The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.
The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.
Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”
Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Source: Washington Post
My comment is awaiting moderation because of the links, so I took the link portion out, if interested you can just use a web search.
“Some organizations I have found that are at ground zero working for these goals.
tenthamendmentcenter
oathkeepers
TomWoods- wrote the book on nullification
downsizedc
Some good information resources I regularly visit
glenn greenwald @ salon
the dollar vigilante
patriotslament.blogspot.
lew rockwell
tea party economist
bastiat institute
and if you want to learn more about foreign policy and the threats to us by iran, syria, or any other foreign news story, i cannot recommend highly enough the thoughtful analysis done by the ICH newsletter.
informationclearinghouse
Of course i get updates on every turley article in my inbox as well. : )
Three cheers for liberty!
Thanks, I downloaded those links!
I have a copy if “The Law” but I haven’t gotten past the introduction and preface yet.
That is VERY disturbing about Kagan…
The thing I have been thinking about since this online debate took place is this. We both agreed that we need to re-establish constitutional law to this country, but our method of getting their and philosophical underpinnings are drastically different.
What I don’t understand is when people make the argument that basically people are inherently evil. “Left to their own devices they will destroy both humanity and the world. Therefore we need a group of regulatory supervisors (government) made up of PEOPLE to make sure greedy evil people do not destroy humanity and the world.”
……
But what about the method of restoring constitutional law? His solution is that we elect better people who are more honest and believe more in the constitution so that we can create better regulations. How? What makes next time different than the last hundred times? What have we been doing the last 100 years? People weren’t saying, “Oh, this guy Obama, he wipes his ass with the constitution every day after his morning cup of coffee. I think I’ll vote for that guy.” They believed that they were electing a good person who believes in the constitution and was going to push for better regulations. Bush’s believers thought the same thing about him, and on, and on. It has never worked in the past, why all of a sudden is it going to work now? This is not an informed logical solution to our problems.
So then I asked myself, what are the solutions I am proposing to restore Constitutional Law to this country. This is what I came up with.
The way I see it there are three ways to restore our constitutional rule of law.
1. States can nullify the unconstitutional laws (as jefferson said, it is absurd to allow the federal courts to rule on if the federal government has overstepped its bounds. The state’s should have a say in what power’s they gave the federal government, as they originally created, delegated powers to, and allowed the federal government to exist. They are the federal government’s originators, and therefore should have the final check on federal powers). Tom Woods and the Tenth Amendment Center are two great resources for this type of action.
2. Any federal officials who break their oath to the constitution or engage in unconstitutional powers of their position, like judges setting unconstitutional precedents, should be impeached.- This only works if the people demand it, so the more people we educate about the constitution, the better. Obviously both Bush and Obama would have been impeached by now, instead we get the Bill Clinton Blow Job circus as impeachment material. We have a lot of work to do.
3. Disobey all unconstitutional orders, as a federal employee and if a federal employee asks you to comply as a citizen. Assert your natural rights en masse. I would add to this one only vote for people who join with the organization OathKeepers. The organization’s goal is to have people in office who keep their oaths to the Constitution.
All of these solutions bring the power and authority back into the people’s hands and localize the issue more.
1.State, county, and municipal governments can nullify.
2.We can wage information campaigns on impeachable offices and actions (defying the constitution).
3. Civil disobedience.
This is about education and activism and as the movement grows it can have severe political implications for anyone holding a federal office that doesn’t follow constitutional law.
So then, what are some of the things that are unconstitutional that we are talking about nullifying and impeaching people for? Well, obviously section 1021 of the ndaa. We have a right to trial. How about any executive agencies or executive orders that make laws? The constitution is explicit that only the legislative branch can make federal law. How about undeclared wars, torture and rendition programs, and guantanomo bay? How about no child left behind? The federal government has no constitutional basis for that.
Just because there is a precedent for an unconstitutional activity, like undeclared war, doesn’t make it legal under our constitution, which I was taught is the supreme law of the land. Therefore we must organize, educate, and fight back on these federal encroachments.
A good and short essay I found last night on Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Federal Government is here. I think you will like it, 3 minute read. http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue10/limited_government.htm
But those 3 actions, nullification, civil disobedience, and impeaching unconstitutional federal players are real solutions that could have a real impact if organizations supporting constitutional law keep organizing and educating. Furthermore they restore power back to the people, instead of, “Let’s just elect better people.” That fully keeps the power back into the elected leader’s hands. What do you do when they lie and do all the things they campaigned against? “Uh, darn it. Well, we will just have to elect a better person next time. He is in power, nothing we can do now…”
NO, impeach his ass. wage an information campaign. Force (by popular opinion, not by regulation) all people vying for office to sign an Oathkeeper pledge (needed because now vowing to uphold the constitution is so readily broken we need them to vow to that vow). Ask your local governments to nullify the offending laws! Educate, campaign, march, and demand they uphold their oath.
So that is what I think, lol. We are a grassroots movement, but if we keep educating and growing one day we can have change the culture of our government, make them afraid of the people again… instead of being so absolutely unafraid that they tell the biggest bold-faced lies to the people, do the exact opposite, and expect people to continue to support them.
This is a post I did on this topic a while back. I thought it was pretty good but it got no response. You might appreciate it though. http://revolutionation.org/2012/01/12/how-to-convince-a-liberal-with-the-socratic-method/
MM:
also see if you can get a copy of Elana Kagans senior thesis. It is about the history of socialism in this country and a method for implementing it. Quite good, it was a labor of love for her. Which is quite disturbing, seeing as how she is sitting on the Supreme Court and is probably not interested in objective law, unless she has changed her spots since her senior year.
She is probably an activist judge and very smart. Hopefully she values individual liberty more than social justice.
MM:
here is the link:
http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf
Have you read Bastiat yet? He is very good and here is a link you will like as well:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=91&Itemid=28
the Online Library of Liberty is a great link, all kinds of good stuff for free download.
MM:
I didnt catch that. He thinks regulation put Capone out of business?
That is just funny, his belief in government’s capacity for good is unlimited.
I used to ask him why he thought government regulators were any different from business owners. Everyone, including Jesus, has an ulterior motive. Just because you are an altruist doesnt mean you dont have a political axe to grind. Personally, give me that man who says all he wants from you is a few dollars of profit over the man who wants to save you from yourself or who knows what is good for you.
The guy who wants to save you from your self wants your soul, the other guy only wants a few hours of your labor. One wants to own you for a lifetime, the other wants to give you something you need, want or desire in a voluntary exchange of value for value. One wants to force you to do something for your “own good”, the other hopes his product or service is good enough for you to perceive a value to be obtained. One treats you like a child and knows more about what is good for you than you do, the other treats you like an equal and hopes he has served you to your expectations so he can earn your future favor.
@ Bron,
He was halfway correct when he wrote this:
“but the regulation and legalization of liquor essentially put bootleggers like Capone out of business. The same thing would happen with drug legalization and regulation.”
The legalization and subsequent lower prices put Capone out of business. Forcing the distillery to purchase a government license and not sell on Sundays had nothing to do with it.
The same thing would happen with drug legalization…as long as the regulations and taxes did not artificially inflate prices as high as the black market does. I doubt it will since that is quite a high bar.
@ Bron
The Creature from Jekyll Island changed my whole world view about money, banking, government, and the economy. I cannot possibly recommend it higher.
Care to link the article?
MM:
Peter Schiff is great, too bad the fools in CT voted for that WWF Chick, what a bunch of nuck futs.
I have heard of the book.
I read an article recently about how the Glass Steagall act encouraged bank failures during the depression of 1931-1946. It laid out a pretty good case for it too.
Apparently you don’t know what the word “if” means either.
” I’ll dismissively label your heroes and buddies as clowns, idiots, sociopaths and fools who speak gibberish as long as they act like clowns, idiots, sociopaths and fools and speak gibberish. If you don’t like that? Well, the 1st Amendment guarantees I can say if that’s my opinion of your heroes and buddies and you object to me saying so, then that’s your problem.”
-LOL
-Why on earth would you think I objected to you saying so? I wear your dismissive and derogatory name calling with pride! And what on earth makes you think I want to prohibit your speech? You are welcome shout your falsities from The Moon if you can get up there! I don’t mind a bit.
-See! “As long as you
-1. stand the fallacious equation that: free markets = black markets,
-2. believe that rules in chess (a voluntary agreement) are the same as laws from the federal government (an agreement forced upon otherwise freemen),
-and 3. Dismissively label Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Tom Woods, and Bron as clowns, idiots, and sociopaths who speak gibberish,
-Then I truly hope you never change your opinion of me. I know I am in good company. If you ever do then I will know I need to re-evaluate my ideas quickly.”
“I truly hope you never change your opinion of me because I know I’m in even better company.”
-And what opinion are you supposing that is? The only name i have called you is “my friend.”
@ Bron, LOL. How’s that Tom Woods treatin ya? I never heard back from you on this, did you see the book recommendation and the Peter Schiff interview? I can repost for you… I think you would like them.
Gene H:
“That you don’t understand that unregulated supply and demand is the same mechanic in both markets is simply your failing.”
In the example of prohibition, the black market booze supply is regulated by the gun and by government confiscating and destroying shipments. It isnt an unregulated market in distilled spirits.
Think about it, the supply is controlled to an extent by government. A black market is not an unregulated free market, there are more than just market forces working to adjust supply and demand. Because the product is illegal, pricing is controlled by the seller. In a free market price is controlled by the buyer, maybe not initially but once other products emerge to compete the seller must adjust his price accordingly. As long as government maintains prohibition, the seller [mobsters] is in control. Unless of course people suddenly decide a $6 shot of rot gut isnt worth it anymore.
The black market is a regulated market at least in the case of prohibition. Although I believe the general principle would apply to any government prohibited product.
MM:
To late.
MM:
get him really riled up and tell him that the commerce clause doesnt mean what he thinks it means. The founders were traders and merchants, the last thing they would have done is restrain trade, they wanted the commerce clause to protect free trade between/among the states not restrict it.
While you are at it get him to talk about a tax on labor.
1) I stand by the equation not because it is false, but rather because it true. That you don’t understand that unregulated supply and demand is the same mechanic in both markets is simply your failing.
2) As long as you continue to miss the point that systems (voluntary or not) have rules and fail to realize that your participation in American society (and therefor subject to American laws) is entirely voluntary (you aren’t forced to be a citizen and can alienate your citizen any time you wish here, unlike some countries), I have no problem pointing that out.
3) I’ll dismissively label your heroes and buddies as clowns, idiots, sociopaths and fools who speak gibberish as long as they act like clowns, idiots, sociopaths and fools and speak gibberish. If you don’t like that? Well, the 1st Amendment guarantees I can say if that’s my opinion of your heroes and buddies and you object to me saying so, then that’s your problem. If you want me to think otherwise, the burden of proof and persuasion rests on you.
And as long as you demonstrate that you don’t understand the Constitution and the role of government and law in society or how jurisprudence works, I truly hope you never change your opinion of me because I know I’m in even better company.
Ahh yes, of course. When the Interstate Commerce Clause was written the founders thought it should be used to prohibit goods and services from coming to the market, as well to (another real example here) regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption, not selling across state lines.
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I don’t see why our judges and our courts should throw out all the other evidence and writings the people who wrote the constitution wrote. Or why we should use 20th century definitions of terms to interpret 18th century writing. Seems like a mistake.
As long as you
1. stand the fallacious equation that: free markets = black markets,
2. believe that rules in chess (a voluntary agreement) are the same as laws from the federal government (an agreement forced upon otherwise freemen),
and 3. Dismissively label Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Tom Woods, and Bron as clowns, idiots, and sociopaths who speak gibberish,
Then I truly hope you never change your opinion of me. I know I am in good company. If you ever do then I will know I need to re-evaluate my ideas quickly.
Glad to know I’m right except in not choosing to to follow your fantasy non-scientific economics and your misplaced belief in Constitutional originalism. The Constitution is a living document, but the Commerce Clause still applies and it applies in the light of precedent establish by the courts. Again, precedent is still law. It remains law until overruled by subsequent decisions or superseded by legislation. Precedent which clearly establishes that the reach of the Commerce Clause is quite broad but it does have limits. Just because you don’t like regulation or the limits of the Commerce Clause doesn’t mean it’s prime facie unconstitutional. You can be as sure about Austrian “economics” as you like. You clearly don’t know enough about history and how law and government operate in interacting with society to see how the consequences of those policies enacted would play out. If no regulation doesn’t work (which it doesn’t) and bad regulation is a problem (which it is), the solution still isn’t to do away with regulation en masse, but rather to get better regulation.
Okay Gene, Let me level with you and since you are a lawyer you hopefully can inform me how this works.
I support labeling GMO legislation. But I may be laboring under the false impression that right now it is illegal for a retail food store to label foods that are GMO. Am I right on that?
Secondly, and this is a point, not a question. I want healthier and more diverse food to be more widely produced and available in grocery store chains. The way to do that isn’t to legislate only certain foods can be sold in certain stores and create more unintended consequences while allowing corporations to find more loop holes. The best way to do that is to cut out all the subsidies in the food industries and the regulations as well. Did you know that it is illegal, for the first time in history, for farmers to save their seeds? Who do you think wrote that law? Well government of course, because they write the laws. Is that in our best interest? Monsanto and the fast food companies are just one of many excellent examples of how The Capture Theory of Regulation works in real life.
@ Bron, I do that often.
@ Bron, sweet!
“Your right to property isn’t guaranteed by the free market, dipstick. It’s guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution which created . . . oh, what’s that thing called again . . . GOVERNMENT, including the the ability to create and enforce laws. In our case, specifically laws that regulate interstate commerce.”
EXACTLY!
I am glad you are finally seeing the light, maybe now you can understand laissez-faire and free markets. Remember, laissez-fiare is defined as minimal government. Free markets work within the U.S. Constitution. I do not have to choose between the two! A constitutionally limited government would protect my property, not take it away. Free markets will never exist in reality, just like communism can’t. A free market is the theoretical construct of a perfectly run economy. We can never achieve perfection. People are not perfect, therefore governments cannot be perfect. The best we can do as free people is to push for the freest of possible markets and oppose legislation that seriously compromises that ideal. That would be an example of prohibition. The Interstate commerce clause was established to disallow states to tax other states industries out of competition, not to nationally prohibit goods and services and destroy personal property. See, another good example of how regulations put in place to serve the people end up oppressing the people. The argument is that freer markets should be the goal, not more economic control policies that create more corruption en route to communism.
“…forcing elected representatives to going back to their Constitutionally mandated function of representing the best interests of the people instead of the vested profit interests of business – vested profit interests that would gladly sacrifice your rights if it made them a profit.”
-Exactly! So we go back to the constitution and get rid of all unconstitutional laws and regulations. That way business interests cannot manipulate markets and laws in their favor, like they are doing now.
“Corruption isn’t a problem solved by abdicating rules. Corruption is solved by better rules that ensure true democracy.”
-Corruption is not solved by better rules any more than making poverty illegal eliminates poverty or making child labor illegal eliminates child labor.
“Abdication of rules leads only to anarchy and tyranny and in the case of Austrian School “economics” that tyranny would be economic tyranny.”
-Wrong here though. I wouldn’t be so sure of what following the Austrian School of economics might lead to if I hadn’t actually read their philosophies, but had instead gleaned what I could from online debates.