Home > Uncategorized > Muslims, Gays, & Bad Cops

Muslims, Gays, & Bad Cops

This is a pretty good to have my job. There is certainly no shortage of topics to cover, whether it’s local, state, or national.

Nationally, conservative talk radio is abuzz with the debate over whether or not a “Muslim mosque” should near the WTC site in New York, obviously sacred ground. Everyone from Newt to Rudy has weighed in, attacking the idea. It is strange to even hear members of the religious trying to deny freedom of religion to Muslims–actually Americans who happen to be Muslims. There’s a big difference.

From what I’ve read, the 15-story building is planned for three blocks away from WTC–and it’s an Interfaith Center. The mayor and the  planning commission all agree that this building should be allowed. Sad to see such religious intolerance.

Meanwhile, much to celebrate in California with Judge Walker’s decision. Our phones were on fire tonight as North County Jim sat in with me for the discussion on Prop 8. One called talked about the judge who was a “pervert.” Several callers said the judge was gay, and therefore biased. Absolutely silly arguments.

I like what the LA Times wrote tonight in its editorial, claiming that the debate has been changed forever by the trial. Yes, the case will be appealed to Bush’s Supreme Court, which means a 5-4 in one direction; it all comes down to Anthony Kennedy. But, for California, today is an historic day. If not by judicial fiat, then by ballot measure in 2012. One day, one way, we will do the right thing and allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Finally, McDowell and Limon were fired by The Powers that Be, after pulling in more than $300,000 between them in wages and compensation since last September. They get caught smuggling prescription drugs, come up with a lame excuse in their defense, get paid fairly pretty for 12 months, and–curiously–they don’t get prosecuted by the local DA, Mr. Shea. Don’t even go to court.

Something tells me that this story is far from over. People in San Luis are very angry.

On Thursday, we’ll return to the issues surrounding Prop 8 and the new York mosque. Turn in. Call in.

  1. jurisdoctor78
    August 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    As William Shakespeare would say “Much ado about nothing”.
    1) The Mosque won’t be built.
    2) Prop 8 will be upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4

    When the people speak the government will listen to get a boot in their asses. As we are seeing now. Relax folks. This is nothing more than the progressive’s last hurray.

  2. atty78
    August 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    I missed the show (sorry, Dave), but the personal attacks against this judge by homophobic “conservatives” are hilariously ironic considering the fact that George H. W. Bush appointed him.

  3. atty78
    August 5, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    jurisdoctor78 :
    As William Shakespeare would say “Much ado about nothing”.
    1) The Mosque won’t be built.
    2) Prop 8 will be upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4
    When the people speak the government will listen to get a boot in their asses. As we are seeing now. Relax folks. This is nothing more than the progressive’s last hurray.

    Your comment promotes the notion that the majority may, by vote, deny the rights of minorities.

    • atty78
      August 5, 2010 at 11:46 pm

      The irony in all these hysterical homophobes calling Judge Walker gay and a liberal is that his nomination to the bench was initially stalled because opposition felt he was insensitive to gays and lesbians.

  4. philochs
    August 6, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Not even the corrupt SCOTUS will dare overturn this decision.

    Voting on another class of peoples civil rights makes no sense at all.

    The Mosque will be built some 2 blocks away as it should be.

  5. jurisdoctor78
    August 6, 2010 at 2:02 am

    SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8, which is clearly a state issue. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about marriage, not to mention that 32 states have already amended their constitutions to not allow homosexual marriage. Read the constitution, 10th amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” See it there? It not relegated to a gay activist judge, or a liberal 9th circuit, nor the Supreme Court. Those powers are reserved to the states or the people. The people of California have spoken and amended the state constitution to not allow gays marriage. I know law and I will tell you this. It will take 2 tears (if it’s fast tracked) to get to the Supreme Court and they will throw this back to settled law within the state that was done legally and in accordance to the state constitution as it was. Prop 8 is safe and will be upheld but it will take a lot of time. Don’t hold your breath.
    As for as the 14 amendment hail Mary pass…Read it. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” Civil unions allows all gays to have the same privileges as married normal people. All rights. Nothing is withheld. Straight people marry, gays have a nice civil union. Bingo…done. You have what you want, unless this is a radical gay agenda to tear apart the fabric of America woven over the centuries. Do you want rights? or do you want to cause problems? Search your heart.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 5:36 pm

      Big Tent Republican, you have no Juris Doctorate. You know very little about the Constitution. you have misappropriated a screen name that gives your views on legal issues authority you have not earned.

      Any first year law student could tell you that the right to marry falls under the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a fundamental right and the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from violating fundamental rights.

      You are not JurisDoctor78. You are Big Tent Republican and you are an ignorant fake.

      • Russell Hodin
        August 9, 2010 at 6:34 pm

        Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the right of a rich oil man to overturn the vote of the state of Florida to claim the Presidency, but that’s what we got, thanks to SCOTUS.

  6. August 6, 2010 at 6:57 am

    This came in via email from a listener named Bill. Here you go:

    I’m writing in response to this afternoons show on the proposed “Ground-Zero mosque. I was sickened to hear yours and Dawn position concerning this issue. No, I’m not a “Ditto-head”, I don’t like Limbaugh’s style; I don’t like Hannity, Michael Savage or Dr. Laura. If I had to pick a favrorite, it’s probably John Stewart, even though he’s Liberal and I’m more of a Libertarian. I’m just a guy who remebers Sept. 11 and what it did to our country.

    And I recall a few other things about that day as well. I remember network news feeds from Lebanon showing Musilms rejoicing after hearing the news. Old men, women, teenagers and even children. These were not the young fanatics that we see in videos, vowing Jihad, these were the non-combatants. Regular Musilims. I recall stories here in the US, from US Musilims, with thier faces covered, for fear of reprisal, stating they were happy to see their “brothers” make such an attack, but were afraid they’d be attacked on the streets. And yes, sadly, I remember our previous President using this tradgedy as an excuse to invade Iraq; a toothless Tiger of a country, just to ‘finish’ his daddy’s war.

    To allow a Mosque to be built so near our Sacred ground, is a signal to supporters of our enemys that they have won and that we are weak. I heard Dawn use all sorts of words like ludicrous, laughable and absurd to describe the idea that myself and approxamately 60% of other Americans share, and to present her opinion as the view of an ‘educated’ person. I also heard her, and yourself, disregard the belief that Mosques are used as ‘training grounds’ for Musilim terrorists. Well, I don’t believe that a Mosque would be used for training, but I wholeheartedly believe that Mosques are used for recruitment, indoctrination and fundraising of terrorist activities and supporters.

    I understand that since there are other churches and religious institutions near the 9/11 site, no legal argument can be made for rejecting the Mosque. But just because it’s not illegal doesn’t make it right. In our country we have Freedom of Speech, but there is a “preacher” in the midwest that uses this right to preach that “God hates Fags”, other such messages. He and his followers routinly show up at military funerals and ‘protest’ right outside of the cemetary grounds. Is this legal? Yes. Is it right? No. And that’s what I believe about this Mosque. It is not right that it be built in such proximity to the 9/11 site. If my neighbor were not Christian, and I was, I would not erect a Cross on my lawn out of consideration of his beliefs, and I believe that the Musilim backers of this Mosque should be considerate to the majority of Americans who do not want it there.

    To build it at that site is a blatant “F— you” to Americans and I find it incredibly insensitive. Frankly, I’m astounded to hear that you support it. You’ve always been a bit left, but I found this very disheartening. As for Dawn Legg (sp), I will not engage in attacks upon her; I will only say that I vehemetly oppose what she believes. I will also state that I believe that every US Musilim privately rejoiced on September 11, 2001. You will never be able to convince me otherwise.

    • marilyninslo
      August 7, 2010 at 12:51 am

      “If my neighbor were not Christian, and I was, I would not erect a Cross on my lawn out of consideration of his beliefs,

      —The proposed mosque is not going to be built on anyone’s “lawn” except on the lawn of the owners of the property who can choose to build what they want on their own lawn. But maybe the assumption here is that Muslim Americans are not really “true” Americans.

      “….and I believe that the Musilim backers of this Mosque should be considerate to the majority of Americans who do not want it there.”

      —I guess if you are minority in this country, you have no rights.

  7. richinpaso
    August 6, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I have to disagree with JurisDoctor. I think that Prop 8 will make it to the SCOTUS and will be struck down for the final time there. I foresee the striking down of Prop 8 necessitating the striking down of ALL state gay marriage bans across the nation, all 30 of them. Think about it: how can California’s gay marriage ban be ban and Iowa’s ban is good. To strike down one, they will have to strike down all. I can’t see a scenario where the 5 justices could write an opinion that strikes down Prop 8 but leave Iowa’s ban intact.

    This latest decision, one of many but more so lately, troubles me greatly. Are we witnessing the end of federalism, the end to popular rule, the end to the importance of voting? I think so. We have had two judges this week strike down a popularly elected STATE constitutional amendment. One judge overrode the will of a majority of Californians. I believe prop 8 passed 57-43 or something like that. We had one judge overturn the law of the elected representative of the People of Arizona. SB1070 enjoyed huge popularity and was supported by 71% of the people. Not only that, but Judge Bolton used the most specious logic and violated the rules by which a facia case could be decided. We have had the 5 members of the SCOTUS give citizenship rights to terrorists, declare .4% of the earth’s atmosphere a pollutant, picked a president, enabled the theft of private property, on and on. The list is endless of the affronts to the people of the US. This practice of a small few dictating to the masses what constitutes ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ has been growing. This overruling of the will of the people to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero with huge sums of money from potentially terrorist organizations is an example at the local level.

    For me, the federal government is really no more. It should rightly be called the Central Government because damn near everything is centrally planned from Washington. Cars, oil production, healthcare, banking, government jobs, student loans, home mortgages, food and safety standards, what you can say or do on the radio or TV, everything is directed from DC. And who among us gets ZERO money from the central government? We who have home mortgages claim the interest deduction for example. We are all on the government dole, only some of us may not realize it because the welfare payment is made in very subtile ways. It is welfare all the same.

    I am curious to see what Eric Holder does to Missouri. They voted 71 to 29 to NOT allow ObamaCare to procede after banning the insurance mandate. Will Holder sue Missouri claiming the supremacy clause as they did in Arizona? I can’t see why he wouldn’t. This is not a Republican-Democrat thing; it is a powerful minority ruling in an oligarchy over the masses. It is a tyranny plain and simple.

  8. richinpaso
    August 6, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Oh, and just for the record: I voted AGAINST Prop 8. I just don’t like a handfull of people (or less) overruling the will of the people over such a minor issue as who gets to split half their earnings in a divorce with whom.

    One other thing, if Judge Walker is gay, that should have been known. If he is gay, he should have recused himself. The left is very good at pointing out “conflicts of interest” when decisions don’t go their way as evidenced by the liberal outrage when the New Orleans judge who overturned the gulf drilling moritorium was found to own oil stocks (gasp!). If this was a ruling on a lawsuit against the catholic church over priest sex abuse, the lawsuit gets thrown out and the judge is found to be a catholic, the liberals in America would demand he be impeached for siding with the catholic church (and the Pope) over abused children.

    You know they would.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      The fact that Judge Walker is gay is not a reason for recusal. That would mean no white judge could hear a case involving a white person against a minority, that would mean no female judge could hear a case involving a woman v. a man, etc.

      And, the will of the people is irrelevant when fundamental rights are concerned. The will of the people of Mississippi during the ’60’2 (and probably today) would have been to keep segregation in place. The Constitution trumps the will of the people and the Constitution, through interpretation by the courts, says there is no rational basis for denying homosexuals their right to privacy, i.e. the right to marriage.

      • richinpaso
        August 8, 2010 at 1:09 am

        that is just ridiculous reasoning Atty78. What does a white judge stand to gain by presiding over a white man on trial for murder? Does he hope to get a “not guilt” verdict so he, too, can committ murder? Same for men or women presiding over cases involving a despute between two people of the opposite sex. Judge Walker (if he’s gay; I don’t know that he is) would stand to gain personally from his decision as he would then be able to marry his partner and receive all the monetary and contractual benefits that hetrosexual couples enjoy.
        You are on your second flight of fantasy posting here. You are not doing your profession any favors by going to an absolute extreme as you have done.

    • goodhelp
      August 9, 2010 at 7:37 am

      Rich, mighty good of you to tell us how you voted in regard to Prop 8. But, here’s where “writing for comprehension” comes into the picture.

      If a judge deciding this Prop 8 case should recuse himself for being gay, then should not another judge recuse himself for being “straight?” Sounds like an attempt to avoid letting one’s sexual orientation prejudice the outcome.

      In that case, the perfect jurist would have no gender identity or sexual preference at all!

      Perhaps the non-left people can explain this. One more thing–don’t put any Catholic “red herring” into the discussion–stay on topic! Thank you.

      • richinpaso
        August 9, 2010 at 10:49 am

        Again this is a ridiculous argument. What do straight judges gain while presiding over straight people before the court? Nothing. What does a gay judge who presides over a case involving an amendment to the state constitution involving whether or not he can marry his partner? The previously illegal ability to marry his partner. Isn’t that obvious to you.

        So are you telling me that the judge is gay? Is this why you guys keep coming back to this bias issue?

        I am writing for comprehension but why are you not reading for comprehension?

  9. sloconservative
    August 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    I too believe that there is no way the Supreme Court could possible support the decision by the radical activist gay judge. That would send America back 100 years. The election was legal, the people have spoken, and gays have civil unions which accomplish everything they want except to stain the institution of Man/wife marriage.
    The gay community needs to stop all the game playing and politicking and move on. If not a revolution maybe brewing in America. We did it once and we won. We can do it again. Real Americans will NOT live under this kind of tyranny. We need to unite and be about the business of healing our nation.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      There was nothing radical about this decision if (1) you read it and (2) you have a competent understanding of the way the Constitution works.

      The problem is that most people who object to Judge Walker’s ruling do not have the first idea how the Constitution works.

      The Constitution prohibits majority votes that would take away fundamental rights from minorities.

      Judge Walker explained how civil unions are not equal to marriage because they do not carry the same dignity and respect that marriages carry. As he explained, if marriage and civil unions were the same, there’d be no reason to have both, in the first place. The only reason Prop 8 supporters would want to relegate homosexuals to civil unions is because civil unions are not equal to marriages in the eyes of society.

      And, it wasn’t the gay community that was playing games. They weren’t the ones who tried to amend the state constitution. They only wished to leave things as they were.

      And, do you honestly think you can claim to identify with the winning side of the Civil War (those who fought on behalf of minorities) when it was those who wished to deny rights to minorities who lost? C’mon. You’d be fighting for the South. You’d be screaming for secession, just like you are now.

      And, how is granting homosexuals equal marriage rights tantamount to tyranny? You have a rather liberal definition for tyranny, my “conservative” friend (as if there’s anything conservative about amending the Constitution).

      To cry for unity and healing while calling equal rights tyranny is as absurd as the notion that you are a conservative.

      • richinpaso
        August 8, 2010 at 1:42 am

        Which fundemental right are you referring to? I would like a specific name placed on what right Prop 8 denied… if you can.

    • goodhelp
      August 9, 2010 at 7:42 am

      Please, Mr (or Ms) Conservative, enlighten me a bit more about these “Real Americans” you speak of. Who are they? And what kind of “tyranny” are you talking about?

      The “separate but equal” tyranny? SloCon, heal thyself!

  10. sloconservative
    August 6, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Marriage is NOT a fundamental right. The rights in the constitution are unalienable rights granted by God NOT the government.
    Marriage is a state issue not a constitutional issue because the rights gays want are granted by civil unions. All the rest is just Saul Alinski in drag. Stop causing problems. Go get a civil union and be done with it. You’ll have to anyway if it goes to the Supreme Court. You will lose there plain and simple 5-4. You can bark and bite all you want. It’s settled law.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 10:35 pm

      You say “It’s settled law,” but you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who would say “Marriage is NOT a fundamental right” obviously hasn’t the first clue about Constitutional Law. Marriage is protected as a fundamental right under the right to privacy. THAT is settled law and any law school grad can tell you that as easily as 2+2=4.

      You want to inject YOUR religion into OUR government as if the United States should operate as a theocracy. You must love the way they do things in the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia, sloconservative.

      Don’t wear mixed fabrics! You’ll get stoned. Women, get to the woods while you menstruate! This is the United States of the Old Testament.

  11. richinpaso
    August 6, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    The one thing I have noticed about liberals is that whenever they want something traditional changed they claim that change is a “fundamental right”. Healthcare, affordable housing, college education, the right to whack babies in the womb, and now marriage are “fundamental rights”. Where are all these “fundamental rights” written down? Soon cable and cellphones will be “fundamental rights” granted somewhere in the Constitution. We will have liberals tell us that Founding Fathers were thinking of cellphones when they wrote some obscure passage in Federalist 79 or some nonsense. That is what they have done with the Commerce Clause and the equal protection clauses. The framers of our Constitution were not trying to specifically carve out potections for abortion or gay marriage. They were trying to limit the expanse and powers of the Federal government when they enacted the 10th Amendment. That amendment is used as toilet paper by politicians on both sides everytime they create some new federal program. If our Supreme Court was worth a shit, they would refuse to hear clearly state matters by citing the 10th Amendment. To my recollection, like the number of countries allowing anchor babies, there has never been a ruling citing the 10th Amendment as a clear case of federal overreach into state matters. But I have been wrong before.

    I think it is a fundamental right to not have to put up with self-righteous liberals, but we suffer them all the time on this blog.

    Are you really an attorney, atty78, or did you stay at the Paso Robles Holiday Inn Express last night? You sound like a lesser educated man with your leaps from “settled law” to theocracy to menstruating in the woods. You sound like SM Bill… and that is NOT a compliment.

    • goodhelp
      August 9, 2010 at 7:50 am

      Rich, you try to list the judicial outcomes you dislike. Perhaps, again when you write “for comprehension,” you’ll notice a long string of decisions from the very first session of the U.S. Supreme Court.

      Many of these have to do with the thoughts in the Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility…promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

      Most of your problems with “fundamental rights” are embodied in these very words. Read them for better comprehension and I thank you.

      • richinpaso
        August 9, 2010 at 11:32 am

        How does overturning the will of 7 million Americans further the cause of securing the blessings of liberty? Why is it important for the will of 7 million in this one state to be ignored when 30 states have a ban on gay marriage as well? Why is the licensure of a purely state function the purview of the federal courts?

        And please don’t say because you all are protecting the civil rights of homosexuals. It cheapens the plight of the genuinely discriminated when you compare same-sex marriage to black civil rights. There are no “gays only” lunchcounters, water fountains or movie theater sections. Gays get employment (when anyone gets employment during the Obama Recession) just like anyone else seeking work. So why is it that California of all the 30 states with an outright ban is the one that has a future date with the SCOTUS? I think it is purely a political ploy to go through the 9th Circus court of appeals (the most overturned court of appeals btw) to get before the SCOTUS to overturn ALL 30 state bans on gay marriage. This will impose gay marriage on everyone like roe v wade did.

  12. marilyninslo
    August 7, 2010 at 12:35 am

    “To allow a Mosque to be built so near our Sacred ground, is a signal to supporters of our enemys that they have won and that we are weak.”

    —But this mosque IS an AMERICAN mosque, isn’t it?

  13. sloconservative
    August 7, 2010 at 12:39 am

    Islam is loyal only to Allah…not a country…no city…not a people or a race…and certainly not to the infidels. We know what Islam is. They rejoiced when the towers went down. The Insult slap in the face Mosque will NOT be built. Just wait.

  14. richinpaso
    August 7, 2010 at 5:08 am

    The Army has Seven Values that all Soldiers are supposed to uphold above all else. They are Duty, Respect, Honor, Integrity, Selfless Service, Personal Courage, and LOYALTY. Major Nidal Hassan chose loyalty to Allah over loyalty to this country and the Constition he swore to support and defend, so help him God. He put “SoA” on his business cards meaning he was a soldier of Allah. Who was formost in his mind when he took those weapons into that Soldier Center at Fort Hood, America or Allah? We know the answer because he was shouting “Allah Akbar!” as he MURDERED innocent men, women and an unborn child.

    DO NOT try to preach that Islam is a religion of peace. There is NO PEACE so long as there are free thinking people who do not adhere to the edicts of Mohammed. Fathers murder their daughters if they do not follow the edicts of Mohammed. The term is called “honor killing” but there is no honor in a parent murdering their child because some crackpot kaat addict 600 years ago dreamed up Islam and perverted the Hebrew God into Allah (yeah, I said it: the Hebrew God was here first… so was the Christian God).

    If Muslims who do wish for peace want to co-exist with the other religions of the world there must be a reformation and a Muslim version of the Council of Trent, where the catholic church began the process of purging itself of many of the abuses that led to the Lutheran Reformation. Islam needs to codify a common view of peace and tolerance for all without condition. I needs to disavow and expel any immam that preaches death, suicide in the name of Allah, hatred of non-beiefers and violence against apostates. Women should have the CHOICE of whether they wish to wear the headscarves, bhurkas, or veils. If a woman chooses not to, then that is her choice and it should be respected by ALL Muslim men. The words of Mohammed need a common and publicly announced understanding. If there are arcane passages stating the need for such barbarism like stoning, they should be acknowledged and disavowed as antiquated and improper for the 21st Century. There will rise an orthodox sect of Islam unwilling to embrace the 21st Century as there is in judaism and christianity. That is okay because their numbers will be small and readily apparent for all to see. There will still be violence, as there is with extreme elements in Judaism and Christianity.

    This is the 21st Century and Islam has remained unchanged for 600 years. That is wrong. If our Constitution is such a living document that the Obama Administration can change it on a daily basis… if Christianity is such a living belief that it can have over 100 versions spanning the breadth of belief, then Islam can and would survive a little updating for the 21st Century.

    I know this will not be well-received by the Muslims in the audience because you all think your religion is infallable. Why else would you defend the murderers and terrorists in your ranks? However, I will apply to Islam the same standard that the left applies to the Tea Party movement: one radical in your midst means that ALL are radical until the group weeds them out and denounces them. And believe me (and your local paper) when I tell you that there are a TON of radicals among the ranks of Muslims.

  15. sloconservative
    August 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    @Rich. Good points, well said.

    Islam is a tolerant religion. They tolerate honor killings, female genital mutilation, suicide bombing even of their own people, fanatics, genocide, beheading homosexuals, and they barely tolerate women. Oh I forgot. They also tolerate Bacha bazi. They are also told to lie to infidels if it forwards the work of Allah. I can provide a plethora of documented facts on each of the aforementioned distinctions. I will gladly provide them to the doubters. (Don’t miss the cover of Time this week. There is a picture of a lovely women who’s husband was given permission by the sharia judge in his town to cut off her ears and nose. I guess he decided that throwing acid on her face was a bit strong for mere “perceived disobedience”. You think this is funny? A sitting appointed judge denied a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually & physically abusive Muslim husband because it was against this man’s sharia law. It was later overturned by a sane judge. Wake up folks!

  16. marilyninslo
    August 7, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    The latter-day crusaders need to take a chill pill. Something wonderful is happening in this country and across the world. In spite of the wars, conflict, and hatred that is rampant in the media, people are becoming closer to each other and have a genuine need to know about others. This is probably a result of the ease of communication and technology. Humanity is evolving. It is our DESTINY.

    I was never a fan of organized religion and I doubt I will ever be. I have seen first-hand man’s cruelty to his fellow man (and woman) in the name of the delusions that are a big part of all religions. HOWEVER, non of us are perfect and, if people choose religion as their personal path towards finding out their place in the Universe, that is their choice. After all, we are all free human beings. I do not want to put myself in the position of defending Islam or Muslims; they are capable of that task. The proof is in the pudding: they are the fastest growing religion on the planet and they are spreading like wildfire due to requests for conversion.

    Muslims are a part of the landscape of this country and they are an important part of it and will be playing a bigger role in the decades to come. Those who live in the dark ages had better buckle up and join the fun or bail out of Dodge and join the ranks of the extremists and the mirage terrorists they are trying hard to defeat. Your ticket to redemption is elsewhere.

    I am one of those who believe that houses of worship should not be built like palaces but should be humble (the Muslim herd can be as arrogant as any Christian or Jewish herd—the more expensive the shell, the more the “appearance” of faith). But we all have to admit that what is happening is a good sign. It is an indication that the American people in general, and in spite of the current worldwide conflict related to the Middle East, are wanting more than what the crusaders and the corporate owned media are willing to give. It is also a sign that Muslims in the United States are wanting to reach out. The people’s grassroots movement across the globe is getting stronger and there is no way of stopping it. People on opposite ends of the globe can have conversations and can steer clear of the artificial barriers that those in power are trying hard to strengthen.

    This is going to be a thrilling and wonderful ride, you just have to let go of your fear and greed. You can either jump in and get to know your neighbor, or you can hop out and live in your shelter underground.

  17. marilyninslo
    August 8, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Come on, slocon, you could have done better than to pick the most uncouth and racist woman on the planet to prove your point. If she is the benchmark by which you judge your opinion of others, you guys are in deep trouble. I keep hearing she wants to get rid of both Muslims and Jews in America for those two groups do not exist in her heaven.

    How about this gem of a piece she wrote recently. I guess even “conservative” men aren’t men enough for her. I think people who are infatuated with her should be disallowed from voting due to lack of common sense (I am putting it very mildly here).

    I guess you become what you pay for.

  18. marilyninslo
    August 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    By the way, regardless of all the hate filled material that is posted about Muslims, Muslims will still be here, so will gays and soon gay marriage. We live in a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.

    Just some statistics about Muslims in the USA (from the 2000 Zoghby poll and 2000 census and Allied Media Corp.:
    * 67% of American Muslims have a Bachelor’s degree or higher
    * 44% of Americans have a Bachelor’s degree or higher3
    * The Variance for Advanced Degrees is even greater.
    * One in ten American Muslim HH has a physician / medical doctor

    I would say they are contributing to this nation in many positive ways. In 2000 there were close to 1300 mosques, 80% of them providing assistance to poor and indigent people.

    There is quite a bit of information if you want to look more up. The site also looks at some other demographics in the USA, mainly for marketing reasons.

  19. August 9, 2010 at 2:30 am

    No Ann Coulter videos on this web site, please.

    Marilyn — don’t waste your breath. SLOcon is you-know-who. Careful.

  20. August 9, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Here’s Ted Olsen on Fox news defending the Prop 8 decision. Good stuff.


  21. richinpaso
    August 9, 2010 at 11:57 am

    What we are witnessing is the death of federalism. Federalism is defined as “A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units”. How can there be federalism if EVERY issue is a federal issue? The beauty of America is that if you didn’t like the policies of one state, you could always move to a state that better suited your tastes. Lebron James, for example, moved to Florida because, in part, the state’s lack of an income tax. If you didn’t like SB1070, fine, you were free to move to a neighboring state with lax border security standards. But in this era where everything must be tried in a federal court and precedent is uniformly meted out to all, there is very little distinguighing Massechusetts from Montana. Now the congress has been called back into session so they can vote on $24 billion federal bailout of state teacher unions. So now a state’s inability to pay bloated teacher salaries is an issue for the federal government and congress? Seriously? If Chris Christie and the NJ legislature wanted to fire every teacher to balance the budget and they could, I say let them. The flight of people voting with their feet would quickly reverse that policy. But now with the feds giving cover to their blue state bretheren, there is nothing ensuring that the states act responsibly. With the feds bankrolling the states, why have states? They just become employees of the central government and act as a large council handing out central government boons. With every issue a federal issue, then the concept of “state’s rights” is dead. I know that liberals here will draw a parallel to slavery and the civil war. State’s rights was misapplied to keep slavery legal because that DOES violate the concept that “all men are created equal” as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Why can’t Kansas ban abortion but California keeps it legal? Why can’t California have a ban on same-sex marriage but Massechusetts keeps it legal? Why is this a federal issue?

    The end result is that our constitution has become a facade under these last two presidents, but especially this one. When the CIS can impose a de facto amnesty without going through our elected “representatives, when the EPA can regulate the fizz in a Coca-Cola as a pollutant without going through our elected “representatives” then we have no voice in our government, we have no representation, and we have no republic. What we have is an oligarchy. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”

    If that doesn’t define our government, then nothing does.

  22. atty78
    August 9, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    richinpaso :
    What do straight judges gain while presiding over straight people before the court?

    Um, the defense’s whole case was based upon the argument that straight couples are superior to gay couples and that gay marriage hurts straight marriage. If you can’t see that a straight judge would have the same potential for bias, your beyond help.

    Sexual orientation is not a basis for recusal just as race is not a basis for recusal. This judge’s record shows that he is not biased in favor of his sexual orientation. If you did a little reading, you’d see that Reagan’s nomination of him was stalled by Nancy Pelosi because she felt he was too hostile toward gays during his professional career.

  23. atty78
    August 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    richinpaso :
    Which fundemental right are you referring to? I would like a specific name placed on what right Prop 8 denied… if you can.

    Oh, you just revealed the fact that you (1) haven’t read the decision you’re criticizing and (2) don’t have the first clue about Constitutional Law.

    The fundamental right infringed upon by Prop 8, as spelled out in the 136 page ruling, was the fundamental right to privacy. The right to marry is protected as a fundamental right under the umbrella of the right to privacy. Any first-year law student can tell you that, but, apparently, Rush Limbaugh can’t.

    The Constitution – Learn it.

  24. atty78
    August 9, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    richinpaso :
    How does overturning the will of 7 million Americans further the cause of securing the blessings of liberty? Why is it important for the will of 7 million in this one state to be ignored when 30 states have a ban on gay marriage as well? Why is the licensure of a purely state function the purview of the federal courts?
    And please don’t say because you all are protecting the civil rights of homosexuals. It cheapens the plight of the genuinely discriminated when you compare same-sex marriage to black civil rights. There are no “gays only” lunchcounters, water fountains or movie theater sections. Gays get employment (when anyone gets employment during the Obama Recession) just like anyone else seeking work. So why is it that California of all the 30 states with an outright ban is the one that has a future date with the SCOTUS? I think it is purely a political ploy to go through the 9th Circus court of appeals (the most overturned court of appeals btw) to get before the SCOTUS to overturn ALL 30 state bans on gay marriage. This will impose gay marriage on everyone like roe v wade did.

    The rights of a minority group are not up for a majority vote. Get that?

    The administration of marriage licenses is a state function, but it is subject to federal review because it concerns the fundamental right of marriage. States cannot violate the Constitution.

    Your comparison of the plight of gays to the plight of Blacks is silly since, I’m guessing, you are neither. Comedian, Wanda Sykes, is both gay and black and recently stated that being gay is tougher because she never had to tell her parents she was black.

    Finally, the 9th Circuit is a popular whipping boy for the right and, by your use of the term “9th Circus,” I can tell you’re just regurgitating what Rush told you, like a good little ditto head. But the fact is that the 9th Circuit does not even have the highest reversal rate of the Federal Circuit Courts. It’s usually not even in second or third place, but you won’t hear Limbaugh say that the 5th Circuit has the highest rate of reversal because Texas and Mississippi, ditto head hotbeds, are in the 5th. The 9th’s caseload is three times the caseload of the average circuit court, therefore, the 9th has far more cases go to the Supreme Court for review than any other circuit court and, consequently, has the most cases reversed. But the statistics hardly support the right’s caricature of the 9th as an out-of-control liberal court.

  25. atty78
    August 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Russell Hodin :
    Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the right of a rich oil man to overturn the vote of the state of Florida to claim the Presidency, but that’s what we got, thanks to SCOTUS.

    I agree, but I’m not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

  26. goodhelp
    August 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    richinpaso :
    Again this is a ridiculous argument. What do straight judges gain while presiding over straight people before the court? Nothing.

    Well, Rich, if I’m reading and comprehending what you’re saying it’s: “judges who personally benefit from their public decisions must recuse themselves at all times.” Correct? Oh, I forgot, if the judge owns oil stocks, then it’s ok.

    These judges must live within the new decisions’ laws, just like everyone else. So, what’s your point?

  27. goodhelp
    August 9, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    richinpaso :
    What we are witnessing is the death of federalism.

    What we are witnessing is how the rule of law, the US Constitution, and honest judges will not allow a vocal minority to trample on the rights of all citizens. If you support only the legal decisions you agree with and to hell with the rest of the rulings, you’ll have all the justice of a grammar school playground. Ruled by bullies. Rich, you’re not a bully, are you?

  28. richinpaso
    August 11, 2010 at 1:59 am

    If it is okay to build a mosque 2 blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, America’s scar from 9/11, would it be okay for a Christian to build a church 2 blocks from the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia?

    The answer is obviously of course not… unless you want to be executed for prostlytizing to muslims as what happened in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

    More liberal hypocrasy.

    • goodhelp
      August 11, 2010 at 7:57 am

      So we’re done with the California judge ruling in favor of marriage equality. Now, on to more weighty questions. (Spell check: “hypocrisy.”)

      Americans who want to build a city-approved building for their chosen religious worship, can do so wherever it’s legal to do so, within zoning requirements, etc.

      Why any group of “christians” would want to perform a hostile act in a foreign country (erecting an building for an unapproved use) is beyond me. The Christians I know are busy feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and helping the homeless. They do this in the USA and in countries that welcome them and their activities throughout the world.

      Your rhetorical question doesn’t hold up under this reasonable scrutiny. Perhaps you do not understand how to write for comprehension. Eh?

    • atty78
      August 11, 2010 at 5:57 pm

      Fortunately, this isn’t Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. The differences between the ways the U.S. and countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan treat their respective minorities are vast. Whether the white Christian majority likes it or not, we have laws in this country that were designed to protect minorities from the numerical power of the majority.

      As a practical matter (and stated somewhat tongue-in-cheek), wouldn’t a mosque near Ground Zero lower the chance of another large-scale Islamic terrorist attack near that site?

  29. californiawiseguy
    August 11, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a minor problem in the scope of things. The controversy is primarily a form of scapegoating at a time when so many Americans are simply unhappy and unsatisfied based primarily upon their own lack of spiritual grounding and an overabundance of unhealthy attachments and desires.

  30. californiawiseguy
    August 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Gay marriage and building mosques ae minor problem in the scope of things. These controversies are primarily a form of scapegoating at a time when so many Americans are simply unhappy and unsatisfied based primarily upon their own lack of spiritual grounding and an overabundance of unhealthy attachments and desires that leaves them separated from their soul’s mission.

    What people really need is love and that is something you get by living it and never expecting anything from it. Love will forever remain a vital resource—the most vital resource—a force that is, on the most profound scientific level, inexhaustible. It is not an emotion. It is an energy that trumps all others. Without it, the world disappears immediately. It is the X factor that holds EVERYTHING together. This is not airy-fairy stuff. This type of love is the only thing in our world that is not an illusion. Sin is anything that pulls us away from that source.

  31. sloconservative
    August 16, 2010 at 4:22 am

    marylin is a good student of Saul Alinski’s book. She hit chapters 2,5 and 7 in her short statement.

  32. californiawiseguy
    August 16, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Saul Alinsky is a great American patriot, a man of wisdom and courage who has helped preserve freedom in America and have people tools to combat tyranny and the slaughter of innocents. Thank you Mr. Alinsky!

    • sloconservative
      August 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm

      Here is Saul Alinsky’s dedication to his own book: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer

      Your choice of American heroes speaks volumes of your character. But let me ask…who is Lucifer to you?

  33. californiawiseguy
    August 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    It’s obvious that sloconservative doesn’t understand the true meaning of “Lucifer”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

    But one thing for sure: Trying to demonize someone like Saul Alinsky is a sin and another example of self-styled extremist “conservatives” trying to rip our nation apart while putting the masses under the thumb of the fascists that Alinsky urged American patriots to fight against.

    • sloconservative
      August 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm

      Wikipedia? Seriously? You have to be kidding! A user edited gossip site? Is that all you have? Tell me you have more than that.

      You said: “Trying to demonize someone like Saul Alinsky is a sin”. Help me out here. Where does it say that is a sin? Are you quoting a church? Which one? What is sin to you? Many clarifications are needed here.

      Now back to Lucifer (yours and Saul Alinski’s hero). Here are some cultually diverse names for Lucifer used in the world. It may halp clarify who Alinski was idolizing in his dedication.

      Every name of every ruler of the underworld ,maybe even gods of death , no matter what the culture is, represents the same entity…that is Lucifer.

      Here is a partial list of other names for Lucifer.

      Abaddon-(Hebrew) the destroyer
      Adramelech-Samarian devil
      Ahpuch- Mayan devil
      Ahriman- Mazdean devil
      Apollyon- Greek synonym for Satan, the arch fiend
      Asmodeus- Hebrew devil of sensuality and luxury, originally “creature of judgment”
      Astaroth- Phoenician goddess of lasciviousness, equivalent of Babylonin Ishtar
      Azazel- (Hebrew) taught man to make weapons of war
      Baalberith- Canaanite Lord of the covenant who was later made a devil
      Balaam-Hebrew devil of avarice and greed
      Baphomet-worshipped by the Templars as symbolic of Satan
      Beelzebub-(Hebrew) Lord of the Flies, taken from symbolism of the scarab
      Behemoth-Hebrew personification of Satan in the form of an elephant
      Beherit-Syriac name for Satan
      Bilé-Celtic god of Hell
      Chemosh-national god of Moabites, later a devil
      Cimeries-rides a black horse and rules Africa
      Coyote-American Indian devil
      Dagon-Philistine avenging devil of the sea
      Damballa-Voodoo serpent god
      Demogorgon-Greek name of the devil, it is said should not be known to mortals
      Diabolus-(Greek) “flowing downwards”
      Dracula-Romanian name for Lucifer
      Emma-O-Japanese ruler of Hell
      Euronymous-Greek prince of death
      Fenriz-son of Loki, depicted as a wolf
      Gorgo-dim. of Demogorgon, Greek name of the devil
      Haborym-Hebrew synonym for Satan
      Hecate-Greek goddess of the underworld and witchcraft
      Lilith-Hebrew female devil, Adam’s first wife who taught him the ropes
      Loki-Teutonic devil
      Mania-Etruscan goddess of Hell
      Mantus-Etruscan god of Hell
      Marduk-god of the city of Babylon
      Mastema-Hebrew synonym for Satan
      Melek Taus-Yezidi devil
      Mephistopheles-(Greek) he who shuns the light, q. v. Faust
      Metztli-Aztec goddess of the night
      Mictian-Aztec god of death
      Midgard-son of Loki, depicted as a serpent
      Milcom-Ammonite devil
      Moloch-Phoenician and Canaanite devil
      Mormo-(Greek) King of the Ghouls, consort of Hecate
      Naamah-Hebrew female devil of seduction
      Nergal-Babylonian god of Hades
      Nihasa-American Indian devil
      Nija-polish god of the underworld
      O-Yama-Japanese name for Satan
      Pan-Greek god of lust, later relegated to devildom
      Pluto-Greek god of the underworld
      Proserpine-Greek queen of the underworld
      Pwcca-Welsh name for Satan
      Rimmon-Syrian devil worshipped at Damascus
      Sabazios-Phrygian origin, identified with Dionysos, snake worship
      Saitan-Enochian equivalent of Satan
      Sammael-(Hebrew) “venom of God”
      Samnu-Central Asian devil
      Sedit-American Indian devil
      Sekhmet-Egyptian goddess of vengeance
      Set-Egyptian devil
      Shaitan-Arabic name for Satan
      Shiva-(Hindu) the destroyer
      Supay-Inca god of the underworld
      T’an-mo- Chinese counterpart to the devil, covetousness, desire
      Tchort-Russian name for Satan, “black god”
      Tezcatlipoca-Aztec god of Hell
      Thamuz-Sumerian god who later was relegated to devildom
      Thoth-Egyptian god of evil spells
      Tunrida-Scandinavian female devil
      Typhon-Greek personification of Satan
      Yaotzin-Aztec god of Hell
      Yen-lo-Wang-Chinese ruler of Hell

      Hope this helps clarify your “Wiki-experience”…

      • atty78
        August 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm

        Actually, I hate to defend Wikipedia, but there have been studies (one published in Nature) that show Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

  34. californiawiseguy
    August 17, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Sloconservative, its obvious you know very little about what you are talking about but try to make up for that by posting long cut-and-paste obfuscations aimed at misguiding people. The literal translation of lucifer is “light bearer.”

    Sin is anything that pulls one away from having unity with God spirit.

    And why does sloconservative continually evoke the name of Saul Alinsky? More obfuscation. More avoidance of taking personal responsibility. More support of fascism. More selfishness, more greed, more ego, more fear, more insecurity.

    Sloconservative would be happier if he had more appreciation, more thankfulness, for all the many blessings bestowed upon him. But, in the spirit of Satan, he rebels and promotes division and separation throughout all sectors of our society.

  35. californiawiseguy
    August 17, 2010 at 4:07 am

    First of all, much of the vicious and deceptive propaganda attacking Saul Alinksy if based on either anti-Jewish sentiment or, at the least, terrible misunderstanding of the Jewish religion.

    Case in point, is the reference to “Lucifer” that Mr. Alinsky uses in his book. What Alinsky’s attackers fail to understand or mention is that in the Jewish religion “Lucifer” is not at all the same as what most people understand to be “Satan” or the “Devil”. In Judaism Lucifer is the one who tests people for God. That is, Lucifer is an integral part of God’s plan to raise the consciousness and morals of mankind.

    But Sloconservative and other extremists and haters eagerly take words and comments out of context and use them to purposely slander decent people and good work and misguide the public.

    Our society would be much better off if people would spend more time trying to understand the beliefs and history of various religious groups BEFORE going off-half cocked and maliciously slandering them and generating animosity and harm to innocent people.

    Lucifer, it seems, is once again testing people for God’s sake, and obviously many “conservatives” are failing that test miserably. And they certainly are not acting in accord with the loving teaching of Jesus Christ.

    The light has shown onto “conservatives” and what it reveals is a lot of darkness and sin. But they too will one day open their eyes and see the light.

  36. californiawiseguy
    August 17, 2010 at 4:19 am

    By the way, Sloconservative, why don’t you try to tell us one bad thing Saul Alinsky ever did? Surely you don’t attack him simply because he is Jewish and fought for the rights of the lower class?

    Other than helping people fight fascism and protect Constitutional freedoms, what exactly did Mr. Alinsky do that you find warrants your vicious attacks upon him? So, please tell us what, in your mind, is the great crime or immoral act committed by the esteemed and long-time educator and champion of personal freedom Saul Alinsky?

  37. atty78
    August 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    sloconservative :
    atty78…I am answering your questions…but Daddy Davey keeps deleting them. Seems his far left radical ideology won’t allow honest discussion…but I am sure the 4 of you left will have fun with Daddy watching over you. (Haven’t laughed this hard in years!)

    Yeah, that’s so Dave. I’m sure he just wants to censor your posts because he disagrees with you. He has such a history of denying air time to views he opposes. (Is there a font for sarcasm?)

    Serious, tell me what the General Welfare Clause means to you.

    • sloconservative
      August 17, 2010 at 5:12 pm

      I posted my answer twice. Both were censored by Daddy Davey. I will not waste my time again.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: