Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Obama Starts Constitutional Crisis

This president needs to be impeached!

» Obama Starts Constitutional Crisis, Installs New Radical Czars - Big Government:

'via Blog this'

9 comments:

Phil said...

Hey, sorry to send this to you here. I wasn't sure where to send it to you but I thought you might find this interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma-cant-enforce-sharia-law-ban-011240179.html

Dennis said...

Thanks, Phil,

There must be something I'm not understanding about this case.

Imagine if voters passed a law implementing Old Testament Law as a whole (including all its death penalties). These judges would undoubtedly (and correctly) see that as government establishment of religion in violation of the Constitution!

But somehow they are apparently too blind to see that the establishment of Sharia Law would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion as well!

How, then, can it be unconstitutional to prohibit government establishment of religion (Sharia)?

I'm either missing something or these judges are profoundly stupid.

Phil said...

I'm going with the latter...

Kevin said...

This article is poorly written and intentionally inflammatory, and so is this law. How you can actually support a law that specifically calls out one religion?

Would you support a law that says "all people must provide IDs when they vote, especially people with dark skin", or "the state will not endorse any Christian church, or any other religious organization"?

If you're actually concerned about the courts allowing Sharia law or any other form of law to trump the law of the land then make sure your representatives actually write a good law that has a chance of being passed.

I'm not a professional journalist, but it took me about 10 minutes to find the actual ruling.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

Reuters and its reporters apparently couldn't be bothered to cite the source... which is not really the issue is it... inflammatory headlines and articles with little substance that create a fake issue ("Courts overrule the people, support Islam... eeek!!!") attract attention, which attracts eyeballs for advertisements (and attention for pandering politicians who add fuel to the fire) which makes money for Yahoo! and Reuters (which Yahoo! pays a service fee to). You're being manipulated. You need to read your media more closely. You shouldn't trust it. They profit off of fear and discord.

Kevin said...

Continuing my rant... media today can pander to your particular views, which makes it more dangerous then ever. I've read this blog enough to know you've got a keen ability to pick apart media that is biased against you, but what about media that is biased for you? Media that artificially reinforces your existing views is dangerous stuff b/c it warps your view of the world.

Dennis said...

Kevin,

Thank you for taking the time to explore this further. I did not post this article (I was merely responding to Phil) and I did not have time to explore it (which should have been clear by my statements "There must be something I'm not understanding about this case" and "I'm either missing something...." I hardly have enough time to post anything on Recliner Commentaries these days.

Kevin said...

I understand. I took some of frustration with this terribly written article out on you.

I think this article is a perfect example of how evil media is today. They don't report enough relevant facts or details; instead of parsing through the legal logic, illuminating the details and considerations they get quotes from politicians who are happy to say anything to terrify their base and get more votes. They're profit driven to a fault and the only way to address that in a free market is for consumers to start calling out this nonsense and rejecting it.

Kevin said...

I used the word evil intentionally. The majority of the media industry is built on spreading fear, half-truths and discord. This is evil.

Phil said...

I honestly didn't get into depth on it either, I was busy researching for a psychology paper and came across it and honestly forgot about it after. I just knew that the topic line was something up Dr. Ingolfsland's alley.