How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t (by Irwin Schiff)

For those who need a refresher on why Individual Freedom and Free Market Capitalism go hand in hand. .. Think about how “government” has extended it’s role into spheres far beyond it’s legitimate role, and how that diminishes individual freedom, prosperity, and security. Capitalism is the best solution to end poverty and provision of liberty for all.

First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn

First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn

Posted By Andrew Bostom On May 29, 2011


Robert Muise, Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center: Teaching us how to solve the problem of Sharia

A seminal, if ominous report [2] released May 17, 2011 by the Center for Security Policy described fifty appellate court cases from 23 states which involve conflicts between Islamic law—Sharia [3]—and American state law. Nothwithstanding the delusive mindslaughter [4] on display across America’s political spectrum which denies Sharia [5] encroachment in the US, the CSP analysis revealed [2] that,

Sharia has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

But the grim, seemingly inexorable, progressive acceptance of Sharia-based mores in the US—despite this totalitarian [3] religio-political “law” being antithetical to American law—was at least temporarily reversed late last week, in of all places, Dearborn, Michigan. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled [6] 2:1 on Thursday May 26, 2011 (in GEORGE SAIEG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEARBORN; RONALD HADDAD, Dearborn Chief of Police ) that Dearborn, and its police department, violated the free-speech rights of a Christian evangelist by barring him from handing out leaflets at an Arab-American street festival last year. The court’s two judge majority opinion concluded [6],

On the free speech claim, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We thereby invalidate the leafleting restriction within both the inner and outer perimeters of the Festival.1 The restriction on the sidewalks that are directly adjacent to the Festival attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The City keeps those same sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive to sidewalk traffic flow than pedestrian leafleting is. Moreover, the prohibition of pedestrian leafleting in the outer perimeter is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The City can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.

Elaborating on the issue of Dearborn’s liability for depriving George Saieg, an American Christian pastor of Sudanese descent, of his first amendment rights, the judges opined [6],

The City may be held liable for the restriction of Saieg’s free speech rights that the leafleting restriction caused. A municipality is liable if a constitutional injury results from a policy or custom “made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978). In this case, the City approved the Festival “subject to . . . the rules and regulations of the Police Department.” R. 47-13 (Ex. M: Council Resolution)…Chief Haddad described the leafleting policy as his department’s policy, subject only to the approval of the city council and the mayor. R. 47-11 (Ex. K: Haddad Dep. at 95–96) (stating that “the police department will supply the standards that must be met,” such as the “prohibition of individuals handing out . . . materials on the public sidewalk”). The police department’s leafleting policy, made with the authority that the City Council delegated to it, fairly represents official City policy. Therefore, Saieg may hold the City liable for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Most remarkably, the majority opinion of Justices Moore and Clay included a salient observation [6] revealing how these judges understood the Sharia-based objections to non-Muslim proselytization which motivated Dearborn’s attempt to abrogate Pastor Saeig’s freedom of speech—mainstream Islam’s [7] continued rejection of freedom of conscience:

Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: “[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death,” which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly “labeled as . . . Christian.” R. 48 (Ex. A: Saieg Dep. at 75). Saieg believes that evangelism is more effective when he can roam the Festival and speak to Muslims more discreetly.

Roberta Aluffi Beck-Peccoz [8], Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Turin, made this rather understated assessment of contemporary Islamdom’s strict opposition to the proselytization of Muslims by non-Muslims—rooted in the Sharia, and ultimately, the grave offense of “ridda,” or apostasy from Islam, deemed “treasonous” against the Muslim community, and punishable by death [7] under Islamic Law—published [8] in 2010:

Islamic States have always strongly opposed this specific freedom [i.e., freedom of conscience as per the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, or more specifically article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights], claiming that it contravenes Islamic Law. [Note: It does, and that is why the 57 Muslim nation Organization of the Islamic Conference drafted and ratified the antithetical Cairo Declaration which insists upon having Sharia exert supremacy over all “manmade” law!]…Moreover they express fear that proselytism represents a kind of foreign interference in their internal affairs. Consistently, Islamic States do not favor proselytism; they sometimes tend to restrict it even in its lightest forms, such as the simple expression of one’s intimate beliefs…Proselytism is perceived as a major threat to the coherence and cohesion of the umma [i.e., the global Muslim community]: it can lead to ridda [apostasy from Islam] the paradigm of political treason, or fitna, the temptation, the civil war involving doctyrinal dissensions…

Even in moderate, pseudo-secular Arab Tunisia—prior to the “Jasmine revolution” which may have already empowered [9] the formerly banned Tunisian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood under Rachid Ghannouchi [10]—according to a 2010 US State Department report [11],

It was illegal to proselytize to Muslims as the government viewed such efforts as disturbing the public order.

Neighboring Morocco [12], also deemed “moderate,” aggressively deports Christians who dare proselytize to Muslims. The globally representative Sharia-based penal law (circa1982) of Comoros [13] (the Muslim archipelago island nation in the Indian Ocean, located off the eastern coast of Africa, on the northern end of the Mozambique), for example, defines the “criminal” proselytizer as one who, “…indulges, promotes, or teaches Muslims a religion other than Islam.”

The attempt by Dearborn’s large Muslim population to enforce Sharia-based injunctions against non-Muslim proselytism confirms local attitudes documented via polling data collected in 2003, and reported during 2004. “The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion,” was conducted by Ihsan Bagby an Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky and a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy Understanding—a Muslim organization. Data were gathered during the summer of 2003 and published online in 2004.

These alarming results were described on page 37 of the report [14]:

Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement, “Shari’ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?”

Apply Islamic Law in Muslim Lands
Strongly Agree — 59%
Somewhat Agree — 22%(i.e., collectively = 81%)

Somewhat Disagree — 8%
Strongly Disagree — 3%
Don’t Know — 8%

Such data supposedly reflected the Detroit area (read Dearborn) Muslims views of “Islamic countries,” only. But given the intrinsic, universally supremacist nature of Islam and the global umma (i.e., as stated in Koran 3:110 [15], and the Orwellian-named Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam [16], “Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah”), once an area has a Muslim majority it is assumed by Muslims that Islamic Law should prevail—hence the “enclave” phenomenon, now evident in the United States.

Following the issuance of the verdict, Pastor Saeig’s intrepid attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, made these apposite remarks [17], which all who cherish our unique Western freedoms must heed, and support:

Everybody should be pleased. Dearborn is getting a pretty strong reputation as being the enemy of the First Amendment. As long as they keep passing these draconian restrictions that violate the rights of everyone, we’re going to challenge them.

Adam Kokesh body slammed, choked, police brutality at Jefferson Memorial

This is a troubling video. While we coddle every form of vile display of hatred and rebellion.. the Capitol police arrest peaceful, respectful citizens for “dancing”.. at the Jefferson Memorial. What “law” was being broken? Seems to me the citizens here were being systematically separated from their rights under the US Constitution. This is so tame, it’s hard to comprehend the police demands on these citizens- when I’ve personally observed serious threatening speech and intimidation tactics by weirdo’s in front of police with absolutely no effort by police to inhibit outrageous, vulgar and threatening behavior. Makes you wonder why the almost gleeful assault on citizens are occuring.


Property rights- something far too many take for granted.. because they have idea what losing property rights means for liberty, freedom and the opportunity to be free of Government domination.  Government is always trying to take more power from citizens, and retaining property rights is the most basic right that offers everyone an equal opportunity for prosperity.  Take these rights away, or chip away at them by regulatory means, is one of the bedrock fundamental “changes” defined in the “Communist Manifesto”.  Beware a large central government.. in order to feed the enormous appetite of this government class, the need to tax and regulate the “serfs” who actually pay the costs of government overhead accelerates.  We must fight against anyone who insists government should confiscate or over regtulate or over tax property. 

Oregon Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

Repost… By Tim K. Smith


 Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

 May 29, 2011

 Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

By National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

WASHINGTON (May 25, 2011) – The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) strongly support the Government Litigation Savings Act, legislation introduced today, May 25, 2011, by U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). NCBA President Bill Donald, PLC President John Falen and ASI President Margaret Soulen Hinson agree that while EAJA was intended to level the playing field between private citizens and the vast resources of the federal government, radical environmental groups have abused the system to target private citizens.

“Well-funded environmental activists have abused EAJA to advance their agenda to ultimately end grazing and other multiple-use activities on federal lands,” Donald said. “Congress intended EAJA to level the playing field between private citizens and the powerful federal government, not provide a means for radical environmentalists to use taxpayer dollars to target family farmers and ranchers. We strongly support the Government Litigation Savings Act and urge all members of Congress to do the same.”

EAJA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney fees and other expenses from the federal government when they prevail in a case against the government. Falen said the government often settles cases and pays plaintiffs through EAJA instead of devoting time, staff and resources to a trial. He said when environmental activists file lawsuits against a governmental agency, farmers and ranchers lose.

“Farmers and ranchers pay to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits and at the same time their tax dollars are paying the attorney fees for the environmental activists attacking them. In what world can this be construed as being right and just? Rep. Lummis’ and Senator Barrasso’s legislation will finally shed light onto these abuses and reform EAJA,” Falen said.

Specifically, the Government Litigation Savings Act will prohibit organizations with a net worth exceeding $7 million from filing for EAJA funds; require that EAJA filers show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the action to be eligible for payments; and cap the attorney fees environmental activists claim to be owed. According to a letter signed by PLC, NCBA, ASI and 34 other organizations representing livestock ranchers, the Government Litigation Savings Act “will help protect our members from the injustice of funding their own demise.”

“As the producers of food and fiber for a growing global population, livestock producers take very seriously our obligation to responsibly use and manage natural resources,” said Hinson. “Unfortunately, EAJA payments are not encouraging conservation or wise resource use – they are encouraging destructive behavior on the parts of powerful special interest groups. We commend Rep. Lummis and Sen. Barrasso for their leadership on this issue and urge all members of Congress to support this important legislation.

Proof of voter fraud in the USA – from the horse’s mouth

Is it time to re-evaluate the integrity of our system for tabulating votes? The more centralized we make the system, the easier it is to “game” the outcome with no one knowing it… other than the perps. Computer are wonderful machines, but the problem arises when you put that machine under the control of a small number of corrupted “insiders”.. Stalin said he didn’t care if people long as he controlled who COUNTED the vote..

Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools | The Oregon Catalyst

lister.serendipityThumb Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

by Dave Lister

For those of us in opposition, the narrow defeat of the obscenely expensive Portland Public Schools construction bond was a miracle on the order of the parting of the Red Sea. Not only did the supporters of the measure have more than a million dollars to spend against an underfunded and loosely organized opposition, but they also had the school district itself pressing the envelope of electioneering like I’ve never seen.

A mail piece from PPS arrived at my home just before the election under the guise of “public information.” It showed how badly the schools were in disrepair, explained the urgency of getting on with rebuilding, and proclaimed that, despite it all, the district was still doing a great job educating the kids. Even after The Oregonian called foul on what was clearly unlawful campaigning, the district mailed a follow-up, reasserting the urgency but more clearly explaining the cost.

That’s when many homeowners realized it could be much more than the $400 per year being touted.

Another reason the defeat was miraculous is that the pro-bond campaign was masterminded by Portland’s premier political strategist, Mark Wiener. Wiener, who calls his firm “Winning Mark,” has been the brains behind the successful campaigns of most of the state’s high-profile Democrats, most recently conducting the campaign securing a third term for Gov. John Kitzhaber. Wiener has such an uncanny gauge on the pulse of Portland voters that he scuttled former Mayor Tom Potter’s attempt to reform our city government by simply sending out a mail piece bearing the image of President George W. Bush. Considering Portland voters have rarely, if ever, turned down requests “for the kids,” this one should have been a slam dunk for Wiener. But for some reason, this time “Winning Mark” lost. If the opponents had been as well-funded and well-managed as the supporters, the slim “no” margin would have been much wider.

The question is why was it defeated?

Most people simply shrug it off on the economy. They say the bond was too expensive and folks couldn’t afford it. But I’m not convinced that’s the whole reason.

Mom used to tell us we couldn’t have dessert until we’d eaten our vegetables. That simple truth is lost on our leaders. Our town is full of expensive dessert. We have the Eastbank Esplanade. We have streetcars. We have bike lanes and bioswales. We’re spending half a billion dollars to run light rail to Milwaukie and considering a streetcar to Lake Oswego. Meanwhile, the schools are crumbling, the roads are in disrepair and the Sellwood Bridge teeters on the edge of collapse. The things that should be top priority lay on the plate like the over-boiled lima beans Mom used to make us choke down.

When you ask the politicians how we can justify new rail lines and transit artwork and eco roofs while the roads are full of potholes and the schools are crumbling, you get a lecture on the “colors of money.” Transportation money is red. Water utility money is blue. Parks money is orange. As a citizen, you’re told no mixing is allowed. Of course, if you’re an elected, the rules don’t apply and you can use water utility money to bail out the Rose Festival, build solar powered latrines, purchase land and build an eco-spec house.

Mom also used to say “if there’s a will, there’s a way.” With all the dessert projects going on in this town, don’t tell me there’s no money to rebuild the schools and don’t lecture me about colored money. Last time I checked, all the money in my wallet was green.

Dave Lister is a small-business owner who served on Portland’s Small Business Advisory Council.

tt twitter big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt digg big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt facebook big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt reddit big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

Subscribe to this blog


Priorities? Portland has clearly laid out it’s priorities by allowing increasing tax collections to be siphoned off onto pet “bike path” projects and assorted similar seemingly lower priority spending.. at the expense of maintaining things like bridges and schools. Someday Portland voters (those that pay taxes) will be done with it.. and insist on fiscally responsible government, or move out of the city. Anyone visited Detroit lately? That’s the model Portand leadership seems destined to emulate.