SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (136405)6/28/2012 4:02:48 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224755
 
philips....Here is what America can expect more of from your dear leader...her ya go philips more of your kind or dangerous radicals.

Muslim mob stones Christians – in U.S.!

Hundreds chant, 'Allahu Akbar!' while hurling urine, eggs, bottles, concrete
Thursday, June 28, 2012
wnd.com

American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI (Original edit)
youtube.com!

It happened in an American city: Hundreds of angry Muslim children and adults rioted against Christians, throwing chunks of concrete and eggs at their heads, spraying them with urine and cursing at them – while police stood by and threatened the Christian victims with “disorderly conduct.”

The city of Dearborn, Mich., hosted its annual 2012 Arab International festival on Father’s Day weekend. As can be seen in a video of the attack, a group of Christians holding signs were viciously assaulted by an angry mob of Arabs – as the crowd chanted “Allahu Akbar!” – Arabic for “God is the greatest!”

Starting at the 9:00 mark and continuing to about the 10:30 mark, the crowd – reminiscent of a rock-throwing “intifada” scene from the Middle East – can be seen hurling a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians standing passively with their signs, causing some injuries.

At the beginning of the video, Christian street preachers shout, “God is good, and God is not Allah!”

First, police approached Ruben Israel of OfficialStreetPreachers.com, warning him, “The city of Dearborn has an ordinance, OK, that you guys can’t use the megaphone. So, if you guys continue to use that, you will get a citation.”

Israel noted that the group was allowed to use the megaphone in 2011. Then he asked the officer, “So, if we don’t use a megaphone, can we throw water bottles at the crowd?”

The officer shook his head no.

“So what are you going to do if they throw water bottles at us?” Israel asked.

“If that happens, we will take care of that and address it,” the officer promised.

When Israel said he had captured the mob’s assault on the Christians on video, the officer suggested he “take it through the proper channels, and we’ll try to find them.”

However, at the 2:17 mark of the video, the mob can be heard screaming, “You want to jump ‘em? C’mon, let’s go!”

One boy yells, “Let’s beat the sh-t out of them!”

A girl shouts, “Go home! Do you understand English?!”

The Christians are no longer using megaphones, as the mob advances on them from all angles – hurling bottles, cans, eggs, chunks of concrete and even milk crates toward their heads.

Even young children shout obscenities such as, “F—k you, b-tch!”

Meanwhile, police are nowhere to be seen in the video.

One of the Christians asks another, “Is this worse than last year?”

He replies, “Oh my goodness, yeah!! This is insanity.”

At the 6:55 mark, an irate 18-year-old man from Iraq gets into the Christians’ faces, screaming, “If you don’t like Dearborn, then go the f—k back home! … I am an American citizen, and I have my rights. There’s freedom of religion, isn’t there?”

He screams, “So why do you guys pray like this on the bank? Oh Lord. Why don’t you get on the ground, like the prophets, huh? You’re Christian. That’s what it says in the Bible, you stupid sh-t!”

Many minutes into the video and after much of the shouting takes place, Dearborn mounted police ride through the crowd. The video states that no arrests were made.

According to the tape, the mob began chucking more stones, bottles and debris as the Christians were injured and property damaged.

“Dearborn Police finally arrive after 30 mins of assault,” a caption states.

Despite the attacks the Christians had endured, a man identified in the video as Deputy Chief Dennis Richardson of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office tells them, “You’re a danger to the safety right now.”

Officers claim they don’t have the manpower to protect the Christians at the festival.

“Your safety is in harm’s way. You need to protect everybody,” said Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. “You do have the option to leave. I just want to make that clear.”

Israel replied, “You have the option to stand with us” as Jaafar walked away, leaving the Christians to the mob.

When police leave, the crowd continues harassing the Christians and screaming profanities.

Then police begin escorting the Christians away from the crowd.

Deputy Chief Richardson tells Israel, “We have the responsibility of policing the entire festival, and obviously your conduct is such that it’s causing a disturbance and is a direct threat to the safety of everyone here. Someone could get hurt. You already have blood on your face. One of the festival people, one of my officers, anybody can get hurt. Now we’re going to escort you out.”

Israel explains that the mob throws things and becomes more aggressive when police leave the scene.

“Part of the reason that they throw things on someone is because you tell them stuff that enrages them,” Richardson argues.

Israel tells Richardson that the Christians aren’t even saying anything to the crowd at this point.

“We’re not even preaching,” he said. “So it’s obviously the signs. Now the signs are going to be illegal? … My thing is, if we could have a couple of officers there, that would kind of keep ‘em at bay.”

Richardson insists that the Christians leave, telling Israel, “You’re going to leave now. We’re escorting you that way.”

Israel resists, saying, “We can’t do that.”

But Deputy Chief Jaafar re-enters the scene and tells him, “It’s not your call. We’ve been very gentle and very, very respectful to you. You are jeopardizing public safety, and you need to understand it’s going overboard. … You’re attracting a crowd and affecting public safety, and you need to understand that.”

Richardson asks Israel, “How many bottles or objects have you been hit with?”

He replies, “Uh, I lost count. It’s only because you guys weren’t around. We have video of that.”

Israel also tells him, “We did try to contact the sheriff. The problem is, he didn’t respond. We did try to contact the city attorney…. The reason this is going on now is because of what happened last year. What happened last year is you allowed it to escalate into this. And so, you guys just lost a lawsuit on free speech, and you want to do it again.”

Another Christian asks Richardson, “Why don’t you get us a bullpen that we asked for in the email?”

“OK, that’s a free-speech zone,” he replied. “And the Chamber of Commerce decided that they did not want a free-speech zone.”

At that, he insisted once again that the Christians leave.

Israel argues that the officers are jeopardizing free speech.

“Let me ask you this: If we don’t leave, are we going to get arrested?” he asked.

“Probably, we will cite you all, yes,” Richardson tells him, adding, “You are a danger to public safety. You’re disorderly.

Israel replies, “I would assume 200 angry Muslim children throwing bottles would be more of a threat than a few guys with signs.”

The Christians tell one another: “If they make us leave right now, they reward riotous behavior.”

A woman steps in to speak with the officers, and then they tell the Christians, “If you don’t leave, we are going to cite you for disorderly conduct. … Look at your people, here. This is crazy! Now let’s go.”

After they leave, the Christians are pulled over in their van by at least 12 police officers. The video does not explain why.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (136405)6/28/2012 4:04:04 PM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
The news services all stated first that the individual mandate as related was struck down. It was confusion at the actual court as that was read first. Then they were sideswiped by the the court allowing it to stand as a tax.

Understandable confusion.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (136405)6/28/2012 4:05:12 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
The political genius of John Roberts
Posted by Ezra Klein on June 28, 2012 at 3:12 pm

washingtonpost.com

After Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes deftly beat back Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing proposal, FDR said, with grudging admiration, that Hughes was the best politician in the country. “That was hardly the way Hughes would have chosen to be remembered,” writes James Simon in “FDR and Chief Justice Hughes,” “though there was much truth in the president’s remark.”

I doubt Roberts wants to be known for his political skills, either. But in today’s decision, he showed that, like Hughes before him, he’s got those skills in spades.

The decision today is being reported as 5-4, with Roberts voting with the liberals. Akhil Reid Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law, sees it differently. “The decision was 4-1-4,” he said.

Here’s what Amar means: The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”

His break with the conservatives, and his only point of agreement with the liberals, was in finding that the mandate was a “tax” — a finding that, while extremely important for the future of the Affordable Care Act, is not a hugely consequential legal question.

“We won,” said Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who was perhaps the most influential legal opponent of the Affordable Care Act. “All the arguments that the law professors said were frivolous were affirmed by a majority of the court today. A majority of the court endorsed our constitutional argument about the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet we end up with the opposite outcome. It’s just weird.”

One interpretation is that Roberts was playing umpire today: He was simply calling balls and strikes, as he promised to do in his Senate confirmation hearings. But as Barnett’s comments suggest, the legal reasoning in his decision went far beyond the role of umpire. He made it a point to affirm the once-radical arguments that animated the conservative challenge to the legislation. But then he upheld it on a technicality.

It’s as if an umpire tweaked the rules to favor his team in the future, but obscured the changes by calling a particular contest for the other side. ”John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson. “We’re on poker. He’s on chess.”

By voting with the liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has put himself above partisan reproach. No one can accuse Roberts of ruling as a movement conservative. He’s made himself bulletproof against insinuations that he’s animated by party allegiances.

But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, he nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

And for President Obama, who has labored without success to find a bipartisan foothold in his advocacy for the Affordable Care Act, Roberts’s coup in writing an opinion that has found support on both sides must inspire some grudging respect.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (136405)6/28/2012 5:47:45 PM
From: tonto4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
You should read the posts on the President Barack Obama thread. They like CNN were wrong...all trying to sound as if they were in the know yesterday and then today talk about how Roberts had fooled them. What they really are saying is that they have opinions on everything but know very little...