theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Sunday, May 31, 2015

When Minorities Became Majorities










theodore miraldi 

We have seen this before. The naggers, complainers, social deviants, unemployable, anti-simulation, foreign tongued masses come across our borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. They were immigrants, driven by the will to have a better life, to do what was right, to give their children the opportunities they didn't never had gotten. And although they weren't immediately welcomed, they earned our respect. This has been the modality that built the nation. That built our communities, taught our children and attended our Churches. 


So what went wrong? 


Immigrants landing on our shores were promised nothing more the an opportunity. They lined up and waited for hours, days and weeks to finally know whether they could stay in this nation of opportunity. They didn't riot, demand or threaten entry, they were humble and grateful and acted in a socialized manner to plant their roots. The English, the Irish,the Italians, the Jews, The Polish and many others from European ancestry. Europeans who socialized within and without their particular cultures and belief systems. They were what finally created our Greatest Generation.


They lived in poverty and squalor for generations, but they never gave up. And finally became part of the fabric of this nation. They lived through the greatest economic collapse the world has ever seen, and they survived.


There was little, if any government assistance.


Immigrants lived the ghettos of every American city in this nation, and worked their way out. They educated their children and took pride in the American Experience. The dream to leave poverty behind realized. They than became our mighty middle class.


They assimilated, and that's the key.


Remember that when you see thousands of Illegals marching in your community carrying Foreign flags and burning ours. When your children are bullied in school by teachers and illegal children who are living on your dime.


This is our country! Not there's. They show little respect for law and order and will get in you face.


And why is this happening?


Our leaders are capitulating to the naggers, complainers, the social deviants, They are blaming you for there lack of opportunity, and members of our government are working with them. A government for the people, and by the people. Unfortunately the people aren't you!


This must come to an abrupt halt. There are many who enter our nation play by the rules and have successful lives. That's what our nation is about success. 


Assimilate or, leave voluntarily. The time is nearing when action will speak the mind of our nation.

When Minorites Become Majorities










theodore miraldi 


We have seen this before. The naggers, complainers, social deviants, unemployable, anti-simulation, foreign tongued masses come across our borders since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. They were immigrants, driven by the will to have a better life, to do what was right, to give their children the opportunities they didn't never had gotten. And although they weren't immediately welcomed, they earned our respect. This has been the modality that built the nation. That built our communities, taught our children and attended our Churches. 


So what went wrong? 


Immigrants landing on our shores were promised nothing more the an opportunity. They lined up and waited for hours, days and weeks to finally know whether they could stay in this nation of opportunity. They didn't riot, demand or threaten entry, they were humble and grateful and acted in a socialized manner to plant their roots. The English, the Irish,the Italians, the Jews, The Polish and many others from European ancestry. Europeans who socialized within and without their particular cultures and belief systems. They were what finally created our Greatest Generation.


They lived in poverty and squalor for generations, but they never gave up. And finally became part of the fabric of this nation. They lived through the greatest economic collapse the world has ever seen, and they survived.


There was little, if any government assistance.


Immigrants lived the ghettos of every American city in this nation, and worked their way out. They educated their children and took pride in the American Experience. The dream to leave poverty behind realized. They than became our mighty middle class.


They assimilated, and that's the key.


Remember that when you see thousands of Illegals marching in your community carrying Foreign flags and burning ours. When your children are bullied in school by teachers and illegal children who are living on your dime.


This is our country! Not there's. They show little respect for law and order and will get in you face.


And why is this happening?


Our leaders are capitulating to the naggers, complainers, the social deviants, They are blaming you for there lack of opportunity, and members of our government are working with them. A government for the people, and by the people. Unfortunately the people aren't you!


This must come to an abrupt halt. There are many who enter our nation play by the rules and have successful lives. That's what our nation is about success. 


Assimilate or, leave voluntarily. The time is nearing when action will speak the mind of our nation.

Obama's 2,300 new regulations spark civil-disobedience plan

'Government is going to become increasingly irrelevant to our lives'

paper_stack

GREG COROMBOS

Just before the Memorial Day weekend, the Obama administration released 2,300 new regulations, and a new proposed water rule that has states howling mad, but a prominent Washington author and scholar is offering a blueprint to rein in the federal regulatory state through organized civil disobedience.
Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also the author of several high-profile and controversial books, including “Losing Ground,” “The Bell Curve” and “Coming Apart.” His latest work is “By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.”
The book concludes that civil disobedience on a grand but peaceful scale is needed to shake the government off the backs of Americans because the nation’s political and legal systems and even its Constitution are insufficient to bring the government back under control.
“The system is paralyzed in ways that are not going to be fixed by electing the right Congress, by getting the right five people on the Supreme Court or by electing the right president,” Murray said.
“The regulatory state, which is my target for this, is largely beyond the reach of any of those branches of government. That’s not a wild-eyed statement. That’s pretty much matter-of-fact statement of the way the regulatory state functions.”
While the growth of government spans over many decades, Murray said much of the unchecked power of federal regulators can be traced to a brief span in the Franklin Roosevelt administration.
“It all happened in a period of about five years, from 1937-1943, where you had half-a-dozen key Supreme Court cases which very explicitly said, ‘We are now going to adopt a new interpretation of what the text of the Constitution says, and this new interpretation unleashes the government from the strict limits that the Constitution previously put on them,’” Murray said.
He said a 1943 case changed the regulatory course of America forever.
“The Supreme Court said it’s OK for Congress to write legislation that has a high-minded purpose and vague words for saying what that purpose is and then leave it up to the regulatory agency to develop regulations independently of any further legislative guidance on how to implement this high-minded objective,” said Murray.
“That was the moment at which the regulatory state basically got its declaration of independence. It took a couple of decades to take off, but that’s where it started,” he said.
And that is why Murray believes Americans should aim organized civil disobedience at the federal regulatory state, but he said it has to be done intelligently because some oversight is needed in society.
“Some regulation is appropriate and necessary,” he said. “I’m happy to see regulations of coal mines so that the tunnels that miners go into are safe and are not going to collapse. There are a variety of other regulations I have no intention of asking people to ignore.”
However, Murray said there are plenty of other regulations that serve no constructive purpose other than to erode the freedom of honest, hard-working Americans.
“I’m really focused on the regulations that get in the way of ordinary Americans, small business people, homeowners, community groups – which get in the way of them living their lives as they see fit, providing goods and services, solving community problems in ways that are essential to our civic culture,” Murray said.
Many on the right believe the recent Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule proposed by Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency fits into what Murray just described. The administration says the rule is designed to protect wetlands and waterways, but critics say it will amount to a “regulatory and economic hell” for farmers and business owners because it gives the government authority over virtually any collection of water, from rivers to small streams and possibly even puddles.
One of the most controversial regulations among the 2,300 unveiled before Memorial Day would require reductions in ozone emissions. Again, the administration cites environmental concerns, while the National Association of Manufacturers claims it could be the costliest in U.S. history. It estimates businesses could lose up to $140 billion per year if the regulation goes through.
While those rules bother Murray, he offered examples of much simpler regulations that infringe on small numbers of people, but He said they are just as offensive.
“People doing these things are suddenly told, ‘Oh, you can’t do that. You’re breaking the law. You owe us a fine. You cannot organize this little playground you want in your neighborhood. You can’t provide the service that your business provides in the way you want to provide it.’”
Enter Murray’s weapon to fight back on a large scale.
“I’m not worried about big corporations. I’m not worried about grand themes. I want to lift the burden of these pointless, picayune regulations from ordinary Americans,” Murray said. “To do that, I think what we need it a large legal defense fund that comes to their aid.”
Murray would call it the Madison Fund and believes it would need to be staked with about $200 million to be truly effective. He said the strategy is to stand up for harassed Americans and take overreaching bureaucrats to court.
“They are technically guilty of [violating] a regulation. The regulation’s really silly, but they’re technically guilty,” Murray explained. “The Madison Fund says to the bureaucracy, ‘We are taking this person’s case. We are going to litigate it to the max even though this person technically violated the regulation. We’re going to make your life miserable. We are going to drag out the litigation as long as we can. When you finally find the person guilty and levy a fine, we’re going to reimburse the fine.”
The goal, he said, is not to gum up the courts but to make regulators think long and hard before trying to enforce ridiculous regulations.
“If you have a fund that continually does that and does that with a lot of cases – hundreds or even thousands of cases – it’s not very long if you’re a bureaucrat in a regulatory agency and somebody has violated a regulation that did no harm to anybody and then you’re told the Madison Fund is taking that case. You have to say to yourself, ‘Do we really want to go through with this?’”
Another major focal point for the Madison Fund would be to increase public awareness of regulations ruining people’s lives and shifting public opinion toward more freedom. But to do that, Murray said, cases will have to be chosen very carefully.
“You don’t take a case if you’re the Madison Fund unless you are confident that that publicity will get the overwhelming support of the American people,” he said. “So whether they are moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans, when they read about that case, they will say, ‘I’m on the side of the citizen that the government is going after.”
But before you start looking for the Madison Fund online, be aware that it does not exist and Murray has no intention of starting it.
“I write books. I don’t run funds,” he said. “I really hope somebody picks up the ball, but I’m old enough to be quite confident that I know what I can do and what I can’t do. Being the manager of a big fund is one of the things that I can’t do.”
If an organized legal fight against the regulatory state were to achieve some success, Murray said it might pave the way for other avenues to reform government for the better. But he also sees emerging technology and communications as the newest weapons in confronting government. Using the explosion of businesses like Uber, Murray said more power is returning to the individual.
“Uber is just the leading edge of a wide variety of things that are enabled by new technology, that provide superior services, that work around the government,” he said. “I have no hope of making our government responsive and trim and flexible. It’s not going to happen. I do have a lot of hope that government is going to become increasingly irrelevant to our lives.”

Source>http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/obamas-2300-new-regulations-spark-civil-disobedience-plan/#GycqyIMpZ2il3VAF.99

Schlafly: Obama is 'waging war on America'

Conservative icon says immigrants and refugees are the foot soldiers

Obama


By Paul Bremmer
President Obama is instigating a war on the United States, according to longtime conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly. But the president hasn’t dropped a bomb or fired a shot; rather, he has opened the country to tens of millions of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, including from Muslim countries that hate America.
“It is waging war on America,” Schlafly told WND. “Muslims would like to take over the world and establish their caliphate, and Obama has let so many Muslims in. I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country. There’s no reason why they should come in.”
In a study released last fall, the Center for Immigration Studies reported nearly 300,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries entered the United States from 2010 to 2013. That brought the total number of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries to 2.4 million, compared to 2.1 million in 2010 and 1.5 million in 2000.
However, simple immigration is not the whole story. Each year, the U.S. also welcomes thousands of refugees – foreigners who seek refuge in the U.S. because they either were persecuted or fear persecution in their home countries.
The State Department, which oversees the refugee resettlement program, aims to resettle 70,000 total refugees a year. It is estimated that roughly 40 percent of all refugees come from predominantly Muslim countries. WND has reported the U.S. has accepted nearly 2 million refugees from Muslim countries since 1992.
The Syrian civil war has created thousands of refugees. The U.S. accepted an initial batch of 9,000 last December, but some resettlement agencies were not satisfied, as they lobbied for the U.S. to take in at least 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Americans should be alarmed about the growing number of Syrian refugees coming to America.
“It’s clear the administration does want to dramatically accelerate immigration from Syria through the refugee program, and that is very troubling because there is no way to accurately vet or carefully vet people for their prior bad acts and associations with terrorism,” Camarota told WND. “The records were always weak, and the regime always corrupt, and now what records did exist are largely gone.”
Schlafly, author of “Who Killed the American Family?,” also is concerned about Middle Eastern refugees who don’t blend in with the American way of life and who may wish America harm.
“Obama is trying to absolutely change America by bringing in people who have no sympathy with what Americans believe,” she declared. “They have no concept of limited government, of constitutional government, of rule of law, et cetera. There’s no reason we should let in people who don’t even like America.”
However, Camarota disagreed that Obama is solely to blame for the massive immigration and refugee resettlement.
“For the most part, our immigration system runs on autopilot, with the acquiescence of both parties,” Camarota said. “It’s just not right to think of this – of mass legal immigration, refugees, family immigration – as being attributable to Obama.
“What I do think you could criticize this administration for, but it’s not clear that other administrations were very different, is incredible foolishness when thinking about these questions.”
Camarota cited the Somali Bantus as an example. He said they were captured in Mozambique and brought to Somalia as slaves, where they reside today as a marginalized ethnic minority. Their kinsmen still live in Mozambique. Camarota argued it would make sense for the U.S. government to help the Bantus return to Mozambique, especially since Mozambique has expressed a willingness to take them back. But instead, the U.S. has resettled them in America.
Camarota also said the U.S. is now accepting refugees from Bhutan who originally come from Nepal.
“It would make so much more sense to help Nepal take those folks back,” he reasoned.
Similarly, Camarota argues the U.S. should help Middle Eastern refugees not by bringing them to the U.S. but by helping other countries in the Middle East find a place for them.
“There’s a cultural affinity there,” he said. “They would be nearby; then they’d be much more likely to return to their homes once the war’s over, rather than coming to the other side of the world here in America.”
It will cost money to help refugees settle overseas, Camarota admitted, but it won’t cost as much as it would to resettle them in the U.S. and hook them on welfare. The research director said refugees have greater access to the American welfare system when they first arrive than ordinary immigrants do.
“Once you have a green card, there’s no meaningful difference between that green card and someone who comes in on family based immigration, except that the refugee has immediate access to all these welfare programs in a way that green card holders are more limited,” he explained.
Camarota concerns himself mostly with the economic questions surrounding immigration, but he said the U.S. government doesn’t do a good job of weaving new arrivals into the social fabric.
“We don’t have any policy for how we successfully integrate and assimilate people into our country,” he said.
Schlafly, as always, is chiefly concerned with how immigrants will fit into the American social fabric.
“Anybody who comes in should have to renounce allegiance to his former country and accept the American way of life,” she declared. “And if he doesn’t want to do that, goodbye! Adios!”

Source>http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/schlafly-obama-is-waging-war-on-america/#dbovXru0vsQrV5pz.99

The Clintons’ Favorite Way to Lie


By JONAH GOLDBERG

Dear Reader (including Crom, who cares not what I write), When my daughter was little more than a toddler, she wrote all over the wall with a pen in my wife’s home office. We confronted her about it. She listened intently, trying hard to be surprised by the news of this defilement of our domicile. “What happened, Lucy?” we asked.
After a long and nervous pause, she replied, “I know what happened.” Excited by her own duplicitous inventiveness and restrained by her desire to sell it, she said very seriously, “A bad girl must have come into the house and did this.” She tsk-tsked, “What a bad girl,” shaking her head while looking at the wall. I need not dwell on the implausibility of roving bands of ninja-like naughty toddlers — or lone-wolf munchkins — breaking into nice homes to scribble on the upstairs walls and then depart leaving no other trace of their schemes. I simply bring this up to say that my daughter’s “a bad girl did it” gambit is a wildly more powerful and resolute claim of innocence than “you have no smoking gun. Again My column from yesterday is on this very point. So I won’t recycle it here. I will, however, recycle from an infinitely better “news”letter I penned a couple months ago. I wrote, “If you want to know what Hillary Clinton would be like as president, you’re seeing it right now. There is no other Hillary. This is her.” It’s Hillary all the way down. And I wrote that before the Peter Schweizer book came out. I wrote that before Sidney Blumenthal was awakened from his slumber by a congressional subpoena (rumor has it he sleeps upside down in a basement at the Clinton Foundation wrapped in his own mothwings). My point isn’t that I am prescient. My point is that Hillary is predictable. I could have written that in 2000 when she went on her last “listening tour” in a Scooby van, or at almost any other moment of the last 30 years.  There are no “new” Hillarys. There are, on occasion, new strategies to dupe people into thinking there is a new Hillary. But these Potemkin do-overs are usually as pale, thin, and see-through as the skin of an agoraphobic Goth computer programmer. The simple fact is: This is her. There is no other her. There is no other Bill, either, by the way. They are Clintons and they are eternal, Aesopian, unchanging. The tackiness and the lying, the parsing and corner-cutting, the entitlement and fakery: This is what they do. Scandals swirl around the Clintons like the cloud of dirt surrounding Pigpen not because the Clintons are the victims of their enemies, but because the Clintons are their own worst enemies. They do this to themselves. They create these problems. They are the authors of their own torment because this is who they are. DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN Scandals swirl around the Clintons like the cloud of dirt surrounding Pigpen not because the Clintons are the victims of their enemies, but because the Clintons are their own worst enemies.  This is an important political point because the Clinton strategists and spinners are invested in a theory that electing a woman will be transformative. It will be like that scene in Excalibur where King Arthur, rejuvenated by the Holy Grail, revives the brown and wasted crops and forests simply by riding by. We already had one experiment in this kind of magical thinking. It worked for Barack Obama. I don’t think it will work for Hillary. Obama was new and fresh. Hillary . . . isn’t. think this offers insight into why Hillary is betting it all on reviving the Obama coalition. I’ve written many times that I don’t think she can succeed. But maybe I’m wrong (“It’s happened before” — The Couch). And, more to the point, I’ve come to realize it’s the only strategy open to her. She can’t run to win moderates, independents, and swing voters (save for a subset of women who will vote strictly on identity-politics lines), because these voters can’t be Jedi-mind-tricked into ignoring all of her baggage. Only the hyper-partisan, the extremely uninformed, the incurably gullible, and, of course, the heavily bribed can get really excited about Hillary Clinton. HOW TO LISTEN TO A CLINTON, CONT’D I’m thinking, the phrase “eats like a bird” is really bogus. I mean, they eat nuts and bugs all day long; that’s a lot of protein, particularly given their size. But that’s not really important right now (Sorry, I’m writing this in my backyard watching my birdfeeder — which my cats consider to be a poorly-constructed and frustrating cat feeder — as I write this). Where was I? Oh, right, I’m thinking “How to Listen to a Clinton” should be an occasional feature of this “news”letter (see the last entry here). Why? Well, first of all it’s kind of in my wheelhouse. Second, I’m always looking for copy on Friday mornings and, well, if there’s a more renewable resource than Clinton lies, I’m hard pressed to think what it might be.  As I said last week, the Clintons’ favorite way to lie is by telling the truth selectively. There are a lot of benefits to this oh-so-lawyerly technique. It sounds more plausible. It frustrates journalists. It comes in handy when your lies are exposed or you’re asked about them under oath. The downside is that when you use the truth to tell lies, you embed implied confessions in the silences. “There’s no smoking gun” isn’t a denial, it’s a passive-aggressive way of saying, “You’ll never catch me!” Over at Discriminations, John Rosenberg compiled some good examples of similar rhetorical techniques by the Clintons and their sock puppets. In 2002, being open about her presidential ambitions would be politically inadvisable, so Hillary denied it, Clinton-style: Responding to reports and comments from anonymous friends and advisers that she plans to run for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton told the Associated Press that “I don’t know who those people are or where they’re getting their information from because they’ve never had a conversation with me they can quote.” “Never had a conversation with me they can quote” is not the same as “these conversations never took place.” In fairness, lots of politicians lie about their presidential ambitions. My point here is to illustrate the style of Clintonian lies, not the magnitude of them. When asked by Diane Rehm if Webb Hubbell’s silence had been bought, Hillary Clinton replied, “There’s no evidence of that. There will not be any evidence of that.” That is not a denial either. This is the kind of thing Tony Soprano says when he knows all the bodies have been disposed of at Satriale’s. Here’s Bill in 1997 in response to his fundraising tactics. I don’t believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution. If one parses this with Clintonian precision, this is actually closer to a confession. He says it is a “fact” that he changed policy. But also note the weasel word “solely.” Were contributions a factor in his decisions? Consider all of the skid-greasing money sluicing into the Clinton Foundation from arms manufacturers, uranium moguls, and the like (not to mention children’s charities!). No doubt there are arguments one can make on the merits for the decisions donors were lobbying for. Every lobbyist I’ve ever met — and I’ve met hundreds — can make good, or good-sounding, arguments for their position, just as every country lobbying FIFA for a World Cup billet can make its case on the merits. It’s just that sometimes a little baksheesh helps officials see those merits more clearly. And finally, here’s Lanny Davis on Fox News last month: There’s no evidence that President Clinton, that I’ve seen yet, tried to influence any decision by any governmental agency. Yes, and there was no evidence that a bad girl didn’t break into my house to draw on the wall, either.



Source>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419084/clintons-favorite-way-lie-jonah-goldberg

Minimum Wage - Except for Union Members



Hank Adler 

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council approved an increase in the legally required minimum wage to result in a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour by 2020. During the months preceding the City Council's decision, the underlying intellectual position in favor of the increase in the minimum wage was that everyone should receive a living wage. The arguments against raising the minimum wage revolve around the possibility that certain businesses such as restaurants will close based on their inability to pass along such wage increases to their customers. Opponents also argue that jobs will move elsewhere, whether it is another U.S. city or overseas if the minimum wage is increased.
The arguments presented above have not changed very much over the past fifty years. It is axiomatic that most interested individuals would like to see minimum wage discussions disappear because the overall community is more highly educated and lower wage jobs are the province of young individuals who will soon move into the marketplace of skills and ideas. Sadly, such is not the case.
Enter the union leaders of Los Angeles. Now, the Federation of Labor in Los Angeles is asking for exemptions from the minimum wage for companies where the workers are represented by a union. The position is that workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below the amount mandated by law. The underlying theory according to Randy Hicks, a leader of both the county Federation of Labor and the Raise the Wage coalition is " "With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them. This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing."
And now, the Mad Hatter enters stage left. Apparently, only a union worker should be able to work for a wage that is less than a 'living wage'. And that union worker is apparently able to work for that lower wage and also able to pay union dues to support the crack union negotiating team working to procure or maintain his or her wages that are less than those required by the new minimum wage law.
In this Alice in Wonderland proposal by the unions, two identical restaurants serving the same food, hiring from the same labor force, located on the same street and owned by the same person could be operating under two different sets of laws with respect to the wages paid to their employees. Restaurant A, operating under a union contract, would be able to negotiate wages less than the minimum wage. Restaurant B, operating without a union contract, would be forced to pay a minimum wage higher than the wages paid by Restaurant A. Likely, Restaurant A would charge their customers lower prices than Restaurant B and drive Restaurant B out of business costing the employees of Restaurant B their higher paying jobs.

It does sound like the unions are looking for their own form of crony capitalism in Los Angeles. Who would think that the unions would accept and lobby for lower wages for their members in an effort to compete successfully with entities paying higher wages to their employees? What is the purpose of a union if it is attempting to successfully negotiate lower compensation for its members? Only in Wonderland, also known as Los Angeles.
Source>http://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2015/05/30/minimum-wage--except-for-union-members-n2005811/page/full

Sharia-Creep



Kevin McCullough 

The political left in America is blind to the agenda, desires, and reality of Sharia law.
Liberals are literally scoffing at the professed desires of Islamists and jihadi radicals that want to murder in plain daylight hundreds of citizens for drawing a cartoon of the historical person Mohammed.
They do so in the aftermath of two jihadis having attempted to carry out just such a plan.
The left does not recognize Sharia as a threat to America.
The New York Times in 2011 wrote: "The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority."
Maxine Waters, the leftist Democrat Congresswoman, attending an Islamic Townhall meeting in Orange County California in 2012 openly criticized 13 states that would seek to pass laws that would ban Sharia law from their jurisdiction. She also openly stated, "anti-Sharia laws are motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, plain and simple.” A sentiment oft repeated in leftist circles.
In 2014 the Jewish lesbian “Rabbi" Robin Nafshi, first identified herself as a person with a wide understanding of various religious and political views and then proceeded to imply that Sharia law could be one hundred percent compatible with the constitutional life of modern day America. She also proceeded to condemn those that would say otherwise: "The politicians who endorse anti-Sharia laws are exploiting Americans’ legitimate fears of ISIS, al Qaida, Hamas and other extremist groups in order to ostracize and discriminate against the American Muslim community."
In advance of the second high profile “Draw Mohammed” contest of the past month, I was invited to participate in what has become a weekly panel on America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum. In the conversation I make three inferences and two overt references to the idea that Sharia is gaining acceptance in America. I referred to it by way of “Sharia-creep.”
My opposing pundit, David Goodfriend, formerly a staff secretary for President Bill Clinton took the parting shot of the interview to lecture not only me on the “ridiculous” nature of the idea that Sharia-creep exists, but he also argued that we should be having more discussions about what the actual limits of the first amendment should look like: “I don’t think you’re doing your side any favors by talking about Shariah creep. That’s just ridiculous. What I do think what’s going on is a healthy debate about the limits of First Amendment and free speech and that’s where we ought to keep it. That’s the American way.”
So no worries about those that think Sharia law is acceptable and compatible with American life, let’s argue about limiting the amount of free speech American’s are allowed to have?
Sorry Mr. Goodfriend that’s not a healthy debate at all. It’s not where we ought to keep it, and it’s the opposite of “The American way.”
Sharia law goes beyond the private governance of muslims. In nations where it is established it undermines the civil government and dictates the public behavior—which it also demands must be modified to adhere to it’s specificities—or punishment from public floggings to the sight of hanging homosexuals from atop cranes in the center of cities does follow.
Sharia law is by its very nature a political/legal matter, and the jihadis that showed up in Garland Texas to kill Pamela Geller and 300 other Americans that night, were basing their justification of doing so on the most specific understanding of their Sharia standards.
When many of the major mosques in America have publicly declared their desire to see Sharia become the governing legal system in America, when Imams from New York City to Dearborn, Michigan have declared that such will be the case before 2050, and then the political class looks the other way—and furthermore—shames those like Pamela Geller who are speaking up as to this reality, yes Sharia-creep is very much in effect.
And while David Goodfriend was quick to play “he was brought up in a Jewish household” card, I might point out that the middle east nations where Sharia is practiced, and in the nations where ISIS now owns more geography than the United Kingdom (with a presence in 12 nations total and one contiguous region in Iraq/Syria that is larger than Great Britain alone) Jews are absent a presence within those places.
Sharia law disallows freedom of speech. Sharia law sees as blasphemous (and thus punishable by death) conversion away from Islam and to any other faith. Sharia law allows questionable sexual relationships to be arranged as it pertains to what it calls marriage. Sharia law subjugates women. Sharia law (depending on the Imam) excuses honor killings. Sharia law calls for the decapitation of those who profane the “holy men” of Islam. (And by profane that could range from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons (which were profane), the Pamela Gellar cartoon (which is not profane), to the fact that I even just put “apostrophes” around the word “holy men” to indicate that only some believe that they are holy.)
Sharia law is the justification for why 81% of those who responded to a survey from Al Jazeera Online said they support the aims of the Islamic State in it’s current attempt at conquest of the world.
The left (particularly Clinton-connected types) may have enormous short term rationalizations for why they are ignoring the changing reality of Sharia law and it’s intentions for the USA. There may be incentives, cash, cabinet positions, all to be had in touting the right line on such.
But let’s just say, I won’t be taking my advice on what I think about this or any other matter from a leftist who is blind to his own potential destruction.
Say what you wish Mr. Goodfriend.

It is those on your side, who are blind—to the evils of Sharia law and the growing nature of acceptance it is receiving here in the United States—particularly in your own political circles, and that is exactly why more “Draw Mohammed” contests must continue to take place.
Source>http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2015/05/31/shariacreep-n2006013/page/full

Kerry breaks leg in Geneva bike crash, flying back to US

And they say, God doesn't exist!
0531 kerry crash.jpg
May 20, 2015: Secretary of State John Kerry speaks at the Blair House in Washington. (AP)
Secretary of State John Kerry broke his leg in a bike crash outside Geneva Sunday, where he had been holding nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister.
Kerry called off the rest of his four-nation trip and will fly back to Boston. 
State Department Spokesman John  Kirby said Kerry is stable and never lost consciousness. 
Kerry should make a full recovery and is in good spirits, he said. 
The accident occurred near Scionzier, France, outside the Swiss border. Paramedics and a physician were on the scene with his motorcade at the time.
Kerry was transported to Geneva’s main hospital HUG, where he was being evaluated, Kirby said. A paramedic traveling with his motorcade immediately examined Kerry after his bike apparently his a curb, causing the fall, Kirby said.
X-rays at the Swiss hospital confirmed that Kerry fractured his right femur.
Ending the trip means Kerry is skipping meetings with Spanish leaders and a conference in Paris on fighting the Islamic State group.
Kerry's cycling rides have become a theme of his diplomatic journeys, often taking his bike with him on the plane.  
During discussions in late March and early April between world powers and Iran, he took several bike trips during breaks in the negotiations. Those talks were held in Lausanne, Switzerland, and led to a framework agreement.  
Kerry met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for six hours in a Geneva hotel Saturday as the sides now work to seal a comprehensive accord by June 30.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/31/kerry-flown-to-swiss-hospital-following-bike-crash/?intcmp=latestnews