The real reason not to "ban" any gun.

Whatever side of the fence you stand on, the truth is abundantly clear, yet it's being ignored by everybody. Criminals “don't” get background checks, law abiding citizens do.

So why is the government so adamant on punishing those that follow the law?

=========================================================

The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical import, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification. Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season, though Whitehill's language was never debated. Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty, quell insurrection, and protect against tyranny.

There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.


In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:



Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.


George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.



The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.


Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:



Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.


While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."


By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:


Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.


James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States." On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:


A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defense" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:


A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

=========================================================

Is it Islamophobia when it's the truth?

Pat Condell speaks volumes of truth when it comes to Radical Muslims, but how can Radical Muslims call it Islamophobia when we are simply feeding them back the truth of what they are? I mean really when was it ok for a group of men that HATE the western culture to basically damn us for living and being free? We have earned the right to live and be free, so why then does the Government allow this farce to continue? Why is our Government so weak to take a stand? When did standing up for our RIGHTS go the way of dinosaurs? It's clear they don't respect us, and the more we play along their games, the more we lose. It's time for the Government to stand up, take a stand, have some guts, and tell them to sit down and shut up if you don't like our laws, and if you can't live under American Laws, then get the FUCK out of our country and stop trying to take over, one law suite or one protest against burning the Quran at a time.  

It's time for Americans to stand up, burn their flags, and tell them to stop making demands and forcing this country to bend over backwards to placate your will, it's time to for Americans to force our laws onto immigrants that refuse to acclimate themselves to our laws and be happy they were allowed into this country to begin with. It's time for Americans to take back this country, and show both the Government and those Radical Muslims that this is America, and we don't take shit from anybody without a fight. That includes having our guns banned, one type at a time, to allowing Mosques to be built on such heart holy ground where so many AMERICANS lost their lives because Radical Muslims hate our way of life.

Sharia in America

"Infidel" tattooed Disabled Vet Forced to Leave Florida Skydive Center After Muslims Complain

They can kill us because we are infidels, but a disabled vet with an infidel tattoo is forced to leave an American flight school that is enforcing sharia law.

Check this out and politely contact the
Florida Skydiving Center: (863) 678-1003

I am a disabled combat veteran. I served in Iraq and worked in Afghanistan. I took an IED because my country asked me too, and I was injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. I have a Purple Heart and an ARCOM with Valor. I fully expect to be treated differently when I am visiting another country - when I am in America I expect equality and toleration; but what I experienced today is something that I never would have thought I'd have to go through in my own country. The country I fought for!

I am a skydiver with around 300 jumps under my belt. I've done jumps from 30,000 feet, helicopters, hot air balloons, wingsuit skydives and so forth. So with that being said I travel around doing this sport quite a bit. Today was my second time at a dropzone called "Florida Skydiving Center / Skydive Lake Wales".

Coincidentally there are soldiers from the country of Qatar being trained there.

The picture is of the tattoo I have. Here is the definition of said tattoo: "Kafir (Arabic: كافر‎ kāfir, plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic term used in an Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel." The term refers to a person who rejects God or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth." The Muslim's from Qatar saw that tattoo and complained to the dropzone. Once they did so I was called to the back office and asked to cover it up by the OWNER. Not that I would, but its 80 something degrees here today, and that would be an unreasonable request. After I told her that I had no pants to cover it up she told me that she has DUCT TAPE that I can use to cover it. I told the lady that I was not going to cover it up, as it was nothing more than a tattoo saying "I am not a Muslim". After beating around the bush for a few minutes entertaining me while I was trying to convince her otherwise, she asked me to leave.


What kind of America do we live in where someone comes back from war; disabled and decorated... while serving overseas was called an "infidel" for over 2 years, and then get asked to leave an establishment because of a tattoo I have that says just that, because of a culture of people visiting our country, and an American Business with no ethical sense or a backbone for that matter.

I am honestly offended and embarrassed by how I was treated at skydive lake wales. 

Please, send them your feelings on the subject. Here is their contact information.

http://www.floridaskydiving.com/

https://www.facebook.com/skydivinglakewales

Florida Skydiving Center
440 S Airport Rd, Lake Wales, FL
(863) 678-1003

===========================================================

-POSTERS NOTES-

I find this appalling; to think this man fought in the name of the United States of America to ensure this woman has a place to work, and manage, and she has nerve to kick out this man. I thought this was a free country, with free enterprise for people that want to own and run small businesses? It's true any business has a right to refuse service, but come on, over a tattoo because someone complained about it? These radical muslims need to fucking grow up and learn how to live in this country under OUR laws, and stop trying to dictate their own laws. No body that lives in this country and cherishes the Constitution and Bill of Rights wants to live under Sharia Law, if you Radical Muslims can't take criticism then get the fuck out of this country. I'm so sick and tired of this politically correct crap ruining this country, I'm so sick and tired of these fucking muslims suing businesses because they don't have a place to pray, or muslim assholes demanding their way be served simply because they don't like a mans tattoo, or even complain because 7 11 serves alcohol and it's the only convenient store on a street that takes them home and they have to pass it everyday. Well excuse the fuck out of me, no one told you that you HAVE to drive up that street, no one told you to only work out in one gym, and no one told you that only one diving school exists in FL. 

Obama’s Religious Freedom Appointee Involved in Muslim Event Calling for Limiting Freedom of Speech

Dr. Qasim Rashid

Obama’s Religious Freedom Appointee

(CNSNews.com) – America’s free-speech model is in desperate need of an update, says an American-Muslim human rights activist who recently spoke at an event linked to an Obama administration appointee.

Dr. Qasim Rashid

Dr. Qasim Rashid argued that cyber-bullying laws could be used to limit freedom of expression – such as the burning of Korans -- in war time:

“When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are a hindrance to this effort,” Rashid said on March 19 at Howard University. “And their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and…no court can regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Rashid began his remarks by personally thanking Dr. Azizah al-Hibri, appointed by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in June 2011. Al-Hibri founded Karamah, a group devoted to the rights of Muslim women, and it was this group that invited Rashid to speak.

“I do want to start by thanking Karamah,” Rashid said. “I was fortunate enough to have several constitutional scholars look at this paper and provide feedback. Dr. al-Hibri, of course…”

The topic of the March 19 event at Howard University was titled, “The Limits of Free Speech in a Global Era: Does America’s Free Speech Model Endanger Muslim Americans?”

“Our understanding of free speech today is not some long-held 227- or 235-year understanding,” said Rashid, a member of the Muslim Writers Guild of America, who presented a paper titled “In Harm’s Way: The Desperate Need to Update America’s Current Free Speech Model.”

Rashid quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who in 2011 said, “Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war.”

Advances in technology that allow videos and messages to cross the world in an instant require a “revised speech model,” Rashid said.

“Most, if not all of you are familiar with the 2011 case where Terry Jones, a pastor from Florida, burned a Koran on March 20, 2011, and this event itself provides a prime example of the gap that advanced technology caused in America's free speech model,” Rashid said.

“So in addition to placing a big sign on his church lawn that said Islam is the devil, Jones burned the Koran, screened it live on the Internet and put in layman's translations so that people in war-torn [areas] in particular can see what he's doing,” he continued. “Now like the hypothetical KKK member who might burn a cross on his black neighbor’s lawn to target him specifically, Jones did the exact same thing by burning the Koran -- broadcast it and targeted Muslims in a war- torn country…to target them specifically.”

Rashid noted that government officials warned Jones that his actions might provoke violence, and while Jones said he knew it, he burned the Koran anyway, sparking deadly protests in Afghanistan and a condemnation by Pakistan’s government.

Using the Koran burning as an example, Rashid said that cyber-bullying legislation could be used to prosecute individuals for their speech on a case-by-case basis.

“My argument is that we already have legislation, right?” he said. “I mean, we already have a cyber-bullying policy in all 50 states that even without the threat of violence – even without violence occurring, we're already holding individuals responsible for this intentional infliction of harm on others.”

“So I think that legislation's already there,” Rashid said. “It's just more a question of how is it going to be applied.”

According to the Cyber-bullying Research Center, 49 states have bullying statutes and 16 states have cyber-bullying laws, which can prosecute individuals for electronic bullying.

In Arkansas, for example, a person can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor if they engage in communications online “with the purpose to frighten, coerce, intimidate, threaten, abuse, harass, or alarm another person.”

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Dr. al-Hibri sat on the National Advisory Board of the American Muslim Council (AMC) from 1991 to 1998 with AMC Executive Director Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was later sentenced to 23 years in prison after pleading guilty to terrorism charges for his involvement in an assassination plot of then- Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

In June 2011, President Obama appointed Dr. al-Hibri to the USCIRF, an eight member federal body that monitors religious freedom conditions abroad and recommends policies that will “enhance freedom where it is imperiled.”

Dr. al-Hibri founded Karamah in 1993, one year after she became the first Muslim female law professor in the United States. She has written extensively on women's issues, democracy, and human rights from an Islamic perspective, her biography says.

Karamah said that Dr. al-Hibri is out of the country and was not available for comment.

Elizabeth Harrington
March 26, 2013

Could You Be A Criminal?

US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[fostering] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and inter-cultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from defamation to incitement does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offense, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”

It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we've learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.

… And The Deceptive


And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.

Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains non binding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of ones faith. In other words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.

What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.

It's a dangerous game.


True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:



“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”

But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?

As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in this resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?

Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)

The Bigger Picture

But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.” And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.

This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.

Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.


Abigail R. Esman, Contributor
Forbes

High court weighs Arizona voter-registration law

-Posters notes-

I find this curious that the Federal Government would ignore the states when they pretty much beg for any help on any thing, yet when they want their way, they instill their “dominance”  over the states when the states try to govern themselves after it’s clear the Federal Government brushes off the states to the back burner. It’s clear the Federal Government cares nothing for others outside of D.C. but let us not forget this country is formed with “STATES” not one big land mass that’s equal to the bases of oh lets say the former Soviet Union, this country is made up of many states, yet the many states have different laws. Ok well mostly the same laws, but there are differences in each state that make up what that state stands for. For instance, it’s ok to have casinos in Nevada, but not ok for most other states to even allow any form of gambling. There are dry county states, while other states allow alcohol to be sold and served 24 hours a day. Were not called “United States of America” for nothing; It’s time for the Federal Government to allow the “States” to govern themselves on issue that interfere with each state, and stop dictating and pushing the Governments agenda onto states that are being torn apart by issues that tear at the very foundation of what makes this country America.

Arizona needs to be left alone, allowing that state to pass laws to “help” the state is the only way to keep the state sound. The laws are already on the books, yet it’s the Government that refuses to allow police to enforce the laws that have been on the books for years. Arizona has a right to put laws to a vote for the “people” to decide on, and it’s been very clear that people voted into law the new immigration bill, allowing police to make sure residents, travelers, and visitors if they are legal to be in this country to begin with. The “racist” card has been played out so many times it’s like drinking water, the only people that think it’s racist to be asked for an I.D. card or green card are those in this country illegal or those that are trying to get illegal relatives into this country.

Before I go any further I want to stress to my readers that I’m not a racist, I care nothing about what race others are, I admit to being prejudice against those that come to this country illegally, refuse to truly become green card holding citizens, prostitute themselves to low paying jobs, and send most of the money back to their home, paying the “coyotes” they’ve become slaves to, or for promises to get more of their family members into this country. My feelings about immigrants are the same no matter what country you come from. You want to come to this country, make a better life for yourself, have better opportunities then what you had in your country, then come to America. However come here legally, get your green card, become a productive citizen, pay your taxes, learn this countries language, don’t live off of welfare, demand this country change or even erase American holidays to accommodate you. Remember you left your country and came to a new one, it’s your responsibility to acclimate yourself to this country, not demand this country bend over backwards to placate you.

Now onto this new so called “questionable” law that Arizona is trying to get passed.

================================================================


The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the federal "motor-voter law," allows people to register to vote while renewing drivers licenses or applying for social services. As part of the documentation process, folks have to say that they're American citizens.

Arizona, however, approved something called Proposition 200, which gave the federal law a little touch-up -- those registering can't just say they're American citizens; in this state, folks are expected to prove it.

And this, in turn, has led to an interesting Supreme Court case.



Supreme Court justices expressed some skepticism on Monday about an Arizona law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.

The legal question before the nine justices is whether the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law is trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which outlines various ways in which people can register to vote in federal elections.

That law requires no proof of citizenship. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.


The case comes just two weeks after the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Voting Rights Act. (Curiously, Justice Scalia appears to have been obnoxious during oral arguments in both cases.)

The legal question today was a little different, and arguably more straightforward: are states able to create new voter-registration restrictions under the motor-voter law? Arizona says yes; the Obama administration says no.

But let's not brush past the potential significance of the answer. Rick Hasen, an elections-law expert at UC-Irvine, told Sahil Kapur the "implications of this sleeper case could be profound." If the justices rule in Arizona's favor, and states can bypass the existing federal voter-registration form, "it could have a major effect on the power of the federal government to impose rules on states for running congressional elections."

Supporters of the federal law seemed cautiously optimistic after this morning's arguments. Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in a statement, "A majority of the Court, including Justice Kennedy, appeared to recognize that the entire point of having a single Federal form was to streamline the voter registration process, and that approving Arizona's law would pave the way for a patchwork of 50 state forms. We are optimistic that that recognition will lead the Court to strike down Arizona's law and respect Congress' power to protect the right to vote in Federal elections."

Whether that optimism is misplaced is unclear.



As is often the case, the most ambivalent was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who channeled the views of both sides during different parts of the argument.

At one point, Kennedy wrestled with whether Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement crosses a line. He asked the state’s attorney general, who was defending the law, whether states may also require proof of one’s address or date of birth when registering to vote. If so, he posited, then the federal requirement “is not worth very much.”

At another point, he launched a defense of Arizona’s actions in principle and took issue with some of the reasoning by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona.


A ruling is expected over the summer.

Know YOUR Rights!

This is a very informative video, included is basic information we sometimes forget. Know YOUR rights, and stay informed.

Remember stay calm, and clearly unemotional, while you exercise your rights to the police. NEVER show any aggressive body language or any aggressive vocal tones. Your not kissing up to them, your showing them you have the knowledge and brain power to remain civil and calm in any situation.