Another Perspective

  Yes, I copied this from The American Spectator.  

I listened to a radio show, Janet Parshall, last week I believe, on this very subject.  You must know that I hold Janet Parshall in the highest regard and think that her show "In the Market Place" is the best.  I was also very much swayed by her and her guest's argument for the SCOTUS decision on the Westboro case.  I also want to mention that I find that group's philosophy and actions despicable.  There is no honor, truth or honesty within their ranks as they only seek to promote disharmony that will result in their filing lawsuits for the primary purpose of funding their nefarious activities.

That being said, I present this because it has convinced me that Justice Samuel Alito, although being the lone dissenter, is in reality the only one that is right.  This is a person who has gained my wholehearted respect and admiration.  This is truly a patriot and a person who has "man-ed up" and wrote an opinion that is full of truth in an era that has fully rejected it, irrespective of the wrath of opinion that may be launched against him.

 

Another Perspective

Justice Alito Was Right

By William Murchison on 3.9.11 @ 6:09AM

It fell to Justice Samuel Alito the other day to remind Americans how far their culture of liberation has veered from common sense and appreciation of the small decencies that undergird civilization.
On a question of "free speech" -- at its center a claimed right to begrime with taunts and insults the funeral of a U.S. Marine -- the four members of the U.S. Supreme Court's liberal-permissivist bloc weren't likely to find against the jeer leaders. It was the conservative bloc whose behavior startled. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas went along with the permissivists, in the name of "robust, uninhibited, and wide-open" debate. As if the honored word "debate" applied to placards exhorting onlookers to "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Against his eight colleagues, Sam Alito stood in lonely, honorable dissent. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate," he wrote, "is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." Alito saw no free speech deprivation in the judgment a district court had levied against the traveling freak show known as Westboro Baptist Church, in Kansas: a gang keener on disrupting military funerals than on preaching the redemptive love of Jesus.
The picketers could have picketed almost anywhere in America, said Alito. Why at the church where the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was being held? From the claim of free speech rights there was no logical pathway to the intentional infliction of "severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity.'"
Among the judicial precedents Alito noted was a 1942 case in which the high court called attention to "the social interest in order and morality." That was of course back when American culture accorded order and morality a higher seat in national proceedings than was due trash-talking and narcissistic chest-thumping. The debasement of traditional norms of respect and civility, from the 1960s forward, accompanied cultural grants of latitude to do anything that resembled self-expression: burn a U.S. flag, swear on the air, publish pornography, insult or howl down a speaker.
Daniel Webster crying "Liberty and Union, now and forever," the Westboro wackos proclaiming, at military funerals, God's hatred of "fags" -- both are the same, it seems. Except they aren't. Not according to right reason they aren't.
I trust, after 47 years in the media, teaching and talking and writing, I needn't protest my devotion to "freedom of speech, or of the press," as the Founding Fathers referred to it. I am bound to add that free speech obtained its dignity and cultural warrant through the importance that earlier generations attributed to that "robust" debate praised by the court's 8-1 majority. That "God Hates Dead Soldiers" should be considered an idea on the same plane as "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is further evidence that modern society barely knows up from down.
When I taught journalism at a major university, I thrust Milton's "Areopagitica" in my students' faces. Here! Look! This is what free speech is about -- the quest for Truth! "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties," Milton had written. Yes! Yes!
Accordingly, we bind ourselves to put up with a fair amount of nonsense -- but not all nonsense, because no morally healthy society accords unlimited living space to the ugly, the twisted, the debased. Perhaps our own society just doesn't know anymore, due in part to Supreme Court tutelage, what real debasement looks like. We might get up a good debate on that topic, assuming the Westboro wackos and their pious defenders could be kept at bay.
Mr. Murchison is completing a biography of the founding father John Dickinson. An earlier version of this column appeared in the Dallas Morning News.

PatriotPost.US Alert:: TSA Invasive Body Scanners

Friday, November 12, 2010

Breaking: An investigation by The Patriot Post has determine that the three primary manufacturers of full body scanners being purchased by TSA with Obama (taxpayer) "stimulus" funding, are located in (you guessed it) Democrat congressional districts favored for such boondoggle funding in California and Massachusetts.

L-3 Communications ($165 million contract) is in Massachusetts congressional district 7 (Demo Rep. Ed Markey). American Science and Engineering is in Massachusetts congressional district 5 (Demo Rep. Niki Tsongas). And, Rapiscan ($173 million contract) is in California's 36th congressional district (Demo Rep. Jane Harman).

If you think the TSA scanners now being deployed at airports around the nation -- thanks to $73 million in Obama (taxpayer) stimulus funding -- are not invasive, you might reconsider after viewing this virtual strip search, which is a low resolution of the much higher resolution TSA scans now being used.

Is there a privacy issue here? Want your wives and daughters scanned or searched using the "enhanced pat down procedure" if a woman refuses to subject herself to the scan? Did you know that TnA, er, uh, TSA employees have cached these images? Reuters reports and thousands of them have been posted on the Web. Further, there are also health related concerns about scanner radiation.

When it comes to airport security matters, we put some stock into what the Israelis have to say. In April of this year, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority, Rafi Sela, who has been an expert in security and defence technology for 30 years, said of the body scanners: "I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747. That's why we haven't put them in [Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport]." (Obviously Sela's security decisions are not directed by politicians with stimulus money to burn.)

Sela believes a "trusted traveller" network would be better because pre-approved low-risk passengers would be subject only to expedited screening and higher risk individuals could then be subject to much more proven technology like automatic sniffers now used to detect explosive residue on airline baggage.

As for the "random search" procedures in effect at U.S. airports, Sela says, "Random searches are like Russian roulette." He is an advocate of behavioral profiling, but that would offend the sensibilities of travelers who actually fit the profile of a terrorist.

View a list of airports with scanners.
Links to more info on the new TSA protocols:
Assume the position:

Assume the position 2:

Assume the position 3:

Pilot Association says NO:


Columnist Steve Chapman concludes, "The war on terrorism is going to get personal. Very personal. Americans have long resented the hassles that go with air travel ever since 9/11 — long security lines, limits on liquids, forced removal of footwear and so on. But if the Transportation Security Administration has its way, we will look back to 2009 as the good old days. The agency is rolling out new full-body scanners, which eventually will replace metal detectors at all checkpoints. These machines replicate the experience of taking off your clothes, but without the fun. They enable agents to get a view of your body that leaves nothing to the imagination. For the camera-shy, TSA will offer an alternative: "enhanced" pat-downs. This is not the gentle frisking you may have experienced at the airport in the past. It requires agents to probe aggressively in intimate zones — breasts, buttocks, crotches. If you enjoyed your last mammography or prostate exam, you'll love the enhanced pat-down. And you'll get a chance to have an interesting conversation with your children about being touched by strangers. Besides the indignity of having one's body exposed to an airport screener, there is a danger the images will find a wider audience. The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a machine at a federal courthouse in Florida. TSA says that will never happen. Human experience says, oh, yes, it will."

The Ugly Side of Immigration (Illegal)

I grew up in Arizona near Tucson and there were Mexicans in the town where I grew up. There were Mexicans working in the copper industry throughout Arizona, New Mexico and other industries along the border. We never had the trouble that is going on now.

What is now happening is not an invasion of Mexico but an invasion of the drug industry people that Mexico is unable to control. What is a tragedy is that American citizens are caught in the middle of this and their rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are being trampled on by a criminal element. The other part of that tragedy is that the very government brought about by the greatest Constitution every written has wandered so far from the intent of that document as to be powerless to stop this travesty of justice.

Remember Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon? Here is their story from the news article: "These are Border Patrol agents who, in an incident near Fabens, Texas, in 2005, shot a fleeing drug-smuggler in the butt and wound up going to jail for 11 and 12 years, respectively. The U.S. attorney gave the drug-runner immunity to testify against the agents.

When it comes to the law versus the smugglers, the message that sends is crystal-clear. It's also difficult to reach any other conclusion when you hear a federal judge rule that illegal aliens have a right to interstate travel, as John Roll did in March, in a civil-rights case involving high-profile rancher Roger Barnett, a corridor resident. "

We have a serious crisis along the border and it does not even register on our national news....

If you want to see some of the most rugged of mountain ranges and areas and at the same time some of the most beautiful, use Google Earth and the areas named in this news article to locate them......this is all being ruined because we won't allow our enforcement agencies to do their jobs.

PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2008:

The Chiricahua Corridor

Drug-trafficking and crime victimize residents and destroy the environment along the Southern Arizona-New Mexico border

By LEO W. BANKS

Leo W. Banks
These peaks above Portal are called Twin Peaks. The illegal alien trail goes along Horseshoe Saddle and drops to the base of the peaks into South Fork.

Leo W. Banks
The remains of a dead cow at Jackwood Pass, high in the Chiricahuas. Illegal aliens walk over the mountains in the background.

Leo W. Banks
Medications and supplements used by illegal aliens in the Chiricahua Corridor.

Leo W. Banks
An illegal alien camp at Burro Springs in the Chiricahua Mountains.

Leo W. Banks
Part of the illegal dumpsite at Burro Springs in the Chiricahuas.

The roar of an ATV is hard to miss at 3 a.m. on a dark night in the Chiricahua Mountains. The sound carries a mighty distance, ricocheting through the canyons--and to anyone living in that place, in these times, it's recognized immediately as the sound of trouble.
So it was the night of July 16, when an ATV, almost certainly loaded with drugs, rumbled north across the Mexican border. It likely crossed the line on the west end of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, east of Douglas, came north along Black Draw through the heart of the San Bernardino Valley, then swung west across State Highway 80 into the Pedregosa Mountains.
From there, the smuggler bulled his way north through draws and washes up to Rucker Canyon on the west side of the Chiricahuas, possibly as far as Turkey Creek. It was a mad dash for sure, and the best evidence indicates he rode the entire distance, as much as 40 miles, in a single night, his wheels turned backward to foil trackers.
Residents view the ATV incursion, the first of several, as an escalation in an already intense battle with smugglers working the so-called Chiricahua Corridor. Perhaps optimistically, some view this pathway through southeast Arizona as one of the last wide-open border smuggling routes, and they fear the traffickers will grow more desperate as they fight to keep it open.
Already, residents have had to make room in their lives for everything the traffickers bring with them--suspicion, constant watchfulness, vandalism and break-ins. As a matter of course, few people dare leave their homes without a sitter. Alex Stone, a helicopter specialist for the Forest Service who owns a house near Portal, on the east side of the Chiricahuas, says flatly, "If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied."
Law enforcement? Border Patrol might be an hour away on a good day, and on a bad day, residents have to fend for themselves when the agency dispatcher in Douglas says, as sometimes happens, "Sorry, we have nobody to send."
The traffic has also brought to the Chiricahua Mountains, one of Arizona's special places, the same ugliness we see in other sanctuaries closer to the border: Piles of trash now foul major canyons and waters in the northeastern part of the range. Erosion bedevils established hiking trails, and illegals are making new trails in areas as high as 9,000 feet.
What's happening in the corridor challenges the government's campaign of using this year's decrease in arrests, nearing 25 percent in some areas, to convince citizens they're finally getting the border under control. It also shows the relentless northward march of the smugglers. After all, those who cross the Chiricahuas and walk all the way to Interstate 10, at the northern end of the corridor, have trekked nearly 70 punishing miles--evading law enforcement--putting them deep into the United States.

PLEASE read the rest of the story of the Chiricahua Corridor

Religious Persecution in the United States of America?

It is here and it is court ordered.....


Calif. court: Homosexual rights trump religious freedom

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 8/19/2008 6:45:00 AM

The same California Supreme Court that created a "right" to homosexual "marriage" earlier this year has now ruled that the state may force healthcare professionals to provide services that support an immoral and physically dangerous lifestyle.

California's highest court was unanimous in its decision on Monday that Christian doctors may not refuse to perform artificial insemination for homosexual patients. (See "California court says no religious exemption for doctors") Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), reacts to the ruling.

"This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith," he states bluntly. "Forcing doctors to have to choose between being a doctor and being a Christian in the State of California is an outrageous violation of the fundamental rights of every American to be able to practice their faith and not to have to leave their occupation because of it."

In the case in question, the Christian doctors refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian patient, but did refer her to another doctor who would perform the elective treatment. Dacus says that proves this suit was not about guaranteeing "healthcare" for homosexuals, but instead about punishing Christians for obeying God's Word.

"This is not about denying people services," the attorney argues. "This is, instead, about the 'thought police' attempting to censor Christian beliefs and Christian perspectives that don't agree with homosexuality. We're talking...about individuals being able to force doctors or other professionals to violate their faith in order to keep their job." And that, he adds, is a clear violation of the rights of individuals to be able to practice their expertise and, at the same time, not to have to deny their faith.

The PJI president says the ruling is quite broad and will apply to almost every profession in the state, meaning that Christian professionals and service providers -- childcare providers, for instance -- will be forced to provide services to homosexuals that support their immoral lifestyle and clearly violate biblical standards.

"For example, lawyers who are engaging in marriage and family law can now be forced to [execute] documents for homosexuals adopting children...," Dacus offers. "And individual with a wedding service, despite their Christian faith to the contrary, can now be forced to conduct wedding services and wedding preparations for lesbian or homosexual male couples."

Dacus says the case is certain to be appealed. "This just goes to show how critically important it is for us in the United States to have a Supreme Court that is not against those who practice the Christian faith but, instead, understands what the Constitution is about and [do] not engage in outrageous judicial activism," he says.

Persecution of Christians in the University's

Academia to high schools: No God allowed
State rejects Christian education as valid for university admissions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Arguments were heard today in a federal district court case to determine whether a state university system can dictate that private Christian schools in the state teach their college prep courses from exclusively secular, Bible- and God-free textbooks.

As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.

Robert Tyler, who is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, told WND that the university's discriminatory policy creates an ultimatum for Christian schools. "If you want courses to be approved in private education, so your students are qualified to attend (UC) institutions, you must teach from a secular point of view," he said.

"Christian schools will have to decide: teach from a Christian worldview and eliminate your student's ability to attend a UC school, or teach from a secular worldview, so that the kids can enter the UC school system," he explained.

Please, read the rest of the story by clicking HERE

Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country

Friday, July 25, 2008
Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country
by Mike Gallagher


The failure to readily identify the battle between good and evil is a nagging, ongoing, dangerous pattern that shows no sign of easing up any time soon.

This week on Fox News Channel, I appeared on a show and “debated” Ibrahim Hooper, a vocal and forceful representative of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. The topic? Whether or not it’s a good idea for a group of Islamic folks, represented by a man once linked by the federal government of plotting to blow up buildings and kill innocent Americans, to be allowed to plaster over a thousand subway cars in New York City with advertisements promoting Islam.

I’m not kidding you.

This man, a Brooklyn imam named Siraj Wahhaj, is all over a promotional video hyping the ad campaign for the trains. According to the New York Post, he has said things like, “In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

He was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Post reports that he has called the FBI and CIA “the real terrorists.”

And he served as a character witness for “the blink sheik”, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently rotting in jail for his role as one of the masterminds of the 1993 WTC bombing.

Now, he’s a spokesman for this wacky ad campaign that would attempt to teach people stuck on subway trains in New York City all about the wonders of Islam.

I can’t think of any city on the planet that should have to endure such a cruel taunt. But the idea of doing this to New Yorkers is obscene.

Already a number of NYC officials are calling upon the MTA, the transit agency that runs the subway system, to reject the ill-conceived ad campaign.

This week on the Fox News program, Mr. Hooper attempted to deliver a monologue about what a wonderful man this Siraj Wahhaj is; how those of us who object to the subway ad campaign are trying to prohibit “free speech;” and the old favorite of activists like Hooper, we’re demonstrating anti-Islamic bigotry.

It’s simply astounding that such a debate could even occur in the United States today. Picture what this country felt like in the weeks and months after 9/11. Can you imagine anyone even beginning to allow an advertising campaign promoting Islam, being endorsed and supported by a man the feds believe to be a terrorist, on New York City subways?

And yet we are suffering through the stench of moral relativism. Every position must be countered. Right doesn’t necessarily mean right, wrong might not be wrong.

A brutal, cowardly Arab terrorist who was convicted of bashing a little 4-year old Jewish girl’s head in with a rifle butt is released to Lebanon in exchange for a pair of dead Israeli soldiers. He’s met by adoring, cheering crowds and given a red-carpet welcome.

The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there.

Our country gives a couple of million minimum wage workers a big hourly pay hike and the mainstream media immediately complains by saying that high gas and food prices make the pay increase irrelevant. And when former Sen. Phil Gramm accurately points out that we’re a nation of whiners and misery sells newspapers, he’s forced to resign from his leadership post in the John McCain campaign.

I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win.

Good can and will triumph over evil.

We just have to have the guts to know the difference between the two.

Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds

Thursday, July 24, 2008
Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds
by Michael Reagan


Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco’s outrageous sanctuary-city policy, which forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it’s time for President Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this absurd policy.

On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn’t have been -- were not for the city’s sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 -- involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city’s juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as required by federal law.

Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter. Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status."

On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation. Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger. He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations.

There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years the city’s juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from surrendering them for deportation.

After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men, San Francisco’s ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men.

Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of innocent Americans.

Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law],” the report stated. “They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”

Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting them to ICE.

President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal activities by aliens here illegally.