Recently the Imam behind the ground zero mosque gave an interview to CNN. In the interview he defended the continued building of a mosque near ground zero because, according to him, if he didn't do that than the "terrorists would win." Apparently the logic behind this is that terrorists abroad are paying attention of the American outrage surrounding the building of this mosque and if it is stopped they will utilize such a thing to promote bad PR on America and swell their ranks.
What a load of crap. Even should this mosque be built terrorists such as those that make up the ranks of Al Qaida and the Taliban are not going to tone down their rhetoric against America and whatever they don't use from the ground zero mosque they will simply make up in front of the ignorant masses. The blocking of this building would have about zero impact, but this is the excuse this guy has for ignoring causing such an offense to Americans and continuing to push for the building of this mosque.
Lets delve into that a little more. He is well aware that Americans are offended by the building of this mosque and yet continues to justify it by saying it will be offensive to other's abroad. Never mind that other muslim religious leaders in the US and abroad are against this, to go along with the 70% of Americans that are against this, it is that retarded minority that we have to be concerned it. Our anger is understandable, but really, it's not as important as the others.
To top this off the Imam again has been offered decent outs and compromises to this situation and he is continuing to balk at any of these offers. A respected muslim scholar commented for a CNN article recently in which he made his opposition clear, but also noted a sympathy for the Imam's position. Still, even he said a good compromise that would bolster the Imam's position as a diplomat would be to walk away from the building and act as a sort of ambassador to Pakistan as it deals with it's current flood crisis. No word has come out on if the Imam even considered this. The reverend of a small church in Florida has suspended plans to hold a kind of Koran bon fire after assurances that the mosque would be moved. Faced with this the Imam again balked, apparently "muslim" terrorists are better to appease. Lastly and most recently it appears that Donald Trump has offered to buy the holding share of the rights to the property where the mosque is to be build, offering 25% above what the holder paid. No word on the Imam's response but a lawyer for the stakeholder blasted it calling it a "pathetic attempt at PR" and again out and out disrespecting what should have been viewed as a respectful way to resolve this dispute.
In closing I will say that I hope that Americans are more angry and more fired up, as I am, following the Imam's interview. This is ridiculous, it needs to be stood on it's head and shown for the ugliness that is the Imam's disregard and disrespect for those that oppose this mosque. As I said before, this man claims to be a diplomat and a man that seeks peaceful solutions to bitter situations, well time to put up or STFU.
The link below is to the referenced CNN article.
-Zach
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/profile-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-the-man-behind-the-nyc-islamic-center/?iref=allsearch
Friday, September 10, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque
Well once again I have been neglecting my duties to all my fans by not posting regularly on my blog. Their have been a number of incidents that have happened over the past few months which I would have liked to comment on, but for the purpose of this post I will focus on the controversy surrounding the islamic center which is currently planned to be built around two blocks from where the World Trade Center stood. First off let me say that I am completely against the building of this Islamic center because of the location and also because of the very odd and questionable behavior of the Imam and his supporters who are funding this project.
The first thing I want to dismiss is this ridiculous notion that America is somehow islamophobic and that if you oppose this particular mosque it is because of religious intolerance. For anyone to claim such a thing they have to ignore a large amount of evidence to the contrary, the biggest one being that a consistent 70% of Americans oppose the building of this mosque. Are we to believe that 70% of Americans are religiously intolerant or could they, oh I dunno, have reasons other than religion to oppose this building? The next thing these guys have to ignore is that there are currently around 1209 mosques in America, 140 of them being in New York. Think that number is low? Well to put it in perspective that's more mosques than are in some Muslim majority countries such as Egypt. Lastly on this issue it is worth noting that the US is spending 6 million of our tax dollars to help build and renovate mosques in 27 different countries. If anyone still some sort of islamophobia in spite of this I hope they can at least back it up, but typically people who make such claims never plan on presenting any actual evidence of their claim. They simply yell it out, use some obscure reference they hope bolsters their claim and then hope their shouts drown out other more reasonable voices.
The real reason that people like me oppose this building has little to nothing to do with Islam, but the site of the building. I couldn't care less about someone going to their place of worship and praising God as they see fit. It is good that they have this right and I would want to do nothing to stand in their way. However, they want to build this Islamic center two blocks, or around 60o feet (two football fields) from a place where over 2500 people lost their lives in an act of terrorism committed by islamic terrorists. It doesn't get much more inappropriate than that and while they may have the right to practice their religion, I and others maintain our rights of free speech to call them the assholes they are for building such a thing so close to ground zero.
Still though, the media focuses on some supposed religious intolerance. Today in USA Today I find a front page article about a Muslim woman who lost her son in the 9/11 attacks. He was a EMT who when into the World Trade Center and unfortunately lost his life when it collapsed. The paper goes on to describe the reaction in America as a wave of islamophobia. I guess the paper feels that people should be more understanding when 3000 people are killed. The paper than tries to paint the picture that a supposed large amount of muslims were killed on that day stating that "hundreds of muslim families where affected" but later lists the number of muslims killed at 60 noting that it was much more than the "19 hijackers" but not noting that it amounts for all of 2% of the victims that day. I do feel sorry for this mother's loss. It shouldn't be trivialized but frankly this article was pathetic and just another example of a media reporting on a incident without even fully understanding why there is such strong opposition to the building of this center. It has nothing to due with religious intolerance or a hatred of islam, it's about location.
The last thing I want to point out with this issue is the lack of engagement by the Imam behind the building of this mosque. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has written three books concerning Islam in western society, ever notice you don't see many books concerning Christianity in the modern middle east? I digress. Imam Rauf is a well respected Islamic Scholar and appears to have earned a reputation has someone who seeks a peaceful outcome to many of our current conflicts with Islamic extremists. He has even gone so far as to refuse to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization stating that doing so would preclude any ability on his part to act as a intermediary. He further claims that the point in building the islamic center is to rebuff extremism and to hopefully have the effect of bringing communities together, promote dialogue and improve Islamic relations in America. It's fair to say right now that this center has had the opposite effect. No one views this center as a rebuff of extremism. They view it as a mocking victory marker. It hasn't improved dialogue between faiths, it's made it worst. In fact, and this is something I find as galling as the building itself, the supporters of such a mosque have been absent from the discussion over this building. They have refused to meet with NY Gov. David Patterson when he sought to resolve the issue and they have refused what would be seen by most peacemakers as a great opportunity for dialogue. To appear on TV to discuss the positives of your faith. To lament the loss of life on that day and to create a visual image for those of you absolutely condemning the actions of those on 9/11. All this has been rather arrogantly dismissed and instead they simply call those who oppose the building bigots and leave it at that.
Why is it that a man can claim to want to be an intermediary between Hamas and Israel, and yet when it comes to easing the minds of Americans and allowing for discussion on this issue that so many find painful he turns a deaf ear? Why is it that a man can claim to want dialogue and yet clams up when given the opportunity?
In the end there are many reasons to oppose this mosque, none of which has to due with an intolerance of Islam. So I close hoping against hope that the American discussion on this issue begins to focus on the location itself and the appropriate pressure is applied until the plans for the building are eventually moved to a better location.
-Zach
The first thing I want to dismiss is this ridiculous notion that America is somehow islamophobic and that if you oppose this particular mosque it is because of religious intolerance. For anyone to claim such a thing they have to ignore a large amount of evidence to the contrary, the biggest one being that a consistent 70% of Americans oppose the building of this mosque. Are we to believe that 70% of Americans are religiously intolerant or could they, oh I dunno, have reasons other than religion to oppose this building? The next thing these guys have to ignore is that there are currently around 1209 mosques in America, 140 of them being in New York. Think that number is low? Well to put it in perspective that's more mosques than are in some Muslim majority countries such as Egypt. Lastly on this issue it is worth noting that the US is spending 6 million of our tax dollars to help build and renovate mosques in 27 different countries. If anyone still some sort of islamophobia in spite of this I hope they can at least back it up, but typically people who make such claims never plan on presenting any actual evidence of their claim. They simply yell it out, use some obscure reference they hope bolsters their claim and then hope their shouts drown out other more reasonable voices.
The real reason that people like me oppose this building has little to nothing to do with Islam, but the site of the building. I couldn't care less about someone going to their place of worship and praising God as they see fit. It is good that they have this right and I would want to do nothing to stand in their way. However, they want to build this Islamic center two blocks, or around 60o feet (two football fields) from a place where over 2500 people lost their lives in an act of terrorism committed by islamic terrorists. It doesn't get much more inappropriate than that and while they may have the right to practice their religion, I and others maintain our rights of free speech to call them the assholes they are for building such a thing so close to ground zero.
Still though, the media focuses on some supposed religious intolerance. Today in USA Today I find a front page article about a Muslim woman who lost her son in the 9/11 attacks. He was a EMT who when into the World Trade Center and unfortunately lost his life when it collapsed. The paper goes on to describe the reaction in America as a wave of islamophobia. I guess the paper feels that people should be more understanding when 3000 people are killed. The paper than tries to paint the picture that a supposed large amount of muslims were killed on that day stating that "hundreds of muslim families where affected" but later lists the number of muslims killed at 60 noting that it was much more than the "19 hijackers" but not noting that it amounts for all of 2% of the victims that day. I do feel sorry for this mother's loss. It shouldn't be trivialized but frankly this article was pathetic and just another example of a media reporting on a incident without even fully understanding why there is such strong opposition to the building of this center. It has nothing to due with religious intolerance or a hatred of islam, it's about location.
The last thing I want to point out with this issue is the lack of engagement by the Imam behind the building of this mosque. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has written three books concerning Islam in western society, ever notice you don't see many books concerning Christianity in the modern middle east? I digress. Imam Rauf is a well respected Islamic Scholar and appears to have earned a reputation has someone who seeks a peaceful outcome to many of our current conflicts with Islamic extremists. He has even gone so far as to refuse to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization stating that doing so would preclude any ability on his part to act as a intermediary. He further claims that the point in building the islamic center is to rebuff extremism and to hopefully have the effect of bringing communities together, promote dialogue and improve Islamic relations in America. It's fair to say right now that this center has had the opposite effect. No one views this center as a rebuff of extremism. They view it as a mocking victory marker. It hasn't improved dialogue between faiths, it's made it worst. In fact, and this is something I find as galling as the building itself, the supporters of such a mosque have been absent from the discussion over this building. They have refused to meet with NY Gov. David Patterson when he sought to resolve the issue and they have refused what would be seen by most peacemakers as a great opportunity for dialogue. To appear on TV to discuss the positives of your faith. To lament the loss of life on that day and to create a visual image for those of you absolutely condemning the actions of those on 9/11. All this has been rather arrogantly dismissed and instead they simply call those who oppose the building bigots and leave it at that.
Why is it that a man can claim to want to be an intermediary between Hamas and Israel, and yet when it comes to easing the minds of Americans and allowing for discussion on this issue that so many find painful he turns a deaf ear? Why is it that a man can claim to want dialogue and yet clams up when given the opportunity?
In the end there are many reasons to oppose this mosque, none of which has to due with an intolerance of Islam. So I close hoping against hope that the American discussion on this issue begins to focus on the location itself and the appropriate pressure is applied until the plans for the building are eventually moved to a better location.
-Zach
Sunday, July 18, 2010
NAACP plays the race card against the Tea Party. Really?
Recently the NAACP passed a resolution against the tea party condemning what it stated where racist elements within the tea party. Shortly after it was passed Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP stated "Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions. We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards.'' Wow, how civil and open minded of the man.
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Second Amendment. Why is this so difficult?
Recently the supreme court, in a case similar to DC V Heller, struck down a hand gun ban in Chicago in McDonald V Chicago. The vote on this case, again like two years ago, was split down the middle 5-4 with the court deciding that the second amendment allows individuals the right own firearms and that no form of government may take this right away.
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Follies of the Obama Adminstration's Afghan policy
Recently President Obama decided to relieve General McCrystal from overall command from US forces in Afghanistan. The move comes not because of the continued rising violence in Afghanistan. It comes not as a result of a stalled offensive in Helmland province or a delay in even beginning an offensive in Kandahar province due to lack of "local support." It comes not as it becomes more and more known that the ROE that our forces are operation with over there are making us a joke. No, none of these are the reasons for General McCrystal's removal. The reason the man is getting canned is because of a Rolling Stone article in which General McCrystal and his aides were noted not saying very nice things about people in the Obama administration.
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
The Obama Adminstration's Lawsuit against Arizona
Recently it became known that the Obama administration has decided to file a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona's recently passed immigration law on the grounds that enforcing immigration is a federal responsibility and not a state one. On a personal note this is disappointing because IMO, this is a "issue" that should have been dead and gone inside of a week. The other thing that is very disappointing is that this lawsuit will likely be unsuccessful, which the Obama administration knows, but they will waste the federal dollars anyway in an obvious ploy meant to rally the liberal base and distract from Obama's sinking poll numbers.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Random comments
Well it's once again been a long time since I posted anything on my blog. I hope my many fans will excuse me as I have been a very busy person over the past few months.
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)