Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (913779)	1/12/2016 4:06:06 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By dave rose locogringo Respond to of 1574098

What’s up with the Senate Judiciary Committee? Part Two Power Line by Paul Mirengoff (Paul Mirengoff) Today, the Senate easily confirmed the nomination of Luis Felipe Restrepo to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Restrepo spent years as a public defender and in private practice as a criminal defense and “civil rights” attorney. An obvious left-winger, he naturally had the enthusiastic support of groups of that persuasion. Before the vote on Restrepo, Sen. Charles Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement on the Senate floor. In effect, he praised himself and fellow Republicans for confirming so many Obama-appointed judges: Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Luis Restrepo to be a circuit judge for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If he is confirmed, he will be the 319th judicial nominee confirmed during President Obama’s presidency. By comparison, at this time in 2008, the beginning of President Bush’s last year in office, the Senate had confirmed only 297 judicial nominees. That’s 22 more nominees for President Obama. I’ve heard a lot of complaining about the pace of judicial nominations this Congress, but I believe actions speak louder than words. And the Senate’s actions have had concrete results. For example, last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for 35 nominees. That’s exactly what the Committee did in 2007, when we also held hearings for a total of 35 nominees. Furthermore, I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, there is no judicial vacancy “crisis.” 2015 had the lowest average vacancy rate during President Obama’s presidency, and was among the lowest in the last 25 years. Currently, both the district and circuit courts are over 91 percent filled. The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to hold hearings this year on judicial nominees and we’ll continue to do our due diligence in evaluating those nominees. I’m here to set the record straight on the progress the Senate’s made with regard to judicial nominations. But I don’t view it as a productive effort to continue with the finger pointing and the negative back and forth regarding the previous pace or outcome of judicial nominations. Grassley may not “view. . .as productive” the “finger pointing and the negative back and forth” about the pace of judicial nominations. However, Democrats do, and Grassley’s statement shows exactly why, from their perspective, it is “productive.” Clearly, the Dems have managed to “guilt” the Iowa Senator and his colleagues into confirming leftists like Restrepo even in President Obama’s last year in office. Astonishingly, he is more concerned with fending off partisan accusations than with combating the lawlessness of the Obama administration and its potential successor by depriving them of the judicial votes they may need. In short, the Democrats are inside Grassley’s head. This is a scandal. Obama is using executive orders on multiple fronts to circumvent Congress and the laws it has passed. The Senate Democrats helped clear the way by eliminating the filibuster of judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level and then packing key circuits with lefty nominees when they still had a majority in the Senate. What is Chuck Grassley’s response? Confirm more leftists so he can cite happy statistics and try to win the “finger pointing and negative back and forth” about the pace of judicial nominations. Why is he trying to impress the New York Times and the Washington Post? It’s time to insist that the Republican Senate close up shop when it comes to confirming nominees to the courts of appeals (and any district court nominees with the hint of a leftist track record). Grassley already has the numbers he can tout, if he’s foolish enough to do so. And, as he said today, there is no judicial vacancy crisis. Enough already. I should also note that the matter of judicial confirmations is just one area in which the Senate Judiciary Committee has let conservatives down. I discussed other areas in this post. As I said at that time, “It’s not always easy these days to tell which party controls the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

To: Brumar89 who wrote (913779)

1/12/2016 6:53:15 AM

From: FJB

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

Respond to of 1574098

Turkey: Is It Religiously All Right to Lust for My Daughter?

by Burak Bekdil • January 12, 2016 at 4:30 am

The Directorate for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet in Turkish, enjoys an annual budget bigger than those of more than 10 other ministries combined -- and its president, a government-appointed cleric, enjoys a $400,000 chauffeur-driven car.

Turkey accuses those who protest lusting for one's daughter of hating religiosity.

"[G]ossip and holding hands, not allowed in Islam." — Fatwa from Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs.

Mehmet Gormez, President of Turkey's Directorate of Religious Affairs. (Image source: Ilke Haber video screenshot)

Turkey has a government agency that regulates "religious affairs" [read: Sunni Muslim Affairs]. It is run by the country's top Muslim cleric and reports to the prime minister. The Directorate for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet in Turkish, enjoys an annual budget bigger than those of more than 10 other ministries combined – and its president, a government-appointed cleric, enjoys a $400,000 chauffeur-driven car.

Among its duties is to issue "fatwas," or to tell Muslim Turks what is religiously permissible and what is not. Its current president, the top cleric, also enjoys making long, doctrinaire speeches. When, a year ago, Islamist extremists in Paris were putting the final touches on their gruesome plan to kill a dozen cartoonists and attack the Charlie Hebdo magazine, Diyanet was busy issuing fatwas and publishing a religious calendar for three million or so desks and walls in offices and homes. Diyanet, at that time, also issued a fatwa that urged Muslims who have tattoos to repent if unable to erase them. Another fatwa in Diyanet's 2015 calendar said: "Do not keep pet dogs at home ... Prophet Mohammed once said: 'Angels do not visit homes where there are dogs and paintings.'"

In those days of Parisian chaos -- even before the jihadists killed over 130 people in November -- Diyanet's president and Turkey's top cleric, Professor Mehmet Gormez "did not believe" jihadists could kill innocent people. Speaking to a press conference in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, Gormez said that the use of Islamic symbols by the perpetrators of the attack was a sign of "manipulation." In other words, Professor Gormez was telling the world that someone else was carrying out the attacks and putting the blame on Muslims.
...
Diyanet's second fatwa, appeared briefly on the fatwa section of its website (until it was deleted), in answer to readers' questions. An anonymous user asked whether, from a religious perspective, a father having sexual desire for his daughter should result in the cancellation of his marriage.

The ulama [scholars] answered that, "There is a difference of opinion on the matter among Islam's different schools of thought." The fatwa read: "For some, a father kissing his daughter with lust or caressing her with desire has no effect on the man's marriage."

The response continued by saying that in one Islamic school of thought, Hanafi, the motherwould be "forbidden" to such a man. "Moreover," the fatwa went on, "The girl would be over nine years of age."

Possibly too embarrassed by its own fatwa, Diyanet first deleted its ulama's answer to the query and claimed that its answer was deliberately "distorted" through "tricks, wiliness and wordplay" aiming to discredit the institution. It then closed its "queries" section and posted a warning saying the page in question was "under repair."

As thousands of Turks decried Diyanet's scandalous fatwa and accused the ulama of encouraging child abuse, a helping hand to Diyanet came from Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag. In his twitter account, he called the accusations a "character assassination" against the religious body. The "assassins," according to Bozdag, "were those miserably types who are annoyed by religion and the pious."

Continue Reading Article