The latest affront to the First Amendment was the imprisonment of Rev. Terry Jones for planning speech critical of Islam. He never got to protest in front of the mosque at all but he was jailed for thought crimes against Muslims.
Notice how Muslims’ reputation for intimidation and violence works to exempt them from normal level of criticism we all experience in this society.
Actually, Muslims can be pretty hostile, as the video below shows. A Jones supporter needed police to escort him through a screaming mob, then a Muslim guy says, “Hatred is not allowed in this world.”
A Florida pastor’s planned demonstration outside a Michigan mosque was scuttled Friday after a jury determined the protest would constitute a breach of the peace and he was briefly jailed for refusing to pay what authorities called a “peace bond.”
The Rev. Terry Jones, whose past rhetoric against Muslims has inflamed anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, said he refused to pay the $1 bond because to do so would violate his freedom of speech. He later paid it and was released.
Jones had planned a demonstration Friday evening outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit that is home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the nation. An estimated 30,000 people in Dearborn, about a third of the city’s population, trace their roots to the Middle East.
Prosecutors worried the protest would lead to violence and asked Dearborn District Judge Mark Somers to intervene. Somers conducted a one-day jury trial to determine whether Jones would pose a threat to peace. They did, and Somers then ordered Jones and an associate to post the bond to ostensibly cover the costs of police protection.
While largely symbolic, the bond also came with conditions that included a prohibition on Jones from going to the mosque or the adjacent property for three years.
Somers said he spoke to the jury after they reached their verdict and they told him they were concerned with the “time, place and manner and not the content of the speech.”
But Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, called the entire proceedings unconstitutional. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has found that it’s the job of the police to protect speakers at such events and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection.
“What basis did the state have for arguing that they would breach the peace?” Sedler said. “It’s a matter of First Amendment requirement: The government can’t stop a speaker from speaking because of danger from a hostile crowd.” Continue reading this article
We have already heard rumors that Washington may take some number of the absconding freedom fighters to this country: Does Obama Plan to Welcome Dangerous Libyan Refugees to America? That would be a terrible decision for national security reasons as well as economic (as in, no spare jobs), so let’s hope Obama is too busy campaigning for re-election to welcome any extraneous Muslim refugees.
BRITAIN will not open its borders to migrants fleeing the turmoil in North Africa, the Home Secretary has insisted.
Theresa May told her EU counterparts that the UK was not prepared to take on any “burden sharing”.
Ms May issued her warning at a meeting of Europe’s Home Affairs ministers in response to calls for help from Italy.
She did however offer “practical assistance” to Italy on its own shores.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We were quite robust in stating that we are not planning to open our borders to those coming to Europe from North Africa. We do not agree with ‘burden sharing’ which is what Italy wants.”
More than 25,000, mainly Tunisians, have arrived in Italy since the unrest there and thousands of Libyans, Egyptians and other Africans are expected to make the crossing as border controls in war-torn Libya fail.
On the day chosen to emphasize the thoughtful care of our planetary home, much in the public discourse is misguided or upside down. The major environmental organizations push a global warming agenda which has been shown to be overblown in its presentation, at the minimum.
Meanwhile, vital topics have fallen from view, such as the global population rushing toward seven billion persons, an event that will occur sometime this year. It was only 12 years ago when the global odometer crossed the six-billion threshold in 1999. Growth of this magnitude is environmentally unsustainable, as we humans gobble through natural resources that will replenish themselves if allowed to do so, such as fresh water, fisheries and soil. But human efficiency in resource extraction currently overwhelms the wisdom to use complex natural systems in a way to make them last.
In our own country, excessive population growth, fueled by uncontrolled immigration, is similarly environmentally irresponsible. And the people who squawk the loudest about America’s large carbon footprint are the same ones who favor permissive immigration — liberal Democrats.
Furthermore, the destruction of America’s public lands near the Mexican border by the trampling millions of illegal alien trash spewers has been ignored by environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Today, the best defender of American park lands is Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); see my blog Border Parks Defended against Invader-Friendy Rules.
The video below reveals the devastation of border lands from illegal immigration. Why is this not considered an important environmental issue by the Sierra Club and other lights of the green movement?
Here’s a straight news account from southern Arizona. (In it, a Sierra Club employee mouths the organization’s support for comprehensive immigration reform, otherwise known as mass amnesty.)
It’s well known that the French consider food as an important part of their culture. So when Muslims moved in by the millions and insisted that at least some restaurants cater to their demands, a serious culture clash blew up. The French appreciate alcohol and pork, and the Sons of Allah want those products to disappear. In Paris, local groups sometimes using Facebook have celebrated French culture with wine and sausages in the streets.
As is often the case with Muslims, no compromise is possible. Halal sharia-compliant food means no pork etc. can exist on the same premises. Forget about bacon on your burger if the restaurant is halal. When the Quick fast food chain turned some of its restaurants Islamic, that meant pork-eating French people couldn’t get the chow they wanted. In Lyon last year, a group of French pork-o-philes put on pig masks and protested the affront to traditional values at a Quick restaurant.
It looks like the same bunch is gearing up for a bigger and better action in a few weeks. The porcine provocateurs have produced a jolly video that reviews the pig-in from last year by way of announcing a Pig March May 14 in Lyon on their website Marche des Cochons.
Reflects the Islamisation of our country, the growing share of the halal food system in our concern for all the French who refuse to eat meat slaughtered in the name of Allah, often without their knowledge.
Born following the success of the invasion of Halal Quick Villeurbanne from 70 pigs in May 2010, this idea of big demonstration against the halal taking shape today.
We decided to place our event under the banner of humor and shift around the porcine theme. We consider the second degree is the best way to raise public awareness on the issue of halal and Islamization.
Engaged citizens, consumer associations, butchers and delicatessens, activists lay or cause animal breeders or simple Lyonnais please show your opposition to halal and Islamization in many coming Saturday, May 14, 2011 in Lyon, in this first March of Pigs.
Vive la France and particularly its stalwart defenders. My calendar is marked.
Obama must be hoping that the 14 million unemployed citizens won’t notice that he wants to amnesty 20+ million workers into the legal economy. That’s not a very friendly thing to do in the jobless economic recovery. One indicator was the large turnout when McDonald’s announced it would interview for 50,000 jobs on April 19.
He hosted a gaggle of liberal swells today (including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and criminal coddling former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) at the White House to discuss comprehensive amnesty. But these days, the sovereignty-friendly House of Representatives has more important things to do than reward foreign lawbreakers.
Despite long odds against immigration reform, President Obama on Tuesday urged a wide range of activists and officials to keep pushing the issue. The president told the group, which included Rev. Al Sharpton, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that for Congress to act, they will have to put pressure on Capitol Hill.
“All politicians have to listen to their base,” Sharpton told reporters after the White House meeting.
Sharpton acknowledged that Obama was “very candid” about immigration reform’s bleak hopes for passage.
But Bill Bratton, a former police chief of Los Angeles and New York City, said Obama asked the group of about 70 participants “to commit going forward to keep the debate about this issue alive.”
Obama has come under fire repeatedly by Hispanic and pro-reform groups who have questioned his commitment on the issue.
As the president prepares to travel to Nevada on Wednesday, a state that highlights the growing importance of Hispanic voters, Obama sought to demonstrate that he still considers the issue a priority.
Eric Garcetti, president of the Los Angeles city council, said that Obama “made a very compelling case that he will not let this issue go.”
Ahead of the meeting, the White House said in a release that Obama would talk to the group about “how we can work together to foster a constructive national conversation on this important issue as we work to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress.”
A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that more Americans than ever believe birthright citizenship is a bad policy and should be changed.
As a 2008 CBS report (Illegal Immigrant Births – At Your Expense, see video below) revealed, pregnant illegal aliens deliberately come to give birth in this country so their kid can get all the benefits of US citizenship, which helps the whole family at the welfare office. The policy is definitely a magnet for foreign lawbreakers.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that a child born in the United States to a woman who is here illegally should not automatically become a U.S. citizen. That’s up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree and feel that children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become American citizens as is currently the practice. That’s down six points from August. Another 11% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters believe that before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, they should be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States. Only nine percent (9%) oppose such a requirement.
Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration, but voters are now almost evenly divided over whether it’s better to let the federal government or individual states enforce immigration laws. At least one state, Arizona, has been considering a law that would deny full citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. [. . .]
While most voters favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws, just over half (55%) of voters nationwide also are at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-two percent (42%) don’t share that concern. This includes 21% who are Very Concerned and 12% who are Not At All Concerned.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrants. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Also, 75% of Democrats are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal aliens will violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens, a view shared by just 39% of Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are narrowly divided on the question.
There are sharper differences of opinion as far as the Political Class is concerned. Seventy percent (70%) of those in the Political Class favor automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, but 70% of Mainstream voters are opposed.
Mainstream voters also believe much more emphatically that those seeking government services need to prove they are in this country legally. They also are far less concerned than Political Class voters about violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Continue reading this article
Cairo resident Gamma al Banna is a prolific author on the subject of Islam. The 90-year-old man is also the younger brother of Hassan al Banna, the late founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, so he is not unconnected on the subject of political Islam.
One subject on which Gamma al Banna differs with the Brotherhood is the sacking of women because, he says, “There is nothing in Islam or the Koran that says a woman must cover her hair.” He thinks Muslims residing in Europe should abide by its customs, not go out of their way to emphasize difference.
A 1959 photo of Cairo University students shows no women wearing the hijab, but by 2004 90 percent cover their hair.
Al Gamma further opines, “The Muslim mind is rusty. It has done nothing the last thousand years. A thousand years ago the innovation ended.”
News from across the pond suggests that Eurabia is forming up rapidly. Britain in particular has tried appeasement instead of insisting upon assimilation for its Muslim immigrants with disastrous results. Weakness on the part of authorities has inspired hostile Muslims to push ever harder for sharia rule in the land of the Magna Carta. Muslim immigration has proved to be socially destabilizing wherever it has been tried.
The rights of women and gay persons are radically diminished in sharia zones, as explored in a French documentary from last year. The filmmakers visited the Tower Hamlets, a neighborhood occupied by serious jihadists. One statistic: “Aggression against gay people has increased 200% between 2009-2010.”
Now the British print media has noticed how bad the situation has gotten. Independent women enter sharia zones at their own risk, as do gay people.
Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the ‘Talibanesque thugs’, being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: ‘Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment’.
Posters for H&M which feature women in bikinis and a racy poster for a Bollywood film have been defaced.
It is believed Muslim extremists are behind a spate of attacks being investigated by police, according to the Sunday Times.
An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted.
When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: ‘If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you’.
The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job.
She said: ‘Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven’t done anything wrong.’
Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a ‘gay-free zone’ and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis. Continue reading this article
It was great to see Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), the Chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, tear into the border suits who defend policies that threaten national security.
The current situation enables violent foreign narco-thugs. Environmental regulations hamper the ability of Border Patrol agents to move around in public lands, giving the Mexican drug smuggling criminals an extra advantage.
And for people who care about protecting the environment of the border area, the damage done by millions of illegal aliens tramping through leaving tons of garbage far outweighs the footprint left by the Border Patrol agents doing their job. In 2009, Arizona conservationists picked up 234 tons of trash left by aliens in that state alone.
Washington • Border patrol agents would be able to cross into sensitive wilderness areas, build and maintain roads, construct fences and patrol the areas with vehicles without fear of breaking environmental laws under a bill introduced this week again by Rep. Rob Bishop.
The Utah Republican, chairman of the House Natural Resources subcommittee over federal lands, says his bill would allow border agents to secure the border without what he says are barriers — literally physical barriers in some cases — put up by public land managers.
Bishop, who toured the border in Arizona last year and plans to go next week as well, is holding a joint hearing Friday with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to look at border security along the U.S.-Mexico line.
He says federal lands along the U.S. border are a “haven of criminal activity” and environmental laws meant to protect the lands are actually allowing border crossers to destroy them.
“I have seen firsthand the damage that has been done to our federal lands from trash, foot traffic and man-made fires,” Bishop said in reintroducing the bill he proposed last session. “Providing Border Patrol with the necessary access to deter and apprehend those who cross through our federal lands illegally would deliver the greatest benefit to both national security and the long-term health of our federal lands.”
Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, under which border patrol operates, said the department doesn’t comment on pending legislation. But he noted that DHS is fully committed to cooperating with Interior and the Forest Service, which also has lands abutting the international border.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff also declined to comment on pending legislation but noted that the department’s work with Homeland Security has allowed basic border security infrastructure to be strategically located on federal lands to meet DHS’ goals.
Interior, Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Agriculture entered into an agreement in 2006 that allows border patrol to enter sensitive wilderness areas in pursuit of criminal activity, though Bishop has contended the deal still hampers the ability to secure the border.
Another problem of course is legal immigrants and illegal aliens taking American jobs. If the eight million jobs held by illegals (according to Pew Hispanic) were liberated by universal E-verify, then those positions would open up to citizens and a substantial portion of the jobs crisis would be solved. But liberal Sacramexico would never go there.
Have the politicians never asked business owners why they are leaving? Many have voiced their complaints but Sacramento hasn’t seemed interested. In 2009, Gov. Schwarzenegger reluctantly released a state report showing the enormous regulatory burden in California (nearly half a trillion dollars annually), but Sacramento’s liberal leadership snoozed through that warning sign as well. (Listen to John and Ken’s program on the headache-inducing study about state regulation.)
A long-time observer of California’s propensity to chase out job creators is Joseph Vranich, the Business Relocation Coach. He was interviewed by the John and Ken radio show on Friday about a recent article describing how employees now ask their bosses to leave the state. Diversity is not mentioned, although one person wanted to avoid the Los Angeles school system.
If I hadn’t heard it from clients I wouldn’t have believed it – Californians are asking their companies to leave the state.
Some time ago a decision-maker told me he had evaluated the benefits of moving his department out of Los Angeles. He said: “When I discovered how substantial the savings would be, I quipped in front of my staff, ‘We should move to Texas.’ I was surprised by what happened next – people approached me one by one, came in my office, closed the door, and asked that we move to Texas. Once I saw the employee reactions, I’d like for the relocation to occur.”
Businesses relocate generally for cost factors (taxes, the burdens of excessive regulations, high rents) but people move for life-style reasons. Here is a sampling of employee motivations:
“I lived in Texas before and I’d like to go back - fewer traffic jams and I can afford to buy a house there.”
“When the owner told me about the move to Nevada I jumped at the chance to go. The company can grow better there and I’ll have more opportunity to stay in this field and move up.”
“One reason the owner liked Colorado was because of the better schools. I thought, well, we’re going to have kids and we don’t want them in the Los Angeles school system.”
“My company is fabulous. I will move wherever it decides to go. If it’s someplace that’s cold, I’ll get used to it!”
What is the “staying power” for Californians in new places? I don’t know. But a manager and his wife who grew up in Huntington Beach moved to Pennsylvania and love it so much that she said, “We’ll never go back.”
I’ve heard “I’ll never go back” from a number of people.
The message isn’t getting through in Sacramento. For example, this week the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), will issue a report about why the state fares poorly in many published state-level business climate rankings or “indexes.” The organization doesn’t like it that California often ranks at or near the bottom of just about such rankings. One of PPIC’s arguments is that “California’s poor ranking among the business climate indexes focusing on taxes and costs is offset by natural advantages (in particular, good weather), and these favorable factors enable California’s economy to perform reasonably well.”
Yes, California has good weather.
For those of you who plan to read the new PPIC report, print out this list – Why do Companies Leave California? Here Are Ten Reasons (Updated) – put the documents side-by-side, and decide for yourself which is more relevant to the state’s future.
Disclosure: I’ve written before about how PPIC’s work on the state’s business environment is poor – see New Think Tank Report on California’s Business Exodus: Useless.
While Sacramento remains fuzzy-headed about California’s hostile business climate, the state is experiencing the fastest rate of company out-of-state and out-of-country relocations since I put a specialized trackingsystem into place two years ago. Activity from Jan. 1 through April 12 of this year shows that 69 California company disinvestment events have occurred, an average of 4.7 per week – greater than the 3.9 average per week last year. See more at Calif. ‘Disinvestment Events’ Reach New High As Companies Opt for Other States, Nations posted yesterday.
By the way, the number one location for California companies to relocate to, or to divert capital for facilities that in the past used to be built here, is Texas with 14 such events.
My list doesn’t overstate the case (we probably learn about only one out of every five company departures), but others understate the problem. One state agency employee in meeting with a moving company CEO said, “Claims of businesses leaving are exaggerated. All we lost last year were seven companies – here’s the list.” The executive read the list and said, “Do you realize you don’t have written down here even one of the companies that we moved out of the state last year?”
This week, when PPIC issues its report, something more important will be happening.
At any time during this week that I want to feel optimistic about California ending it’s business-hostile ways, I won’t think of the PPIC event on Wednesday. Instead, I’ll focus on the activities on Thursday and Friday when Dan Logue, a member of the state Assembly, and his colleagues meet with Texas Gov. Rick Perry and also conduct a hearing on business issues.
He and some of his colleagues are taking the self-financed trip to Texas to learn what California is doing wrong and what Texas is doing right. The Orange County Register did a nice job explaining what the trip is all about in California politicians to check out Texas business.
The fact-finding delegation will probably get an earful from former California business owners who fled the state’s excessive regulations and high taxes. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some rank-and-file employees also showed up to say why they volunteered to leave California – or even encouraged it.
Say, isn’t the federal government $14 trillion in the hole? An easy target for financial pruning would be this boondoggle: a multi-million-dollar educational program to cut obesity among a certain tribal group.
Why does this bunch need a big infusion of ethno-specific funding? Don’t kids still learn about the basic food pyramid in grade school?
LONG BEACH – A health research center at Cal State Long Beach was awarded a $3.75 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop classes and programs aimed at combating obesity in the Latino community, the university announced Monday.
The grant was awarded to the National Council of La Raza-Cal State Long Beach Center for Latino Community Health, Evaluation and Leadership Training.
“Within the five-year grant time frame, we will be able to develop and integrate a graduate certificate in Latino nutrition, chronic disease and childhood obesity to our university’s larger curricular fabric,” principal investigator Britt Rios-Ellis said.
Each year, seven research fellowships and full-tuition scholarships will be provided to graduate students who will be trained to conduct community- based research on childhood obesity prevention within the Latino community, according to the center.
As a result, project officials hope to bolster the number of Latino graduate students with masters degrees in nutrition and public health.
“Our health science and nutrition graduates will join a legion of new leaders to improve the well-being of our Latino population,” according to Gail Frank, CSULB nutrition professor. “It is such a privilege to be recognized for our approach and to obtain strong federal funding from USDA to continue our programs.”
For the diversity file: in Afghanistan (which Washington wants to improve) women and girls are sold just like animals. Islam says that oppressing females is the right of men, so nothing is changing on that front.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.