05/4/15

Baiting Muslims?

05/4/15

Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment

By Publius Huldah.

During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: ¹

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? ²

Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] ³

Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.

And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:

“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1^st para under II)

“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3^rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14^th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept. ⁴

And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14^th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.

I’ll show you.

The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!

The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.

Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and

Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8^th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]

If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14^th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2^nd para) [emphasis mine]

“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

Do you see?

So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?

The answer any competent 8^th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large. ⁵

The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification. ⁶

It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.

Endnotes:

¹ The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.

² If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]

At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures. An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.

³ Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14^th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.

Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!

In short, the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago.

Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.

⁴They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].

⁵ Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.

⁶ The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this. PH

05/4/15

Towards a New Law of War

Arlene from Israel

This is the subject of a conference currently being held by Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center, founded and run by the amazing Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.

Credit: Wikimedia

Current laws of warfare are outdated, she explained in her introductory remarks. The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the asymmetrical warfare that is waged today. We must redefine the laws of warfare, so that democratic states can adequately fight back. Today, terror groups attack civilians, and when democracies fight back, their defense is referred to as a war crime. Terrorists should not be able to apply to international courts as if they were victims when they are the perpetrators.

The IDF must be able to fulfill its mission of protecting the people of Israel and we we must protect our soldiers, as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

The conference is not being held with the expectation that it has any ability to change the rules of war. Rather, the goal is to stimulate an international dialogue on the issue. What I will do here is summarize key speakers, and offer significant thoughts garnered throughout the day.

Participants are Israelis, Brits and Americans with legal and military expertise/experience.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, immediate past Chief of Staff of the IDF, provided the opening keynote speech.

Credit: Telegraph (UK)

His words were particularly powerful, as he spoke from experience in the field, addressing both strategic and moral issues.

Warfare in the past, he explained, took place on a battleground, on which military forces met each other. That battlefield has now disappeared and new dimensions have inserted themselves. As never before, we see the involvement of civilians – both as targets and human shields. How does a soldier even determine who the enemy is, when he is not wearing a uniform?

As far as the international community is concerned, Israel has lost before even starting. Israel has no desire to hurt others who are not combatants but must protect the Israeli people. A human dilemma.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are broad similarities with regard to the situations in Gaza and Lebanon. In all instances, hostilities have been started by the terrorists, with Israel holding its force until there is no choice. In both instances, the enemy fighters are allied with the ruling powers, and operate from inside civilian society. A house in a village in Lebanon will have a livingroom, but also a missile room; in the garden a launching pad may be hidden. Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as headquarters for Hamas terrorists.

We – as a moral nation – must update our legal tools. The soldier today is subject to uncertainties as he faces a complicated situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Second speaker, Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, Former Deputy Commaner, US Special Operations Command, asked: Can you deter terrorists? He thinks not. Americans do not get it, he declared. They are shielded by the media.

~~~~~~~~~~

The first panel addressed the problem of human shields – civilians who protect weapons. What we are dealing with here is military necessity vs. humanitarian needs. We cannot attack civilians as such or use indiscriminate force. but there is an obligation upon the enemy (in principle only as it is never honored) to separate civilians from combatants and from military operations.

Said Prof. Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, eyes must stay on the target, with fire adjusted one round at a time, using precision weapons. The enemy is trying to provoke a response that uses overwhelming force. What is needed then is a modulated response.

~~~~~~~~~~

The next member of the panel to speak was Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan, and one of Israel’s staunchest friends.

Credit: militaryspeakers (UK)

The use of human shields is rapidly increasing, he said:

– there is a greater prevalence of asymmetrical power, with the weaker side using civilians
– this is a means of political warfare against the Western powers (Israel included), a way to undermine democracies and democratic armies
– there is influence by the media
– this hinders direct attack, restrains democratic armies ability to operate

Today human shields are used as primary weapons. Greater blame is placed by the world on those who hit human shields than on those who use them.

The use of human shields continues, said Kemp, because this works. He suggested here that if democracies had greater reluctance to be deterred by human shields they might be employed less. He is not suggesting wholesale slaughter! but wonders if perhaps there is a need to permit greater collateral damage. The proportionality calculus must change, and it needs to be codified.

~~~~~~~~~~

Human shields lose their status as protected persons because they enhance the enemy’s goals. But only if they are serving as shields voluntarily. (More on this follows.)

Death of human shields must be considered the responsibility of those who use them. It is illegal to use human shields. In fact, the law requires moving civilians from a combat area.

Kemp suggested that over-all military objectives, and not just the immediate situation, must be considered when deciding on how to respond to human shields. If there is greater collateral damage permitted in one operation, perhaps in the long term it would discourage use of human shields.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bassem Eid, a courageous Palestinian Arab Human-Rights activist, followed with some comments on what Kemp had suggested.

The civilians in Gaza must wake up, he declared: their leaders do not have the right to do as they do. However, Hamas coerces people, pays them to motivate them to stay put, and charges those who flee an area that Israel is about to attack with being Israeli collaborators.

International human rights organizations do not raise the issue of human shields: “No Jews, no news.”

Hamas cares nothing about civilians or reconstruction – only about new tunnels and a stronger military.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to move here to the panel that discussed the critical issue of proportionality. Proportionality is not about how many deaths were suffered on each side – which is how the topic is frequently represented. It is rather a question of what is a proportionate amount of collateral damage for a given military advantage. In the end, this is a principle that requires interpretation. The rule of proportionality is the most misunderstood and misapplied.

Prof. Yuval Shany, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, says that democracies do not normally utilize indiscriminate force or kill civilians on purpose. But there remains a host of related questions. Regarding, for example, weapon choice: do you act quickly, even though there will be collateral damage? Or do you lose valuable time and wait until a more accurate weapon is brought in? Risk to the soldiers serving under a commander must be considered by him, as must issues of military necessity.

On these questions, “reasonable minds may disagree.”

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of Law, asked how one measures proportionality. The law does not define what the proportion is. Who decides? In international law, there is no final legal decider.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Geoffrey Corn, of the South Texas College of Law, provided insights on this matter that were clear and enormously useful.

Credit: mysantonio

We are dealing, he said, with the hypocrisy of double standards. The law is not going to change, but we should not allow it to be distorted: if properly understood, there is flexibility.

The keyword is excessive: a significant imbalance. Commanders must anticipate the risk, and make an assessment regarding whether it is worth it.

The commander must be judged on conditions that prevailed when he made his decision. Many tactical factors will have weighed into the equation.

Instead, the commander is criticized based on the results. No commander, no matter how moral, can always make the right decision.

~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Corn prefers to think in terms of the rule of precautionary obligations. This provides objective evidence of good faith and morality. Did the commander take into consideration different weapons, different timing, how much warning to give? Etc. etc. If all these measures have been weighed, then it is possible to move ahead with lethal force to defeat the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Corn says that the moral considerations need to be ramped up when fighting the most immoral of enemies – otherwise all moral footing is lost. The moral well being of our combatants at the end of the war must be considered.

~~~~~~~~~~

These are exceedingly heavy issues that must be struggled with in real time. We know that down the road – soon – we will be confronting these situations again.

I close here by noting that it was remarked several times during the course of the day that there is no more moral army in the world than the IDF. No other army takes the extraordinary measures that ours does to warn civilians before we attack. At the same time, we take the most heat from the world.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is highly likely that when I next post it will be to discuss the formation of the coalition. The deadline for Netanyahu is almost upon us. It has not been a happy scenario, but I believe he will pull it off somehow by Wednesday. The news today is that Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu and until now foreign minister, is declining to participate in the coalition.

05/4/15

Pamela Geller Battles CNN Host over Garland Shooting: Why Is Media ‘Targeting’ Us? |FULL INTERVIEW

Hat Tip: BB

‘Making a complete fool out of her’: CNN’s Alisyn Camerota ‘schooled’ by Pamela Geller

CNN TAKES ISLAM’S SIDE IN TX ATTACK: Pamela Geller DESTROYS Ridiculous Attacks From CNN

ISLAMIC STATE (ISIS) followers took credit for the terrorist attack in Texas BEFORE the attack

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

Pamela Geller under attack from the sharia-compliant media for ‘provoking the Islamic terror attack in Texas’

DUKE University Islamic Studies professor blames critics of Islam for Muslim violence

05/4/15

Forum: What’s Your Reaction To The Baltimore Police Being Criminally Charged?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: What’s Your Reaction To The Baltimore Police Being Criminally Charged?

Wolf Howling: I outlined the basic facts of the case here on my blog.

Three days prior to the arrest of Mr. Gray, a memo was sent through the Baltimore City Police Department mandating that suspects being placed into the police van be placed in a seat and secured with a seat belt. Mr. Gray was simply lain on the floor of the vehicle. Mr. Gray continued to complain and act agitated while in the van. At some point, and perhaps twice, he requested medical aid, which requests were ignored. Within 30 minutes, Mr. Gray was taken from the van by paramedics where he expired a week later as the result of an 80% severing of his spine at the neck. There were no other injuries to Mr. Gray. As Bookworm Room has pointed out, there is some basis to suspect that Mr. Gray’s reported prior exposure to lead may have left him particularly vulnerable to the type of injury that caused his death.

On 1 May, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that six Baltimore City Police officers have been arrested and charged in the death of Freddie Gray. Of the six officers, three are white, three are black, one is a woman. Two of the officers have been charged with crimes relating to wrongful arrest. Three others have additionally been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The driver of the police van has been charged with second degree murder.

So, on the facts above, what is my reaction to the police being criminally charged?

As a threshold matter, Freddie Gray deserves justice, period. That is beyond question. It will certainly mean civil damages for his death. Whether his death involved criminal wrongdoing such that others deserve punishment is a separate question. Equally, those involved in Freddie Gray’s death are entitled to justice. They need to be prosecuted to the degree to which they are culpable, and spared any punishment if they are not.

There is not enough information yet to say for certain if the ends of justice are being served by the arrests of these six officers. My initial reaction, and I dearly hope that I am wrong, is that a lot of this is nothing more than a sacrifice to the racial grievance industry. This is not a planted evidence case, nor a case of brutality by the arresting officers. If they wrongly arrested, that would, in the normal course, be a matter for internal discipline as well as open the officers up to civil suit. But now a wrongful arrest on these facts is being used, in at least three cases, to end careers and criminally prosecute police officers? It appears that all three of them are the white officers, by the way. That seems utterly outrageous just on the facts available. Indeed, it seems a lynching, no less than that which happened to Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson.

Likewise, charging three officers with involuntary manslaughter, just on the known facts and the lack of established policy regarding transport, seems as if it is quite a stretch. It is far less of a stretch to the extent the charge of involuntary manslaughter is based on failing to timely render aid, if such aid was requested and may have in fact saved Mr. Gray’s life. But it is not clear which evidence is being relied upon to support each charge against each individual.

Lastly, the driver of the police van, a black officer, has been charged with second degree murder. He, having sole custody of Mr. Gray from the time Mr. Gray was placed in the van until he was removed, injured, by paramedics, is likely at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. That said, a charge of second degree murder, which requires some degree of intent or extreme recklessness, is likely an overcharge, just on the basis of the known facts.

So my reaction is mixed. At least one of the indictments – and perhaps as many as three – are or may well be warranted based on the available information. Several seem like nothing more than a lynching to satisfy the Al Sharpton wing of the left, who would dearly like to turn this into an indictment of racism and police brutality with which to, somehow, blame the right.

Baltimore City is a model of left wing urban governance and has been a social laboratory for nothing but left wing social policies for the past half century. The fact that Baltimore City, as well as its Police Department, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the left, and indeed, are led by minorities, is meaningless to the developing narrative. Already, Joan Walsh of Salon is tweeting that “there is no debate that tragically, black police officers often absorb the attitudes of their colleagues.” Shades of white Hispanics. The left will do anything to insure that whatever comes out of the Baltimore riots, it will not be a platform for rational discussion of the problems besetting Baltimore and inner city blacks. And if justice actually occurs in Baltimore — justice for Freddie Gray as well as the six officers — I am afraid it will be purely by accident.

JoshuaPundit: I’m sorry…it must be my depraved sense of humor but listening to Marilyn Mosby announce the charges as the crowd reacted like someone had just gifted them all with big screens made me laugh almost as much as the videos of ‘reporters’ getting beaten up and mugged and still describing their assailants as ‘protesters’ afterwards.

Mrs. Mosby is an elected official (as is her husband, Councilman Nick Mosby, who demanded the Baltimore PD ‘stand down’ as the rioting broke out) whose offices depend on the votes of a city that is 68% black whom mostly see this issue through a racial prism. Regardless of what color they are, the police, even black cops, are seen as the enemy. She wasn’t going to make the same mistake the mayor and president of the city council (both black) made of calling the rioters thugs and then having to grovel and walk back their statements. The video of Baltimore Council president Jack Young appearing with a herd of Bloods and Crips to apologize and refer to the rioters as ‘misdirected youth’ makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

The sad part is the jobs that will be lost, the houses that were burned and the long miles people who live in the neighborhood and were simply trying to work hard and keep things going will have to travel to buy groceries or find a pharmacy thanks to these ‘misdirected youth.’ And imagine trying to sell a house here and move to a better neighborhood now.

State Attorney Mosby referred to the arrest as ‘illegal’ and used the term ‘false imprisonment’ in her remarks. OK, but it seems to me that a number of the criminal charges involved are motivated by a political desire to appease the Mob and will be modified significantly later. And I understand that.

But what we have here, not to be harsh, was a career criminal whose rap sheet included multiple arrests for things like burglary, assault and lots and lots of drug trafficking arrests. As a matter of fact, Mr.Gray had an upcoming trial coming up this month based on a December arrest for selling narcotics. He was a known drug dealer talking to someone on the streets in a fairly crime ridden area when he saw the police and took off running.

Chances are he was pursing his chosen career and realized that a fresh bust could affect his out on bail status, his coming trial and his chances of a plea bargain, so he simply went to try and dispose of his stash before he was caught. Given his reputation, there was definite probable cause and since Baltimore, like many jurisdictions allows suspects to be held 72 hours before being charged, I can’t see his his arrest as illegal since he could have been interrogated and the area could have been searched while he was in custody.

The main thing the police seem to be guilty of at this point is not securing Gray in a seat belt in accordance with a general order that came out 3 days before the incident, and maybe with getting him a medic in a timely manner. That could certainly be called that negligence, but murder two? Among other things, the prosecutor will have to figure out some way to establish intent for that to stick.

Of course, if the trial’s held in Baltimore, the jury will be composed of those ‘protesters’ and their allies and will likely resemble a carbon copy of some of the old Jim Crow jurisprudence we keep hearing about. Or if it’s held elsewhere and some or all of the police are acquitted, it can be used as more fuel for Seething Racial Grievance. So it’s a win-win either way if you take my meaning.

The Glittering Eye: I think there’s been a rush to judgment. I understand the states attorney’s motives but whether because she’s inexperienced or ambitious or for whatever reason the theory of the case one would take from her public statements have painted her into a corner that will make it difficult to obtain convictions, particularly on the more serious charges. Note how many of the legal experts have pointed that out.

On the broader question the lynch mob mentality that has set in , not merely on the part of the demonstrators and rioters but on the part of the media and public officials is deeply concerning. We can only imagine the reaction that will occur if these officers are acquitted. That shouldn’t be the case. The presumption of innocence should always be paramount.

I don’t know what happened to Freddie Gray but neither do the demonstrators or the states attorney. We need to keep an open mind until we hear statements made under oath and read official statements on the forensic evidence. I’m beginning to fear for the republic.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Maryland State Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby announced criminal charges against six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, a 25 year old black man who died, apparently after suffering lethal injuries while in their custody.

Her announcement came after a night of rioting, looting and violence that left the city reeling and seething in racial anger for several days. It appears to have been a rush to judgment on her part to alleviate the demands of the mob.

In a city with a large black population, black female mayor, and black prosecutor it kind of rings hollow to allege systemic racism is to blame. We should be looking at the Democratic social policies that have run the city for nearly half a century.

When a society makes it easier for people to live on welfare, food stamps and cheap housing than strive to better themselves, the result is another generation of Democrat voters to keep the free stuff coming. The left cries for more money, that not enough funds are going to help the poor. Baltimore has one of the highest amounts of education funding per child in the country. More money does not equate with a good education. No amount of money will help the people living in the poor neighborhoods in Baltimore, or any city for that matter.

This is not systemic racism. What we are seeing is systemic destruction of the family. The left is bent on destroying America by attacking traditional values, instilling feelings of entitlement for perceived grievances, withholding valuable education children need to better themselves, and making them believe they are victims in a country where opportunities do not exist for them.

As we have seen so many times before, it may just come out that the police are found innocent of the charges. What then? The left will never permit a real discussion on the issues facing poor black families in America. In reality, they are slaves to a system created to maintain and grow the power of the left.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Marilyn Mosby delivered a clear message when she stepped in front of the cameras to announce charges against six Baltimore police officers at a surprisingly early stage in the investigation.

Mosby deftly framed the serious charges leveled against the officers in a seemingly political context. On one hand, she promised Freddie Gray’s family that she would fight ceaselessly to bring about justice in the case. At the same time, she made it clear that she is not the avenging angel of the African-American community. As in every constitutional democracy, one is considered innocent until proven guilty in the USA.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it…

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

05/4/15

Dear Baltimore Family and Friends: Y’all Bein’ Played!

By: Lloyd Marcus

Dear Family and Friends,

Though you have not confronted me or organized an intervention, I know many of you do not understand why I dislike Obama, vote Republican, and joined the Tea Party. Y’all think, Obama is black, we’re black — so, what is my problem?

Dad told me that grandmother, 101 years old when she passed, cried when Obama was elected. I get that and totally understand. Still, I could not go brain-dead and hop on the elect-the-first-black-president bandwagon. As a matter of fact, I was stunned by how alone I was in considering who Obama was as a candidate and what he planned to do if elected.

Democrats and the media sold Obama as America’s Great Black Hope. They protected him by hiding Obama’s anti-American friends and writings.

I learned that Obama is another standard “liberal” Democrat con artist, only more extreme; sure to continue the Democrats screwing of black folks.

For those unfamiliar with political terms, in a nutshell, “liberals” are those who believe that man can perfect himself and is capable of controlling everything. Ninety-nine percent of the time, liberals reject God’s laws and question His existence. “Conservatives” tend to be God fearing (reverencing) folks. I’m a conservative Republican.

Liberal Democrats have played blacks for over 50 years. Obama is simply their latest front man, brilliantly covered in a black skin disguise.

Now, before you go off on me, calling me an Uncle Tom and worse, please hear me out.

The recent Baltimore riots perfectly illustrate my point. Rioters expressed anger over high black unemployment, poor schools, and poverty. Well, guess who has controlled Maryland politics for the past 50 years? Liberal Democrats. And yet, they still keep playin’ blacks with their standard lie — vote for us and we’ll fix everything with our programs and block racist Republicans from keepin’ y’all down and lynching you.

Meanwhile, there hasn’t been one Republican in sight in Maryland for 50 years in a position to affect anything. (GOP governor Larry Hogan has been in office for a grand total of four months.) And yet, all the problems liberal Democrats promised to fix have gotten worse. Y’all been played. Also, how long will y’all fall for their lie that the lack of jobs is Bush’s fault? Obama has been president for six years. Y’all bein’ played!Aunt Bummie and four of her five sons were on welfare their entire lives. Theirs was a fatherless household. Only Poochie (Lawrence) her eldest, remarkably worked his way through college. Aunt Bummie and four of her sons died early.

Sleeping over from time to time, at 9 or 10 years old, I felt the depressed vibe of their household and knew their lives were tragic. I felt sorry for them. I felt their envy of my dad living with us.

When President Reagan tried to wean folks off of total government dependency, Democrats and their media buddies told blacks that Reagan was a racist mean old white man who hated blacks. That was another lie.

Don’t get me wrong, a government safety net is fine. But, addicting people to cradle to grave welfare is evil; robbing folks of pursuing their God given gifts and potential. Liberal Democrats hope to get as many folks as possible hating the rich and hooked on welfare to keep the masses voting Democrat.

A friend ranted about mean Republicans in Congress cutting food stamps for the poor. Another Democrat lie. After six years of Obama, more folks than ever are receiving food stamps (over 47 million). Remarkably, a third of the country is out of work. Many quit looking for jobs, deciding to ride Obama’s government gravy train. Come election day, they will vote Democrat. And guess who is hardest hit by Obama’s job killing policies? Black folks.

Here’s another Democrat scam. Democrats love to rant about evil Republican “draconian” cuts to welfare programs. Well, the truth is, no program ever gets less money than it did the previous year. In Washington, a cut means that Congress will not give a program as much of an “increase” as first projected.

Despite Democrat control for 50 years and government programs out the ying yang, Baltimore blacks are suffering more than ever; high school dropouts, no jobs, still murdering each other, high out-of-wedlock births, poverty, high incarcerations, and fatherless households. Even after spending trillions of taxpayer dollars fighting poverty since 1965, Democrats tell the poor and blacks they’re gettin’ screwed by rich white folks. They’re playin’ y’all.

Obama’s response to the Baltimore riots is typically liberal Democrat; more government programs and blaming Republicans.

Some of you will view Obama as your homey no matter what. It’s a black thing. I get it. But, Obama does not feel the same about you. If he did, Obama would not be flooding the country with uneducated poor illegals who suck up your welfare and your jobs.He only cares about creating new Democrat voters. He’s playin’ y’all.

Meanwhile, y’all say, what is up with Peanut (my childhood nickname)? He just “don’t” get it.

I pray that I have opened your eyes and that you will think twice before voting for another Democrat.

Love, Lloyd (Jr. Jr)

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

05/4/15

MUHAMMAD ART EXHIBIT & CONTEST

05/4/15

ISIS Sympathizers in U.S. Activated to Attack

By: Denise Simon
FoundersCode.com

Make Dua in Texas, 2 Muslim convert roommates armed with AK-47’s originating from Phoenix, Arizona. This ‘winning the hearts of minds of our known enemies is NOT a working or effective strategy.

No bombs were found, however Garland Police had to detonate some luggage found in their vehicle. But the threats continue in social media against Pam Geller.

The dead shooter, Elton Simpson:

The jihadis were well known to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security also continues to hold hearings on the circle of sympathizers in America and the threats they pose to our national security.

Garland, Texas ~ Police officers shot and killed the man, identified as Elton Simpson of Phoenix, and his companion Sunday evening, outside the Curtis Culwell Center, at an event organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a New York-based group that also uses the name Stop Islamization of America. The gunfire, which began shortly before 7 p.m., left a security guard wounded.

In 2010, federal prosecutors in Arizona charged Mr. Simpson with plotting to travel to Somalia “for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad,” and then lying to a federal agent about his plans. A judge found him guilty of lying to the agent, but said the government had not proved that his plan involved terrorism, and sentenced him to three years’ probation.

The police and F.B.I. agents in Phoenix searched an apartment believed to be connected to Mr. Simpson, with much of the Autumn Ridge apartment complex cordoned off through the night. At the same time, the F.B.I. office in Dallas confirmed that it was providing investigators and a bomb technician to aid the police in Garland, a city just outside Dallas.

Officials did not give a motive for the attack Sunday evening, but drawings of Muhammad, considered offensive by many Muslims, have drawn violent responses in the past. Shortly before the shooting, messages were posted on Twitter with the hashtag #texasattack, including one saying, “May Allah accept us as mujahideen.”

The hosts of the event include Robert Spencer and Pam Geller declared this attack a ‘war on free speech’ in America where the media has become Sharia compliant at the demands of Islam where Muslims declare only they have the ability to declare what is free speech and what is not.

The event in Garland had more than 200 attendees including Tom Trento of United West, Geert Wilders and Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-TX) who actually invited Wilders to the United States.

Geert Wilders had this message after the event:

Dear friends,

Thank you all for being here. It’s great to be in Texas, the Lone Star State. The one star in the Texan flag represents all the free Western world needs today: defiance, pride and independence.

It is no coincidence that we are in Garland, Texas, tonight. It is here that, three months ago, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Islamic activists convened to demand that free speech be curtailed. They want to prohibit cartoons, books and films which they find insulting.

Our answer is clear:

Don’t mess with Texas!
Don’t mess with the free West!
Don’t mess with our freedom of speech!

Friends, allow me to thank Pamela Geller for organizing this exhibition.

Pamela is an extraordinary woman. I only have a few heroes, but Pamela certainly is one of them. Let us give her a big applause!

My friends, you are all winners. Everybody present here tonight deserves respect, just for being here.

The cartoonists, the participants in this Muhammad contest all did fantastic work. All of you are not only talented but also very brave. For Islam has put a death sentence on depicting Muhammad. But this has not frightened you. And even if it did, it has not stopped you. Because you believe in freedom of speech.

I applaud you for that.

However, there can be only one winner of the contest. And that is, as you already know, Bosch Fawstin. Bosch knows what he is talking and cartooning about, being a former – or in his own words recovered – Muslim.

I have known the fantastic work of Bosch – who also created the anti-jihad superhero Pigman – for many years already and I want to congratulate him for his bravery and excellent work and winning the contest today.

Your statement, my statement, the statement of every single person present in this room here tonight is clear: We will never allow barbarism, we will never allow Islam to rob us of our freedom of speech! Never!

I know from my own experience how dangerous it is to stand for this freedom. I know how dangerous it is to speak the truth about Islam.

I am on death lists of Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban and terrorists from ISIS because I tell people the truth about Islam. Islam has declared war on us, on our Judeo-Christian civilization. Islam wants to rob us of the freedoms and liberties. Islam and freedom are totally incompatible.

I am a politician, but cartoonists, like my good friends the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, are also on the death list. Both Kurt and Lars have already been the victims of murder attempts.

Another man on this list was the cartoonist Charb, editor of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. As we all know, he and 9 of his colleagues were murdered last January in Paris by followers of the religion of hate. According to Islamic Sharia law, they were all guilty of the same crime.

The crime of depicting Muhammad, the crime of defaming the so-called Prophet of Islam.

A crime punishable by death by the religion of death.

In order to show them that we will not have Islam dictate us the law, we are here with an exhibition of Muhammad cartoons.

We are here in defiance of Islam.

We are here to defend our rights and stand for freedom of speech.

That is our duty.

As Ronald Reagan, your greatest president ever, said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

I am happy to say that nobody died while watching these cartoons.

This proves that, unlike jihadis, cartoons do not kill people.

Cartoons do not kill jihadis, but jihadis kill cartoonists.

That is a huge difference which we should never forget.

Huntington was wrong. It is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash between civilization and barbarism.

Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one.

I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one.

We have got humor and they don’t.

There is no humor in Islam.

In 1979, ayatollah Khomeini devoted an entire radio broadcast to this topic: “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun,” the ayatollah said. “There are no jokes in Islam,” he added. “There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
For once, the ayatollah was right.

Islam does not allow free speech, because free speech shows how evil and wrong Islam is.

And Islam does not allow humor, because humor shows how foolish and ridiculous it is.

Friends,

You are extremely fortunate to live in America. Because you have a first amendment.

In Europe, it is not just the jihadis who go after you. The authorities do so, too.

In the Netherlands, I have been dragged to court on hate speech charges for speaking the truth about Islam. I was acquitted, but now the authorities are prosecuting me again.

We are harassed, but sympathizers of the Islamic State are left in peace. Last Summer, they took to the streets in The Hague. They carried swastikas and ISIS flags. They shouted “Death to the Jews.” And you know what? The authorities did nothing. We have weak leaders. Appeasers are ruling The Netherlands, Europe and the USA. We have to turn the tide and we will. New leadership is what we need to defend our freedom of speech and resist the ongoing Islamization of the West.

Today, many of our Western leaders want us to shut up.

When we tell the truth about Islam, they call it Islamophobia.

When cartoonists make drawings of Muhammad, they are accused of provoking people.

A few years ago, in my country, the Netherlands, the police even raided the house of a cartoonist.

In his address to the United Nations in 2012, President Obama said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

But we say: The future must not belong to Islam!

Do you hear, Mr Obama? We say: No to Islam!!

Unlike President Obama and his European colleagues, we are not willing to sign away our freedom and independence.

The day we give away humor and freedom of speech is the day that we cease to exist as a free and independent people.
And that day will never come.

That is what this exhibition is all about!

From here we send a message to President Obama and all his colleagues: We will never submit!

We are not intimidated by Islam.

We will not be picking up swords and axes and breaking into people’s homes. But we will not remain silent either.

Moderation in the face of evil is evil. This is not what our age needs. We must uncap our pens; we must speak words of truth. We are facing a determined enemy who is striving through all means to destroy the West and snuff out our traditions of free thought, free speech, and our Judeo-Christian values. Make no mistake: if we fail, we will be enslaved. So the only option is to defend our freedom with all the energy we have. It’s time to be brave. It’s time to do our duty.

Instead of giving in to fear and adopt the Islamic taboo on depicting Muhammad, I propose that we draw another conclusion:

Lift the cause of the fear!

Let us de-islamize our societies!

No more Islam, no more mosques, no more Islamic schools. It is time for our own culture and heritage.

Let us liberate ourselves from tyranny.

That is another good reason why we are having this exhibition here today.

Depicting Muhammad is an act of liberation!

Let us hold similar exhibitions all over the United States and all over the free world. From Canada to Australia to Europe.
We need Pamela Geller everywhere in the world.

I invite you to come to the Netherlands with this exhibition. I will help you exhibit these cartoons in the Dutch parliament building.

We will never allow Islam to restrict freedom!

And we will never bow in the direction of Mecca!

I am not saying that there are no moderate Muslims. Fortunately, there are Muslims who do not live according to the Islamic commands. But there is no moderate Islam!

Not all Muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists today are Muslims.

That is why we say: The less Islam, the better!

The Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world to take Muhammad as their example.
He led a gang of robbers, who looted, raped and killed hundreds of people.

Historic sources describe orgies of inhumanity. An example is the genocide of the Jews of Medina in 627. One of the head choppers was Muhammad himself. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out whom they get their inspiration from.

It is from Muhammad who – we have to tell the truth – was a warlord, a murderer and a pedophile

There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is only a death penalty for leaving the faith.

So, let us expose Muhammad. Let us show the world what Islam truly is.

And let us support Muslims, like Bosch, who wish to leave Islam and liberate themselves from fear.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world.

Muhammad fought and terrorized people with the sword.

We fight Muhammad and his followers with the pen.

And the pen will prove mightier than the sword.

Muhammad’s followers fight us with bloodbaths, but today here in Garland we fight them with humor.

Because bloodbaths enslave, while humor liberates.

Let me end by quoting Sam Houston, the founding father of this great state of Texas:

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

May his words inspire us all today never to submit to Islamic barbarism.

Thank you very much.

05/4/15

ISIS Comes To Texas – This Is War

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Now this is personal… Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) and Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) are people I consider friends. I’ve known Pamela a long time. Geert Wilders has long been a man I have admired. And now ISIS has the gall to attack us on our own soil, in Texas no less!

In the spirit of this attack and considering it is a declaration of war on American soil with ISIS, they can go pound sand.

From my friends at IOTWReport.com:

Last night in Garland, Texas at the “First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest,” which this site promoted, two armed gunmen with semiautomatic weapons opened up on a security guard wounding him in the ankle. He will be fine thank God. They had bombs and hand grenades I’m told. The event was sold out with about 300 attendees and ran late – which probably saved their lives. As this was going down outside, they sang God Bless America… I couldn’t be prouder of everyone there. And I am overjoyed the two asshat ISIS thugs are dead.

From CBS here is the timeline from last night:

7:45pm CT: Officers tell Gabriel Roxas that two suspects were shot dead. Pamela Geller spoke to to CBS 11 from lockdown via phone at 7:45p CT. In addition to echoing our ground team, she told a news producer, “I heard officers talking of possible explosions in backpacks and the car.” Sources told CBS 11 there was a report of a ‘grenade’ at an area Walmart but the Garland PD said none was found.

8:11pm CT: Joe Harn, spokesman for the Garland Police Department, tells CBS 11 two men pulled up in vehicle on the roadway in front of the center and began firing at a Garland ISD security guard. Garland Police returned fire and killed both suspects.

8:11pm CT: Suspects’ vehicle being checked for explosives. It is scheduled to be detonated.

8:20pm CT: Authorities tell CBS 11 that SWAT will escort 48 people at a time out of arena soon, but many are parked in a now secured area and cannot access cars.

8:30pm CT: Garland ISD spokesman Chris Moore says one of their security guards was shot. His name is Bruce Joiner. He has been with the district for 8 years. He has non-life threatening injuries after being shot once in the leg. He’s in stable condition at a local hospital.

9:00pm CT: Security guard Bruce Joiner released from hospital.

9:12pm CT: No press conference until authorities have cleared the suspects’ vehicle.

9:29pm CT: Muslim Response to Dallas Shooting. Harris Zafar, Vice President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association told CBS 11 via email: “People need to hear a strong Muslim voice condemning this insanity.”

9:29pm CT: Suspects’ bodies still at the scene.

10:16pm CT: Joe Harn of the Garland Police Department told CBS 11, “We were prepared for it.”

10:33pm CT: Harn holds a press conference. When asked about the suspects, he said, “They drove out, got out, and opened fire on the security officer.” When asked about their identities, no information was disclosed.

10:34pm CT: There were reports of a third suspect but Harn said, “I don’t have any idea about that.”

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack – the contest was held at the same location and in the same room a pro-Shariah law event was held just recently. When the killers opened fire and one reached for his backpack, the police didn’t hesitate, they took them out. Exactly what should have happened. Those officers did their job and I’m proud of them for it.

The SITE Intelligence Group reported that an ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals. In a series of tweets and links, a Jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British ISIS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas. ‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet. And ISIS thought they could do whatever they wanted – not in Texas evidently, you asshats.

Attack: The suspects’ bodies are seen next to their vehicle as it is searched for
explosives at the anti-Muslim event. Two men got out the vehicle and opened fire, wounding
a security guard in the leg, before they were shot dead by police.

ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling
himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, but police have yet to formally identify the culprits.

The two gunmen’s vehicle also looked like there was damage from an explosion to it.

From the Daily Mail:

Other Isis supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said ‘the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack’.

However, Ms Callimachi pointed out that it’s not even known at this point if the attackers are Muslim. The Shariah is Light account has now been suspended.

You can bet everything you have on them being Muslim my friends… that is a certainty. As Pamela Geller put it on Fox News this morning, this is a war on free speech. Pure and simple. Islam is trying to strip us of our Constitutional rights and we will not be silenced.

There had been no credible threats before the event and the shootout lasted seconds with about 20 shots being fired. Although there were no threats, Pamela and Robert have traveled with security for over 10 years and they had paid for heavy security for the event. This is a way of life for Geert Wilders. What a sad statement that is.