The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

I'm sure no one did anything here to make a political statement.

On Friday, members of a south Arlington mosque found graffiti depicting Uncle Sam and Allah in a sexual position spray-painted in the parking lot.

 

About 1 a.m. Sunday, police and firefighters responded to a call about a fire that destroyed playground equipment at the mosque, the Dar El-Eman Islamic Education Center in the 5500 block of Mansfield Road.

 

Schoolchildren, who are between 5 and 14, relatives, neighbors and friends raised money to buy the equipment, Principal Amalia Awaida said Wednesday.

 

Investigators don't yet know whether the incidents are related. The fire did about $20,000 in damage, and arson is suspected, according to a news release from the Arlington Fire Department.

 

Vandals also cut some copper tubing. Members said they believe the vandals thought the tubing was for natural gas, but as it turns out, the tubes were water lines.

 

The mosque opened in 1998 and has about 1,000 active members, leaders said. Dar El-Eman means "house of faith."

 

The vandalism "is the fruit of hate," said Jamal Qaddura, president of the mosque. "You keep implanting fear in people's hearts, and it makes them evil."

 

Awaid said she tells the children, "This is an accident and that no one is trying to hurt them."

 

"I don't want them to feel that they are threatened or that they are in danger. It is hard for them to understand because this is a house of prayer," she said.

 

Last summer, an open gas canister was left inside a mosque under construction in south Arlington, Qaddura said. Also, a recent attack was reported in Rockwall, he said.

 

(By the way, violence and intimidation to achieve a political end...that's pretty much the classic definition of terrorism).

[kapkomet]

I'm sure no one did anything here to make a political statement.

 

 

(By the way, violence and intimidation to achieve a political end...that's pretty much the classic definition of terrorism).

 

 

You're a week late.

 

Of course, I live here, so I heard about this and thought how stupid people are.

[Balta1701]

You're a week late.

 

Of course, I live here, so I heard about this and thought how stupid people are.

Serious point in reply...

 

There was, for obvious reasons, something of a rash of anti-Muslim violence back in 2001, if memory serves; but aside from the government round-ups and arrests of Cat Stevens at the airport, it seemed to stay fairly subdued. There'd be bouts of it after things like the Netherlands comic riots, but for 10 years, it never really struck me as pernicious and widespread.

 

Suddenly now, we've got people firebombing mosques in multiple states, we've got people organizing Quran burnings, we've got people declaring publicly that they can't build a Mosque in place X because I like most muslims but the ones that want to be here are all terrorists and dirty.

 

There's a line of thought out there that the anti-Muslim hysteria that wanted to percolate out was actually kept under wraps by noneother than George W., who, although he screwed up a lot and alienated a lot of Muslims with policy, flat out rebuked almost every attempt to demonize Muslims from private groups and did a lot of things to publicly embrace them. It would then follow that now that there's a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist plant running the White House, it's bubbling to the surface without the big blockhead that was there the last 8 years.

 

Just wondering if anyone had a response to that one.

[bmags]

Serious point in reply...

 

There was, for obvious reasons, something of a rash of anti-Muslim violence back in 2001, if memory serves; but aside from the government round-ups and arrests of Cat Stevens at the airport, it seemed to stay fairly subdued. There'd be bouts of it after things like the Netherlands comic riots, but for 10 years, it never really struck me as pernicious and widespread.

 

Suddenly now, we've got people firebombing mosques in multiple states, we've got people organizing Quran burnings, we've got people declaring publicly that they can't build a Mosque in place X because I like most muslims but the ones that want to be here are all terrorists and dirty.

 

There's a line of thought out there that the anti-Muslim hysteria that wanted to percolate out was actually kept under wraps by noneother than George W., who, although he screwed up a lot and alienated a lot of Muslims with policy, flat out rebuked almost every attempt to demonize Muslims from private groups and did a lot of things to publicly embrace them. It would then follow that now that there's a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist plant running the White House, it's bubbling to the surface without the big blockhead that was there the last 8 years.

 

Just wondering if anyone had a response to that one.

 

when the economy goes south, xenophobia explodes.

[Rex Kickass]

Serious point in reply...

 

There was, for obvious reasons, something of a rash of anti-Muslim violence back in 2001, if memory serves; but aside from the government round-ups and arrests of Cat Stevens at the airport, it seemed to stay fairly subdued. There'd be bouts of it after things like the Netherlands comic riots, but for 10 years, it never really struck me as pernicious and widespread.

 

Suddenly now, we've got people firebombing mosques in multiple states, we've got people organizing Quran burnings, we've got people declaring publicly that they can't build a Mosque in place X because I like most muslims but the ones that want to be here are all terrorists and dirty.

 

There's a line of thought out there that the anti-Muslim hysteria that wanted to percolate out was actually kept under wraps by noneother than George W., who, although he screwed up a lot and alienated a lot of Muslims with policy, flat out rebuked almost every attempt to demonize Muslims from private groups and did a lot of things to publicly embrace them. It would then follow that now that there's a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist plant running the White House, it's bubbling to the surface without the big blockhead that was there the last 8 years.

 

Just wondering if anyone had a response to that one.

 

It's funny, because in some ways it feels like a lot of the ugliness we've seen in the last couple years is the sign of a movement dying. To me, this feels much more like a last desperate stand than something new and growing.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know where to post this, but it definitely pisses me off.

 

 

ACLU, CCR seek to have Obama enjoined from killing Awlaki without due process

 

A major legal challenge to one of the Obama administration's most radical assertions of executive power began this morning in a federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Early last month, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights were retained by Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Obama assassination target (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki, to seek a federal court order restraining the Obama administration from killing his son without due process of law. But then, a significant and extraordinary problem arose: regulations promulgated several years ago by the Treasury Department prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with individuals labeled by the Government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and those regulations specifically bar lawyers from providing legal services to such individuals without a special "license" from the Treasury Department specifically allowing such representation.

 

On July 16 -- roughly two weeks after Awlaki's father retained the ACLU and CCR to file suit -- the Treasury Department slapped that label on Awlaki. That action would have made it a criminal offense for those organizations to file suit on behalf of Awlaki or otherwise provide legal representation to him without express permission from the U.S. Government. On July 23, the two groups submitted a request for such a license with the Treasury Department, and when doing so, conveyed the extreme time-urgency involved: namely, that there is an ongoing governmental effort to kill Awlaki and any delay in granting this "license" could cause him to be killed without these claims being heard by a court. Despite that, the Treasury Department failed even to respond to the request.

 

Left with no choice, the ACLU and CCR this morning filed a lawsuit on their own behalf against Timothy Geithner and the Treasury Department. The suit argues that Treasury has no statutory authority under the law it invokes -- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- to bar American lawyers from representing American citizens on an uncompensated basis.

 

CHANGE!

[lostfan]

I understand what the point is, but honestly I have a hard time giving a f*** about Awlaqi.

[StrangeSox]

I have a hard time with the executive branch giving orders to kill Americans, even if they are s***bags.

 

edit: and also effectively blocking legal representation.

Edited August 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I kind of want to kill Awlaqi myself. I'm just saying.

[Balta1701]

From the inside rumors, it sounds like there is a strong possibility that a Federal court will overturn California's Proposition 8 today (although it's of course going to be appealed upwards since it's in Federal court). The pro-h8 vote side has already filed a preliminary motion for a stay pending appeal, which is what they'd do if they were expecting a loss.

[HuskyCaucasian]

OMG OMG OMG

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/31/b...t_n_666182.html

So apparently one of the reasons she called it off is because Levi is always looking for the spotlight. Man, she must completely despise her mother then.

[Balta1701]

So apparently one of the reasons she called it off is because Levi is always looking for the spotlight. Man, she must completely despise her mother then.

Wow. Something I care about less than Aroid's 600th HR.

[FlaSoxxJim]

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

Full Story per CNN

[BigSqwert]

Full Story per CNN

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately, any decision still has to survive the Roberts court, and really, what are the odds that this one is decided on the law and not the politics?

[lostfan]

Unfortunately, any decision still has to survive the Roberts court, and really, what are the odds that this one is decided on the law and not the politics?

Yeah I was going to post this.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and I should note...most of the basis for this decision is the equal protection clause of that godawful, needs to be overturned 14th amendment.

[kapkomet]

Unfortunately, any decision still has to survive the Roberts court, and really, what are the odds that this one is decided on the law and not the politics?

 

 

LMFAO at the irony on this post. On so many levels.

 

The whole f***ing thing is politics... from the 1986 decision the first time they took it up to the Texas decision. The Supreme Court here is making policy by simply taking cases to set the framework for this. If it were the law as written, they would never even take up the case and send it back to the states to handle it.

 

If California votes down an amendment (or ratifies it via the right mechanism) then the FEDERAL government shouldn't get involved. That's more the point here. Same thing goes for another state that has legal gay marriage. The FEDERAL government should stay out. But they want all of these decisions taken away based on jurisdiction, purely and simply to take these cases and imply the law to attach federal credence to it. That's very wrong.

 

I'm not anti-gay marriage, it's not my concern - I am morally against it, but I do not think people should be judged or condemned by it. But the MUCH larger issue is that the federal government should in no way be involved in this, and they've chosen to take cases that they knew would set precedence to allow for this type of ruling.

[kapkomet]

It's not an equal protection issue. But court decisions have now made it one with the language on the outcomes. Decisions matter, and this is the web that's been setting up for 25 years now.

 

[bmags]

wellp, i think it is an equal protection issue.

[Balta1701]

Really Kap, after the last couple years of the Roberts court, arguing that it's wrong for courts to be activist and put their fingers into things that it shouldn't be in...just rings as hollow to me as me saying that the Roberts court decides things based on politics does to you.

 

Everything's politics, and everyone's happy with activism if it benefits their side. We just haven't had a legit left-leaning court since, well, probably before the 70's, so I don't get happy "Gore wins!" decisions like you do, and you're stuck complaining about why Brown Vs. Board of Education was a wrongheaded, liberal, activist decision.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Full Story per CNN

that's unfortunate.

[BigSqwert]

that's unfortunate.

Yeah. We should be able to have married couples have 3-ways but gays shouldn't even marry at all. The sanctity of marriage!!

[Balta1701]

2 noteworthy points in this reading:

Judge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

 

It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case.

Advertisement

 

Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."

[GoSox05]

Well what are proponents going to argue? The only arguement they have is based on opinion. They have no facts.