-
Andrew commented on the blog post Coloring Inside The Lines
These are people who think the Community Reinvestment Act is primarily to blame for the financial crisis. What more needs to be said, really?
They’re willing to blame low-income black people and their advocates passing a relatively toothless law in the late 1970s for a massive Wall Street-induced depression that happened about 3 decades after. I mean just think about that.
-
Andrew commented on the blog post All Conspiracies Great and Small
Roger L. Simon:
For America is still Reagan’s shining light on the hill for everyone, like it or not. We are the daddy. We are the grown-up holding the world together. Everyone knows it even whey they lie about it or bemoan it. Only the grown-up is hurting now too. And the world is badly wounded because of it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/07/13/america-the-broken/
Moses Wine has some deep psychological issues that need to be worked out.
-
Andrew commented on the blog post Peter “Material Support for Terrorism” King
It’s important to keep in mind that certain right-wingers are launching a serious campaign to bring back laws against seditious speech and interpret them broadly enough to be used against most Muslims.
http://ceinquiry.us/2010-11-26-islam-sedition.php
I highly recommend reading their ‘Sharia report’ (http://goo.gl/wKCh) to get a good idea of how insane these people are.
-
Andrew commented on the blog post As Expected, Judge Bates Punts on Rule of Law
I like the part where he suggests that because al-Awlaki believes in Islamic law and rejects Western law, he would not want the lawsuit brought on his behalf:
[Al-Aulaqi] has decried the U.S. legal system and suggested that Muslims are not bound by Western law. As recently as April 2010, Anwar Al-Aulaqi wrote an article for the AQAP publication Inspire, in which he asserted that Muslims “should not be forced to accept rulings of courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah.” According to Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Muslims need not adhere to the laws of the “civil state,” since “the modern civil state of the West does not guarantee Islamic rights.” In a July 2010 Inspire article, Anwar Al-Aulaqi again expressed his belief that because Western “government, political parties, the police, [and] the intelligence services . . . are part of a system within which the defamation of Islam is . . . promoted . . . the attacking of any Western target [is] legal from an Islamic viewpoint.” [...]
Such statements — which reveal a complete lack of respect for U.S. law and governmental structures as well as a belief that it is “legal” and “legitimate” to violate U.S. law — do not reflect the views of an individual who would likely want to sue to vindicate his U.S. constitutional rights in U.S. courts. After all, the substantive rights that are being asserted in this case are only provided to Anwar Al-Aulaqi by the U.S. Constitution and international law. Yet he has made clear his belief that “international treaties” do not govern Muslims, and that Muslims are not bound by any law — U.S., international, or otherwise — that conflicts with the “law of Allah.” There is, then, reason to doubt that Anwar Al-Aulaqi would even regard a ruling from this Court as binding — much less that he would want to litigate in order to obtain such a ruling. (pp. 25-26)
Link.
-
Andrew became a registered member
