homeland/Country and the matters of Eemaan.” [i.e. even the hypocrites who have no faith, also love their country/homeland. So love of one’s homeland cannot be considered to be from Faith and hence this saying is not true.]
End quote from Shaykh Ismail ibn Muhammad al-‘Ajaloonee’s book “Kashf al-Khafa’ wa Muzil al-Ilbas”
[Note: al-Mulla ‘Ali Qaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned the above in his book “Al-Asrar Al-Marfoo’a fee Al-Akhbaar Al-Mawdoo’at”, pages 180-181 under hadeeth number 164]
And Allaah Knows the Best.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: You can't make this excrement up , , , on: March 27, 2016, 03:05:07 PM

This is the awesomeness of Obama's Smart Power!
85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Marines trying to scavenge spare parts from a museum on: March 27, 2016, 09:11:29 AM
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktown-museum-f-18-for-spare-parts-how-bad-is-it/

Got to love the Obama era.

86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: March 26, 2016, 08:42:56 PM
Lots to like. I would pull all US troops out of Europe. No point in trying to protect a suicidal culture.
87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / When reality strikes Libertarian fantasy on: March 24, 2016, 06:38:52 PM
http://gazette.com/black-market-is-thriving-in-colorado/article/1548305

Not going well.
88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs on: March 24, 2016, 01:35:07 PM
"The war on drugs" is a poor metaphor. Just as the war on crime isn't really a war. Is there an endpoint or just something that has to be done to preserve some semblance of civilization.
89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Irony of the Obama "Doctrine" on: March 23, 2016, 03:40:26 PM

Incompetence and weakness as doctrine.
90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ: 8-0 SCOTUS decision on: March 22, 2016, 01:08:39 PM

Nice to see such clear and well reasoned opinions!


The Supreme Court’s Eight Gun Salute
A unanimous rebuke to legal resistance to the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. ENLARGE
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. Photo: Associated Press
Updated March 21, 2016 10:36 p.m. ET
195 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court decides many cases unanimously, but not often regarding the Second Amendment. That rare occasion happened Monday when the eight sitting Justices threw out a Massachusetts ruling that the right of individuals to bear arms doesn’t include stun guns.

Jaime Caetano began carrying a stun gun as protection against an abusive ex-boyfriend who remained a threat despite restraining orders (Caetano v. Massachusetts). When officers found her stun gun during a search, she was arrested and convicted for possessing an unlawful weapon. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld her conviction on grounds that stun guns are “not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because they weren’t around when the Second Amendment was written.

The Supreme Court’s brief per curiam (unsigned for the court) opinion dismissed that reasoning, as well as the Massachusetts’s court’s argument that stun guns were not meant to be protected because there is “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” That’s irrelevant, the Justices noted, because the U.S. High Court’s 2008 Heller precedent explicitly “rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.’”

The Caetano ruling, however brief, is an important legal brushback to the many politicians and judges who are still engaging in guerrilla legal resistance to Heller and the follow-up McDonald v. Chicago case that applied Heller to the states. The Massachusetts judges cited Heller, but they willfully misread it to reach the anti-gun rights conclusion they wanted. We’re glad to see even the liberal Justices stand up to that.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito also put a finer point on the absurdity of the lower court’s position that the Second Amendment protects only guns in common use at the time of the Founders.

“Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote. This would have been a stronger message had Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy also joined the concurrence, but at least two Justices made the case in detail.

The timing of Monday’s ruling is notable because Heller and the individual right to bear arms will be major progressive targets if there is a new left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Progressives will at the very least try to blow major holes into Heller by narrowing its limits on gun regulation. But for now the ruling is a reminder that Heller is a landmark that needs to be enforced, not resisted.
 
91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: March 22, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Good thing islam is.a.religion of peace. Imagine the bloodshed if it were not.
92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues, Columnist in Communist Cuba? on: March 21, 2016, 04:53:04 PM
A slip up? Or not?

Brian Williams: Wash Post's Eugene Robinson Is a ‘Pulitzer Prize-Winning Communist’

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/03/21/brian-williams-eugene-robinson-pulitzer-prize-winning-communist

Why did he try to correct himself when he had it right the first time?

"My Muslim faith"

Sormetimes, people accidentally tell the truth.
93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Grass Impacts Cartel's Cash on: March 20, 2016, 08:00:24 PM
Legalization hit the cartels bottomline, among other things.

http://time.com/3801889/us-legalization-marijuana-trade/

Not true. They trade super lab meth and heroin for high grade Colorado weed for domestic distribution. Funny how the legalization advocates keep missing this part of the story.
94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul Ryan on: March 20, 2016, 06:04:13 AM
Apparently he has said he will not support any cuts in Muslim immigration.


Of course not. Government funded anti-radicalization positions are one of the few areas of job growth.
95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / #FeeltheBreadLine on: March 19, 2016, 11:05:46 AM
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/03/feelthebreadline.html

Friday, March 11, 2016
#FeeltheBreadLine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield

After Bernie Sanders visited the Marxist Sandanista regime in Nicaragua on a propaganda tour, he argued that the bread lines in major cities were a good thing. “American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing!”

The bread lines had been caused by the radical regime’s socialist agricultural policies of land seizures from farmers. Those farmers who refused to be drawn into Soviet-style communal farms rebelled, along with Indian and Creole racial minorities, and became the core of the Contras, the heroic resistance fighters whose mass murders at the hands of Sandinista terrorists were cheered by American leftists.

What had been productive farmland vanished into a warren of newly invented government agencies run by leftist university graduates with no agricultural background obsessed with seizing land, but with no idea of how to run it. The remaining farmers were forced into grinding poverty by a government purchasing monopoly while the profits went not to their farms, but to the political class of the Sandanistas who lived in luxury while farmers fled and city workers waited on bread lines.

Think of them as the Bernie Bros of Nicaragua. Except they wore khaki fatigues, not pajamas. And instead of angrily tweeting, they marched their victims into churches and set them on fire.

The unfortunates that the Democratic Party’s aspiring top Socialist saw lining up for bread were the victims of a regime that had destroyed the country through socialist thievery. And he learned absolutely nothing from the experience. Just as the Sandinistas had learned nothing from the Soviet Union and Venezuela’s Socialists learned nothing from the Sandinistas so that once again today crowds wait for bread, milk and toilet paper in an oil-rich country that has run out of everything except Socialists.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders sneered last year.

But it’s the scarcity that the smelly Socialist is shoving at Americans that leads to children going hungry. A choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants means a lot of jobs manufacturing, marketing, stocking and selling them. Those jobs, not Bernie’s self-righteous posturing, allow parents to feed their children.

Children aren’t going hungry in America because we have too many types of deodorant, but because too much of our manufacturing backbone was destroyed by leftist redistributionist policies.


Bernie Sanders’ plan is to double down on failure by adding $15 trillion in taxes. Tax hikes averaging $9,000 would gut the income of American workers and lower household after-tax income by 12 percent. The middle class would lose 8.5% of after-tax income to Bernie Sanders’ insatiable government greed.

This would be the largest tax increase in American history outside of a war. But some days it seems as if Americans have lost a war without a shot being fired and that these are the wages of the occupation.

The Sanders socialist top tax rate proposal goes to 54 percent, but in the past he has favored a 100 percent tax rate. Back in the seventies, he proposed to “make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime” and to seize any income over one million dollars a year.

That would effectively get rid of the underarm spray deodorant factories, not to mention most other manufacturing jobs and agriculture with it. It’s a formula for creating bread lines along the same lines as the Marxist regimes that Bernie Sanders admired.

Sanders was still pushing a 100 percent tax in 1992. It’s a safe bet that his current tax hike proposals are a starting point for massive redistribution from all classes, from the top to the bottom, to the political class of the government that he represents. Given the opportunity, he will get to 100 percent.

Even before all that, Sanders is pushing a carbon consumption tax. Carbon taxes effectively raise the prices of everything, stealing from working families from the supermarket to the job market.

Food prices have already risen sharply under Obama. The dirty secret of the carbon tax is its impact on the price of food. And if that isn’t bad enough, environmentalists have been salivating over the idea of a special tax on what they call “greenhouse-gas-intensive food” which would permanently put meat out of the reach of working families. To the left, such a brutalization of the working class is its most attractive feature.

CBO accounting found that the regressive carbon hoax tax hits low income families hardest. That should bury the myth that Bernie Sanders is fighting for the poor. Liberals fight for the poor the way that KFC fights for chickens.

As the Tax Policy Center analysis puts it, Bernie’s big carbon tax would force “households and businesses to take account of the environmental costs of their activities.” The Big Green beatings will continue until the morale of the workers improves.

The left claims that its carbon tax schemes will offer all sorts of aid to the poor. But what that really means is shoving more working families onto public assistance. Like the Sandinistas, their solution to the poverty and food crisis they want to create is to take away more jobs and add more bread lines.

And we already know that Bernie Sanders is a big fan of bread lines.

Meanwhile more middle class families would find themselves squeezed into the ranks of the working poor. Bernie Sanders rants about the 1 percent stealing from the middle class, but he’s the one who is plotting the biggest heist of money from the middle class in this nation’s history.

Poor workers would lose hours and jobs. Savings would be discouraged. Lower real wages would destroy the future of working families even long after Bernie has gone to the big red gulag in the ground.

And then there are the farms that grow the food. Depending on how a carbon tax is structured, it could hit farms hard. That’s why even the leftist governments that have implemented this harsh tax have generally added exemptions for agriculture to avoid the kind of food disasters that comes from hammering the food supply with a hoax tax. It’s not clear whether Sanders would do so as well.

Farms have already been suffering from environmental policies. A carbon tax could destroy farming the way that the socialist schemes of Sanders’ Sandinistas destroyed agriculture in Nicaragua.

And then the bread lines would be all too real. But there would be no bread.

While Bernie Sanders blathers about billionaires in every speech, his tax plan shows that the Socialist is coming for everyone’s money. Even those at the very bottom of the income tier would still be losing 1.3 percent of their after-tax income, money that many working families cannot afford to give up to Bernie.


“The basic truth of politics is primarily class struggle,” Bernie Sanders has said. And he’s almost right.

Politics has become the struggle of working Americans against the political class. Bernie Sanders is the prototype of a political class of lazy unemployable shiftless parasites at war with the working class. Like the Sandinistas and every other leftist group, he wants to seize money from people of every economic class who actually work in order to invest it in his big government schemes for the political class.

Bernie Sanders has said that, “Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production”. He has touted support from Marxist economists and proposed redistribution of income as the answer to everything. An admirer of Cuba and the Sandinistas, he has learned nothing from their mistakes and proposes to destroy our economy just as his fellow Socialists destroyed theirs in Latin America.

Sanders supporters who feel the Bern dreaming of all the free stuff they will get might want to look at history and ask themselves whether they will end up standing on one of Bernie’s bread lines instead.

Forget #FeeltheBern, try #FeeltheBreadLine.
96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / O-care for illegals! on: March 18, 2016, 05:13:18 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/362223.php

Chelsea Clinton: Not Only Does My Mom Vow to Not Deport Any Illegal Alien Children, She Thinks It's Important to Sign all Illegals Up for Obamacare, Too

During the Univision Democrat debate from two weeks ago, I was pretty surprised at how immoderate a position Hillary (and Bernie, too) staked out on illegal immigration: Not only did they agree with Jorge Ramos that it was immoral to even have a border, but Hillary vowed she would not deport a single illegal, not one, unless he was further guilty of serious non-immigration crimes.

That's going pretty far. But I don't think the media will question her much about this extremist position, the same as they won't question her about abortion.

Now Chelsea Clinton comes in to assure everyone that her mom thinks it's critical to sign all the illegals up for Obamacare, too.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: "Is she planning on expanding Obamacare as people know it, ACA, to include people who are not fully documented? Because when you get ill, your illness will not ask you if you are a permanent resident or not."
CLINTON: "It's such an important question. Thank you for supporting my mom. My mom has very strong feelings that we must push as quickly as possible for comprehensive immigration reform, and this is a real difference between her's and Senator Sanders' record, she supported comprehensive immigration reform at every possible chance and she was one of the original supporters and sponsors of the DREAM Act. She does not believe that while we are working towards comprehensive immigration reform we should make people wait, like the families you are talking about. Which is why she thinks it's so important to extend the Affordable Care Act to people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status."
So not only do we have to accept anyone who slips past our border security as a permanent resident, we also have to subsidize them.

But remember, there's no reason -- none -- apart from pure racism to object to any of this. None. Nothing like simple self-interest, or not wanting to take on the burden of subsidizing all the world's mobile poor.

No, the only reason one could have to object to this is "hating brown poeple."

BTW: I'm updating the sidebar with stuff about the Salah Abdeslam attacks, if you're interested in that story. A lot of little things are coming out, but not enough for a main post.

There's a link to what could be the video of the arrest itself for example, though that might be video of one of the other captured terrorists.

Update: Hillary Rodham has declared the southern border secure, so there's no need for any additional border security.
97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pension crisis hard truths on: March 18, 2016, 12:00:53 PM

https://ir.citi.com/A9PruMxsx32cucD9nPyz6VOD1aXLcqQ1bFnuNFZcDqWVvkop5NYU6Q%3D%3D
98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: In praise of Obama's foreign policy on: March 18, 2016, 11:31:16 AM

Wow. Very tasty koolaid he's been drinking.
99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Actual minimum wage is: 0 on: March 18, 2016, 10:12:46 AM
http://kfor.com/2016/03/17/carls-jr-ceo-wants-to-try-automated-restaurant-where-customers-never-see-a-person/

Fight for 15=Fail.
100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 18, 2016, 10:08:57 AM
I don't think it's going to happen. I expect the GOPe to pull a "brokered convention" and serve us a giant shiite sammich. Which will shatter the pubs.

Is Ted Cruz Going to Be Able to Pull This Off?

Right now, as a #NeverTrump guy, I’m rooting hard for Ted Cruz. We haven’t seen any polls conducted after Rubio’s departure from the race -- either in key upcoming states or nationally -- so we don’t have a good sense of whether anti-Trump Republicans are coalescing around him.

Tuesday Arizona holds its primary and Utah holds its caucus. At first glance, those are natural Cruz states, right?

[Cue ominous music.]

Notice that we’ve had two polls of Arizona Republicans -- you know, right next to Texas -- and Trump’s well ahead of Cruz in both. The two polls were conducted before Rubio dropped out, so maybe Rubio’s 10 to 12 percent will shift to Cruz and help the Texas senator make up the deficit of . . . 12–14 points. Uh-oh.

The last Utah poll was in mid-February, and had Rubio 24, Cruz 22, Trump 18. Caucuses usually have low turnout, but the Utah one may turn out quite different:

For its presidential preference caucus next week, the Beehive State’s Republican Party will allow any Utahn outside or inside the state to vote online. This will be the first time any political party has allowed online voting for a presidential primary election in the nation.

“We’re stepping out on the national stage in a way we never have before,” Bryan J. Smith, the executive director of the Utah Republican Party, said during a recent Utah caucus preparatory meeting. “This time it matters in more ways than you think.”

The Utah Republican Party said its new method of voting will mainly help families, workers, missionaries and military workers throughout the world, who can’t
be in town for voting. It also may help Utah mothers, who find themselves swamped with child care and work.  A week from now, if Trump wins Arizona and Cruz wins Utah . . . do people begin to doubt whether Cruz can win a one-on-one race against Trump? Or do anti-Trump Republicans begin to really turn their ire on Kasich for sticking around?

Politico reports, “Marco Rubio is close to endorsing Ted Cruz, but the two proud senators -- and recent fierce rivals -- have some details to work out first. Cruz has to ask for the Rubio’s endorsement, and both sides need to decide that it will make a difference, according to sources familiar with the thinking of both senators.”

If you’re Cruz, why wouldn’t you ask?

Meanwhile, one more ominous note for the #NeverTrump forces. According to the Associated Press count, Trump has 678 delegates, and needs 1,237. He’s 559 delegates away from winning the nomination, and 1,059 remain. Can Trump win 53 percent of the remaining delegates?

Even if you feel confident in saying “No, Trump won’t win that many delegates” -- and yeah, that’s a high bar to clear going forward -- so far Trump has won about 46 percent of the delegates available so far. (He’s done so with 37 percent of the votes cast in Republican primaries and caucuses so far.) Assume Trump maintains his current level of support throughout the rest of the process, and he’ll get 46 percent of the remaining 1,059 delegates. That gives him 492 more delegates.

Trump would enter the convention in Cleveland with 1,170 delegates, just 67 short of what he needs. (It’s easy to picture Trump’s first phone call going to John Kasich, currently sitting there with 144 delegates.) Yes, you might hear talk or calls for a Cruz–Rubio ticket, but Trump will argue, with justification, he’s won 94 percent of what was needed to be the nominee.

Derailing Trump will require a big surge from Cruz from here on out. Can he do it?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 270
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!