Right wing nuts promoting Islamophobia, part 2

We saw it last fall, when some dumb bunny conservative bigot parent in Florida didn't want her kids learning "Ay-rabic Numerals".  That would be the same set of numerals we use every day in the west, with a zero, as distinct from Roman numerals; the zero is essential to performing modern maths, and has been in use in Europe from the 14th and 15th centuries to present.  It is technically an Arab/northern African refinement on an Indian numeral concept, that we learned from the Muslim world centuries ago.  Dumb-bunny mom clearly is in serious need of not only Ay-rab math, but a good world history course.  Although like leading a horse to water while unable to force it to drink, one could educate but not get past the determined bigot prejudice.

And here is another example of hate-peddling Islamophobia from the right, from Rush Limbaugh, who is now facing his radio network going belly up out from under him.  This is an older example, dating back in 2010, which underlines how this bigotry pushing and revisionist history has gone on over time.

an Excerpt from Rush Limbaugh's own transcript:

RUSH intro: ...Now, remember what NASA has become under Obama. No longer about space exploration, we're going to ground the shuttle fleet, we're going to lease space for astronaut flight on Russian spacecraft. NASA has been told to focus on global warming, and now we have the NASA administrator on al-Jazeera last Wednesday who said this.

BOLDEN: Before I became the NASA administrator he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math. He wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

RUSH: Now, a lot of people are saying, "Rush, the guy really didn't mean it, he's just out there, this is just a bunch of pap for the al-Jazeera audience, didn't really mean it." Of course he meant it, and of course Obama said it. There's no question. Why would he say it if he didn't mean it? He certainly meant it for the Muslim audience and al-Jazeera. And, by the way, would somebody show me any Nobel prizes for math or science from the Muslim world? I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for this, but that's what we do here, we make the complex understandable, we deal with the truth. Most of these claims about Muslim contributions to science and math are myths. Even, folks, the so-called Arabic numbers were actually invented by the Hindus in 500 AD. I looked this up this weekend. It was even before there was such a thing as Islam. The Hindus created the so-called Arabic numerals and you can find this in Wikipedia if you want to believe it. Charles Bolden, NASA administrator, he was asked, "Why are you here in the region?" "Well, I'm here to spread the Muslim outreach." He said it, he meant it. "He couldn't possibly have meant this." He did mean it.

First of all, why is reaching out to Muslim nations a problem? They are in many instances our allies, notably Turkey in NATO and in the Saudi Arabian peninsula where we have key military bases, and where those nations are important trading partners as well. India has a large Muslim population and is very important to the US. That is a legitimate outreach, for which Limbaugh offers no LOGICAL OR RATIONAL reason against doing so.

Secondly, the space shuttle fleet was retired because they were old and dilapidated and had exceeded their original term of service.  They were no longer safe to fly.  Further, the private sector is in the process of providing the replacements - which means those necessary replacements are not coming out of the NASA taxpayer budget.  If the Russians have space vehicles that do the job, where it the benefit to our duplicating that?

Thirdly, while ol Rushbo was over browsing Wikipedia, he should have looked up Muslim recipients of the Nobel prize, of which there are quite a few, including for science, such as Mohammad Abdus Salam of Pakistan in 1979 for physics, and Ahmed Zaweil for chemistry in 1999, and just last year Turkish scientist, Aziz Sancar.  Wikipedia has their own separate entry just for Muslim Nobel laureates, which underscores why one should never take at face value what purports to be conservative factual research.

Further, the Nobel prize has been awarded since 1895; to use that award to the exclusion of other scientific awards or other scientific recognition during the height of the Muslim world's accomplishments as the metric for establishing contributions is the worst kind of cherry picking.

Limbaugh is dismissive of the extremely well documented accomplishments of Muslim scientists and innovators across history, accomplishments not only in math, but in medicine, astronomy and any other fields.  These are NOT myths.  When Rush Limbaugh claims that Arab numbers were invented by Hindus, he is being dishonest and NOT accurately representing even the Wikipedia article content. (emphasis added is mine - DG)

The decimal Hindu-Arabic numeral system was developed in India by AD 700.^[7] The development was gradual, spanning several centuries, but the decisive step was probably provided by Brahmagupta's formulation of zero as a number in AD 628.

The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825 in Arabic, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, On the Use of the Indian Numerals (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830. Their work was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle East and the West.^[9] In the 10th century, Middle-Eastern mathematicians extended the decimal numeral system to include fractions, as recorded in a treatise by Syrian mathematician Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi in 952–953. The decimal point notation was introduced by Sind ibn Ali, he also wrote the earliest treatise on Arabic numerals.
A distinctive West Arabic variant of the symbols begins to emerge around the 10th century in the Maghreb and Al-Andalus, called ghubar ("sand-table" or "dust-table") numerals, which are the direct ancestor of the modern Western Arabic numerals used throughout the world. Ghubar numerals themselves are probably of Roman origin.^[10]

We do NOT use Hindu numerals, which is evident from a comparison between those numeral systems, and our western Arabic numbers.  What we use is the ARAB / MUSLIM version they created from earlier Hindu figures and shapes.  It is profoundly dishonest to claim that Muslims did not devise what we now use as western Arabic Numbers.  It is stupid to reject learning those numbers or the history behind them.

To draw an analogy, what Limbaugh does here is similar to acknowledging that a cow provides the milk that goes into a bowl of ice cream, but then denying the company that turns that milk into ice cream deserves any credit for the ice cream, in spite of clearly having contributed a significant development and transformation of the raw material. It would be accurate to assert that an ice cream company MADE the ice cream, just the same as Muslims made our modern western numbers.

Join me in pushing back against conservative lies and hate.

"Bignorance": Seattle Does NOT Give Preference to or Force Compliance with Sharia Law

I am appalled at the ignorance of the right that combines with deep, passionate hatred - bignorance is my new term for it, big, bigoted ignorance.  Behold the shameful tragedy that are the conservatives among us.

What Seattle is doing is entirely about fairness and creating opportunities -- both for residents and for local business.  Minneapolis has had a similar plan since 2006, which has helped expand home ownership, and as a result also expanded the tax base.  No ill side effects have resulted from it. What they are trying to do in Seattle similarly is to accommodate a form of lending that is not unique to Sharia law or to Muslim culture, but has been common to the major religions of the world, and many of the majorly influential cultures of the globe. 

It reflects not ONLY an ignorance about Islam or other groups or faiths, but a profoundly willful ignorance of world history generally and comparative religions, but ignorance of Christian European history specifically.  It is appalling racism combined with the worst hypocrisy to condemn in others the exact same conduct and beliefs in your own culture, history and traditions. 

From wikipedia:

Historically, some cultures (e.g., Christianity in much of Medieval Europe, and Islam in many parts of the world today) have regarded charging any interest for loans as sinful.

Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew). At times, many nations from ancient China to ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Christian church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).
The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with lawful rights to charge interest on lent money, particularly the 1545 Act, "An Act Against Usurie" (37 H. viii 9) of King Henry VIII of England.

Islamophobic intolerance is strong on the right.  Every possible opportunity is grabbed to pile more hate on decent, U.S. law abiding Muslims, in an attempt to turn the USA into a theocracy with the crazies in charge. 

I've quoted from the excellent debunker of myths and lies, Snopes, below -- but their entry goes on much longer than what I have excerpted.  I encourage people to read the Snopes entry in its entirety.

From Snopes:

FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?

Claim:   The mayor of Seattle has “launched” a new “rule” forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.

image: http://www.snopes.com/images/m/mostlyfalse.png
   MOSTLY FALSE WHAT’S TRUE:   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.
WHAT’S FALSE:   Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law.

Examples:    [Collected via Twitter, July 2015]

Warner Todd Huston @warnerthuston

Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/seattle-mayor-planning-to-force-banks-to-give-sharia-compliant-homes-loans-to-local-muslims/ …

11:00 AM - 17 Jul 2015

EMERSON E.RODRIGUES @EMERSON_NALITA

Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo http://fb.me/44me5n3Hp 

4:00 AM - 17 Jul 2015

Bunch @bunch1243

Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/07/seattle-mayor-offers-plan-to-help-followers-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+quicksnailsfeed+%28quicksnailsfeed%29 …

10:10 PM - 16 Jul 2015

Origins: On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled “ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW” claiming that:

In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest.
One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, there’s something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and he’s apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary.
This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.

That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site’s article “Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for ‘Sharia-Compliant’ Housing Rules,” which offered the following visual:

That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses. Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles).

Right Wing Hatred of Muslims Is Hypocritical Bigotry

ban Islam bigotry symbol

Conservatives are the quintessential hatriots, ignorant bigots, and most of all, HYPOCRITES, and never more so than when they have an opportunity for religious intolerance at the same time they are protesting non-existent intrusions on their own religious freedom.

Since the deplorable shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the swell of hate on the right towards not just those extremists who oppose western society, both sacred and secular, but also demonstrate a level of ignorance mixed into that hatred, fueled by propaganda intended to keep them scared and angry.

Just relying on the comments in social media against Muslims is horrifying - including against Americans who are Muslim.  Statements like "they should all be rounded up and either killed or at least kicked out of America".  Statements like "every Muslim should be bombed out of existence" and that we should nuke every country with a significant Muslim population (sub-thread, send every Muslim to those countries before we blow them off the map).  Statements like every Muslim wants to kill us, and no Muslim can be trusted anywhere ever, and that no Muslim can be an American.  I think I was most offended by the conspiracy theorists who not only rejected even the possibility that Muslims could be peaceful, or tolerant of other religions, but who made up ugly, crazy conspiracy theories to explain the charitable effort to collect money to fund burned black churches in the south.

In particular the prophet Mohammed comes in for disparagement.  He is described as a pedophile and a violent mass murderer himself, and particularly condemned for his position on killing non-believers and for engaging in polygamy and sex slavery, way back in 570 - 632 CE.  He is also blamed of course for modern terrorist martyrdom.

There is only one problem with this criticism from predominantly Christian Right wingnuts of predominantly European ethnicity --- it is hypocritical, criticizing historical figures on the basis of religion, while NOT criticizing European ethnic Christians for exactly the same conduct, either modern or historic. 

The history of Christianity in Europe is rife with all of those same things -- polygamy was approved and solemnized for a long time by the Christian Church.  Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor ( a position that essentially established him as the top Number 1 Christian of his day, sanctified by the Pope, hence the 'Holy' in Holy Roman Emperor) had an estimated 18 wives (some may have been concubines, an official legal status similar to marriage, but a step lower in terms of rights and privileges).  Christianity was spread at the point of the sword, convert or die, as in the massacres of Verden, where Charlemagne, later the first Holy Roman Emperor, ordered Pagan Saxons to convert or die, some 4,500 of them.

Now let us move on to the claims of pedophilia and child marriage.  Pedophilia is sexual arousal by children; it does not appear correctly to apply to Muhammad who did in engage in one instance of child marriage and other instances of adult polygyny.  Muhammad lived between 570 and 632; within Judaism and Christianity in that period, polygamy still occurred as did child marriage. 

Child marriage not only occurred in that earlier period of the middle ages, but later -- and it extended into the early colonies that became the United States.  A few examples:

Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. It was this policy which was carried over into English common law. Similarly Gratian's ideas about age became part of European civil law.

Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at age younger than 7, and there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds. The 17th-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife. A contemporary, Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only 4 years old.

...the children of Henry II "had been married in babyhood," and the Council of Westminster (1175) conceded that these could be valid marriages "pro bono pacis" (for the sake of peace), even although it also said that "where there is no consent of both parties there is no marriage, and so those who give girls to boys in their cradles achieve nothing" [Brooke, p. 140]. 

(Except when they did receive financial benefit, which is pretty well documented as occurring often. - DG)

 Let's move on to colonial America:

The American colonies followed the English. For example in Virginia in 1689, Mary Hathaway was only 9 when she was married to William Williams.

In England for example in the parish of Middlesex County, Virginia, there is a record of 14-year-old Sarah Halfhide marrying 21-year-old Richard Perrot. Of the 98 girls on the 10-year register, three probably married at age 8, one at 12, one at 13, and two at 14.

But let's look to the post-American Revolution in the US, when it was arguably predominantly a nation of Christians making these laws, consistent with canon law:

In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).

Now we would call that legalized, predominantly-Christian-approved traditional child marriage.

So we've covered killing the unbelievers / conversion by the sword (of which there are many more examples in Christian history) and we've demonstrated the prevalent, institutionalized evil of child marriage, let's move on to Christian polygamy.

Early Christian Church:

Joyce, George (1933). Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study. Sheed and Ward. p. 560.
"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform.

Moving a bit later:

Matilda Joslyn Gage Women, Church and State. Ch VII.
Socrates of Constantinople wrote in the 5th century that the Roman Emperor Valentinian I took two wives and authorized his subjects to take two wives, supporting that Christians were then practicing plural marriage.

Spanning the centuries to after the period of the historic figure Muhammad, during which polygamy (technically polygyny) continued in Christian Europe; Charlemagne live a little more than a century after Muhammed.

Charlemagne had at least twenty children over the course of his life time with three wives and five concubines. He had five wives but no offspring with his second and his last.

Let us move later in the history of polygamy in Christianity, the Reformation:

The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." [Luther later changed his mind somewhat on this issue - DG]

Lutheran theologians approved of Philip of Hesse's polygamous marriages to Christine of Saxony and Margarethe von der Saale for this purpose, as well as initial disapproval of divorce and adultery. As well as Phillip, there was much experimentation with marital duration within early German Lutheranism amongst clergy and their erstwhile wives.

The theologian Philipp Melanchthon likewise counseled that Henry VIII need not risk schism by dissolving his union with the established churches to grant himself divorces in order to replace his barren wives, but reluctantly, and with remorse afterward, consented that polygamy was an allowable alternative.

Anabaptist leader Bernhard Rothmann initially opposed the idea of plural marriage. However, he later wrote a theological defense of plural marriage, and took 9 wives himself, saying "God has restored the true practice of holy matrimony amongst us.

The Lutheran pastor Johann Lyser strongly defended plural marriage in a work entitled "Polygamia Triumphatrix".

And more recently:

The Anglican church made a decision at the 1988 Lambeth Conference to admit those who were polygamists at the time they converted to Christianity, subject to certain restrictions

And for those who claim that good Christian Americans don't engage in acts of terrorist martyrdom against Muslims, we have this from just two months ago, from the HuffPo and the Daily Beast:

Christian Minister Robert Doggart Reportedly Caught Plotting An Attack On American Muslims In Islamberg

Have you heard about the Christian terrorist Robert Doggart, who was plotting a violent attack against a Muslim-American community in New York state? Probably not, because as opposed to when U.S. law-enforcement officials arrest a Muslim for planning a violent assault, they didn’t send out a press release or hold a press conference publicizing Doggart’s arrest.
So let me tell you about Doggart and his deadly plan to use guns and even a machete to attack American Muslims in upstate New York. Doggart, a 63-year-old Tennessee resident, is an ordained Christian minister in the Christian National Church. In 2014, he unsuccessfully ran for Congress as an independent, espousing far right-wing views.
But don’t dismiss Doggart as some crazed wingnut howling at the moon. He served in the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps, worked for 40 years in the electrical generation business, has a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from La Salle University, and claimed he had nine “committed” men working with him to carry out this attack.
Doggart came to the FBI’s attention via postings on social media and a confidential informant. Why attack these Muslims? Doggart’s own words highlight his motive being grounded in at least partially in his view of Christianity: “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives. We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God.” Doggart continued, “We shall be Warriors who inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
Doggart, who was also recorded via wiretaps speaking to militia members in Texas and South Carolina, didn’t mince words about his plans for the Muslims of Islamberg: “We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings [Referring to their mosque and school.] ...and if anybody attempts to harm us in any way... we will take them down.”

He also detailed the weapons he would use in the attack, including an M-4 military assault rifle, armor-piercing ammunition, explosives, pistols, and a machete, because “If it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds.”
Doggart expressed a hope that he would survive the terror attack, but explained, “I understand that if it’s necessary to die [in this attack] then that’s a good way to die.”

Sounds a lot like a Christian version of Daesh (ISIS). I believe I make my point: conservatives are the quintessential hatriots, ignorant bigots, but most of all, HYPOCRITES who apply a higher double standard to other people than they do to themselves and people they perceive to be like themselves.

GIGO: Islamophobia, the Ridiculous Radical Religious Right, and Hate Crimes

Remember when....... pick one.......the state of (blank) passed laws banning Sharia law?  There's more coming.

A panel of local Muslims last week denounced the state’s ban on a foreign law designed to bar Sharia or Islamic law.

“Folks were in this hysteria thinking that the minority Muslim Community here in North Carolina could somehow impose our laws, laws taken from the Sharia,” Imam Khalid Griggs of Community Mosque said at a forum on the subject held Tuesday, Jan. 27 at the Polo Recreation Center
...Proponents of the bans say they protect the Constitution, but many disagree. Muslim groups have been joined by Jewish organizations in their opposition to the bans. The Anti-Defamation League in Florida opposed that state’s foreign law ban, which passed last year, for fear of its potential effects on alimony, child custody and even the ability to remarry for Jews who divorce in Israel."

The right is wrong, and has been wrong since Barry Goldwater said this:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

But Goldwater was correct when he noted, as an ardent opponent of the religious right:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

Ironically, both quotes are from Goldwater's presidential nomination acceptance speech in San Francisco waaaaay back in 1964.

That right wing extremism has resulted in actual hate crimes.  No, not the shooting of the three Muslim students in North Carolina, but in more clear and obvious and genuine hate crimes like the burning of a Mosque in Ohio by an Indiana man 'riled up' by Fox News.

But there is plenty of hate to go around with out actual violence, like regarding the arson attack on a Muslim Center in Texas, where a person misrepresenting himself to be a fireman used social media to post this:

We have plenty of hate, by the right, from the right, riling up people with purely evil right wing propaganda full of lies.

There is a real tragedy that OPPOSING the evils and abuses of religion, like the ones below, from any and every religion, wherever it occurs, is being miscontrued as a hate crime in what appears to be an ordinary, every day case of gun violence by a man in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in the tragic shooting deaths of three Muslim students by a man obsessed like George Zimmerman with trying to dominate and intimidate a wide variety of people in his immediate neighborhood with his excessive gun collection, a man who had apparent anger issues.

There are a lot of things to criticize Craig Hicks for, but being an Islamophobe is not one of them, nor should being Anti-Theist.   This is a case where the Left wing media has it wrong, in generalizing that being Anti-religion generally for what is wrong with religious oppression and conflict is the same as being Anti-Muslim.  And of course the Right has it wrong as well.  The promoting of Islamophobia was one of the things Hicks opposed.  Hicks was indicted by a grand jury yesterday, per MSNBC news:

A grand jury indicted a North Carolina man on Monday for the shooting deaths of a newlywed Muslim couple and the wife's sister last week, a court official said.
Craig Hicks, 46, of Chapel Hill, was charged by a grand jury with three counts of first-degree murder and one of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, said Angela Kelly, an assistant clerk of the Durham County Superior Court.
Investigators have said initial findings indicate a dispute over parking prompted the shooting, but they are looking into whether Hicks was motivated by hatred toward the victims because they were Muslim.

A new law to ban Sharia law is being introduced in Montana, following passage in other states, and of course the overturning of such a ban after Oklahoma passed one. From another apparent Islamophobe/ bigot, in the Examiner:

Montana's Senate Bill 199–also called the Primacy of Montana Law–would prohibit the state from abiding by foreign religious customs and foreign laws within the court system. Well there's an idea! A United States that follows United States laws. I'm getting excited already. Maybe we'll even follow the Constitution one day. Janna Taylor, a Republican state senator in Montana, said that the bill is modeled after a similar anti-Sharia law that has been passed by Republicans in three other states so far: Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana.

Of course, the islamophobe bigots CLAIM, wrongly, that they support the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitutions. They just forget that we have the supremacy clause, which establishes that where there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law 'wins' aka usually supersedes state law.

We have in this country, and have always had, religious courts in parallel to our secular court system.  In Christianity it is Canon law, versions of which are practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Rite Christianity, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists, Lutherans, and in some forms by Quakers and the Amish.  Judaism has Halacha (aka Halakha) law and courts, and Islam in this country has Sharia.

An example of how a religious court operates would be the requirement for both a SECULAR legal decision and a religious one to end a marriage, either by divorce or annulment in some faiths and the requirement to do so by secular courts as well, before one can marry, IF one's religion has that requirement (and some do).  In other instances religious courts are purely advisory, for example on the finer points of keeping Kosher or Halal.

If you don't want to go through the religious courts, then no one requires it for secular purposes; it is entirely voluntary as a matter of religious faith and conscience.

But the ridiculous radical religious right deliberately misrepresents this, ginning up fear that Sharia law is somehow a threat to replace secular law.  It never has been and never would or could be; this is pure propaganda, complete ignorance pandering to the gullible, looking for an excuse to express their hatred for anyone who does not conform to their belief or will. From the same source above:

At least individual states are finally taking matters into their own hands to stop the travesty of Sharia law in America. The Christian Action Network noted on its website that Sharia law, also called Islamic law, has been used in United States courts multiple times to override America's law under the guise of Freedom of Religion. Of course! Freedom of Religion is suddenly important when it involves catering to the violent religion of Islam. However, if you take your Bible to the public square you better have on a bullet proof vest and when you demand protection from your President against foreign and domestic threats you get psycho-babble about the Crusades.
The Christian Action Network site went on to say: “Montana may be on the brink of accomplishing what Congress, the federal court system and all but three other states could not: Banning Islamic Shariah law from being used in state courts.”

There is NO case, whatsoever, ANYWHERE in the United States, its possessions or territories, at any time, that any religious law, Sharia, Halacha, or Canon law, has been used to override American law.

Another example of this kind of fear mongering and hate peddling is occurring across right wing media over a Sharia court in Irving Texas.  Specifically, a proposal for a ban on Sharia law in Mississippi is referencing that religious court, from the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN):

Lawmakers in Mississippi are proposing legislation that would ban Sharia law from the state.

"I think we need to make a stand and a statement that we are not going to allow it to be used in our court system," state Rep. John Moore, R-Brandon, said.

More than two dozen states have considered similar bans on the laws followed in Muslim nations.

A group of Muslims in northern Texas has created what may be the first official Sharia law system in the United States. 

The Sharia tribunal in Irving, Texas, said they're not planning to follow the type of Sharia practiced in Muslim countries, where severe punishments are handed out for even small crimes, women have very few rights, and blasphemy against Mohammed can result in a death sentence.

But in Mississippi, Rep. Moore recently introduced a meaure that blocks any foreign laws from being enforced or applied in the state and country.

He made clear that Sharia law is a big concern and wants to make sure it never gets argued in a Mississippi courtroom.

He said a Muslim defendent could try to use Sharia law as a defense against a U.S. criminal case.

This is a right wing lie; no one has succeeded in using such a defense, nor is it a defense attempt unique to one religion.  The closest we have come to a problem with a religious law interfering with the function of civil and criminal secular law was the abuse by the Roman Catholic church in conducting their own investigations under Canon Law instead of immediately reporting all accusations of sex crimes.  This led to priests being protected by the Church from legal action, including prosecution  under cover of priests being subject to Canon Law rather than civil and criminal secular law, as we see in the findings of subsequent law suits and investigative reports by journalists.

So we see the ridiculous, radical, religious right engaging in the most vile hypocrisy when it comes to outlawing Canon Law, and instead obsessing factually falsely about Sharia Law, as a justification and pretence for raging bigotry and Islamophobia.

The Sadly Silly Alternate Reality that Michele Bachmann Lives In

Put Michele Bachmann's face on a stick,
and have fun making up stuff.
You can't get goofier than she is.

Via City Pages:

Michele Bachmann argues anti-gay bill is actually about tolerance
During an appearance on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show yesterday, Michele Bachmann used her unique brand of logic to argue on behalf of an Arizona bill that would've allowed businesses to deny service to gay and lesbian customers."We need to respect both opinions," Bachmann said. "Just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs."

"This isn't one side or another," Bachmann continued. "What we're talking is tolerance on both sides and it is not tolerant to force people to violate their religious beliefs."

But the lame-duck congresswoman's opinion wasn't shared by Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who vetoed the controversial Republican-pushed bill shortly after Bachmann's CNN appearance.

"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes," Brewer said in a statement. "However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want."

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination," Brewer continued.

In fact, even the usually unopinionated Blitzer made clear he disagreed with Bachmann's stance.

"Americans are very tolerant people, and there is religious freedom in our country," he said, telling Bachmann that, "On this one, I disagree."

Using Michele Bachmann's logic, we should have just tolerated slavery, because hey - the advocates for slavery held deep and SINCERE religious beliefs, based on the Bible as THEIR justification for slavery. And Jim Crow laws too, because criticizing bigots makes them feel bad, and opposing oppression, and real harm to people is not tolerant of the people who are doing the harming.

Yah think?

Here is a hint, Michele, criticizing and ridiculing bigots is SUPPOSED to make them feel bad.  The intention is to make bigots stop being so bad by ..........wait for it..........making them feel bad for doing so, including shaming them.

Bachmann is once again trying to claim a false equivalency. Being a SINCERE bigot, or invoking a religious justification for bigotry, doesn't give bigotry and intolerance an equal status, legitimacy or validation.

Because treating people badly, because you believe things that are bad AND NOT TRUE about them, is wrong.  Like claiming that gay people are pedophiles, for example, or that they aren't equally good parents as heterosexual people, in spite of all the factual research that shows that is not true.  Denying people housing, employment, or other services because of a hateful prejudice is another example, as is denying people dignity and civil rights.

In Michele's sad, silly little world, there is no climate change consensus, there is no scientific consensus on Evolution either, and if she wants to believe the Sun orbits the Earth, or something equally silly, then she thinks THAT should be given the same respect as a more legitimate and fact-based point of view.

It should not.

Another City Pages story a few weeks ago pointed out that Michele Bachmann did not actually say or write "If English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible, it should be good enough for Coke." accompanied by this image but failed to note that Christians for Michele Bachmann is itself a satire and parody face book page.  I came across other satire from that site, being shared by people who thought that it was totally obvious that this image below and others similarly satiric were OBVIOUS.  They were a little surprised, and amused to find out that it was taken more seriously than they ever anticipated, especially in her home state, when I shared with them the city pages article.  The satirists had a hard time wrapping their head around just how much crazy stuff Bachmann says here in MN.  The logo in the lower right hand corner clearly identifies the REAL source; for once it is NOT actually Faux News.



The City Pages correctly trace the original quote, which did not reference the Coke add that featured young bi-lingual American women singing in other languages than English. To be fair, back in 2011, Bachmann DID call for English to be the one and only official language of the United States back in 2011, so the original quote, and the pattern of egregious hijacking of religion to justify her positions is spot on. And it is a more than justified satire, given the twitter-sphere and other social media explosions of intolerance from conservatives in response to the Coke Superbowl 'America the Beautiful' ad.

The real question here should not be how could anyone mistakenly believe the satire by Christians for Michele Bachmann, but how the heck could anyone put Michele Bachmann on any program claiming to be news, as even remotely valid, and then treat her comments and opinions as if they were rational, sane or even remotely reasonable.  They lack any legitimacy whatsoever, and are on the far right wingnuttery edge of the totally crazy. Shame on you Wolf Blitzer; YOU and CNN are part of the problem!  Stop giving her attention and ersatz legitimacy - or those like her!  Her retiring does not make her a lame duck; the woman is a dumb CLUCK.

.)

Hooray for Todd Stave and the Voice of Choice.org, One of the BEST ideas for using a political tactic EVER

Todd Stave didn't just get angry when his daughter was targeted; he got active. He did something which I wildly applauded when it came to my attention. It is clever, it is smart, it is appropriate. One of the greatest joys of blogging is to be able to share ideas like this here. I hope that his project really takes off.

These two video clips tells the story better than I could hope to do.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

from Voice of Choice.org :  

Finally, a voice of reason.

For too long, the abortion discussion has been dominated by angry, nasty protests fueled by individuals and organizations that thrive on sensationalism and extremism. Now it is our turn.

Voice of Choice" was established as a calm, measured response to anti-abortion activists who engage in misguided, raging protest tactics that are often ill-informed and only serve to victimize women, pro-choice professionals, law-abiding businesses and unaligned bystanders.

We use email, telephone and social media in peaceful, person-to-person counter-protests, against groups that target abortion facilities, providers and patients, as well as their families and communities. We don’t question anyone’s right to express opinions and ideals; we challenge their bullying tactics and their contempt. 

If you are willing to volunteer your time or talent to make calls, send emails, or help in counter-protests, please join us.

I have never liked bullies, and that includes the bullies who are so convinced they are in the right that they will bulldoze others, using any means to justify their ends.  Going to the school of this man's daughter was going not just too far, but WAAAAAYYYY too far.  This solution, so long as it remains polite, has a lovely poetic justice about it.  It is an idea that is long overdue.

Bradlee Dean, the Right's Jeremiah Wright-style Scandal - the Gift That Keeps On Giving?

Dean appears incapable of learning from his mistakes.  Reverend Wright, far more genuinely a man of god, continued at the prompting of the media to put his foot in his mouth.  Bradlee Dean needs no prompting; he does it all by himself.   He is now complaining about the Speaker of the House, and making even more of the exact kinds of comments that so properly antagonized the legislature and the citizens of Minnesota.

Here is another one of his pronouncements, his 'gifts':

"I feel like Martin Luther innnocenly nailing the 95 thesis on the wall and I'm not even Catholic, I'm a Christian."

Bradlee Dean, I was raised and baptized a Lutheran, from a long line of Lutheran ministers and Lutheran church founders.  Allow me to assure you, you are nothing whatsoever like the historic Martin Luther.  You dirty his name and insult his accomplishments by that reference.  I really doubt you are much of a Christian either if you are making statements like that about Catholics, or any other denomination of Christianity.

Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez, Adios, and Good Riddance

On September 30th, Rick Sanchez, formerly a news commenter on CNN, made an offensive outburst in which he called comedian / pundit Jon Stewart, who is Jewish, a bigot, and made anti-Semitic statements about Jews generally in the media industry.

This week Juan Williams was fired from NPR, for having made offensive statements about Muslims and fear.

Fear Strikes Out (not a baseball story)

A Parade of Pride

Yesterday, a US District Court judge ruled that an evangelist could hand out bibles at a gay pride festival to be held in Minneapolis' Loring Park (from the StarTribune):
"U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled that the First Amendment gives Brian Johnson the right to evangelize there as long as he's not disruptive."

When I was a young man, including when I was a boy, my parents told me of their opinion of homosexuality, which was always focused on the conduct of men, never women. Their opinion of homosexuality ranged from considering it mental deviance to perversion. The US society around them reflected these opinions. When I joined the US Army, the attitude at the time was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. For a time (iirc), the medical community even agreed, though this position changed in the early 70's, yet the Army's position persisted for years afterward.

When I was a younger man, I was contemptuous toward gays (privately). It is not something which I am glad I did. It was wrong, and I am sorry.

Everything Old Is New Again

"January 13, 1949: Fahy Committee holds its first hearings. Representatives of the Army defend segregation of African-Americans. The Marine Corps also defends its segregation policy and admits that only one of its 8,200 officers is African-American. The Navy and Air Force both indicate they will integrate their units. The Navy admits that only five of its 45,000 officers are African-American."

"March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."
- The Truman Library Timeline of Military Desegregation
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

"We're saying, 'We're shoving this down your throat,'" said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. "The military is not a social experiment. We are sending them out there with a mission to protect this country."
- Anne Flaherty, Associated Press "Congress to Vote on Military Gay Ban" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/congress-vote-military-gay-ban/

My father served in the armed forces in World War II as a naval aviator in the Pacific. One of the places I remember quite vividly that I was taken as a child, decades later during a family vacation was the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, one of the Presidential Libraries. My father spoke admiringly of Truman, "even if he was a Democrat". The parental admiration was earned for his conduct as Commander in Chief during the war, not for his desegregation of the armed forces.

I happen to believe Truman was a remarkable president for both reasons.

But when I read some of the statements, such as that of Congressman Gohmert quoted above, something about the phrase "social experiment" in his comment rang a bell. The place I went to look for the earlier similar wording was the Truman Library (online this time) that I remembered from my childhood.

In hindsight, from the vantage of the early days of the 21st century, it would be a rare person who sees the desegregation of our military as a radical exercise in "social evolution". Now we would simply see it as fair, as reasonable, so logical that the earlier status quo seems a bit ridiculous, foolish.

Word for word, argument for argument, I am struck by the similarity of the objections against allowing people to serve, to risk their lives and limbs, to protect this country and its citizens, without regard to their sexuality.

It is not new, gays serving in armed forces. This is not really an 'experiment'; it has been done successfully elsewhere, repeatedly. It is the norm in the armed forces of our allies.

When I was a small child, travelling on winter vacations with my parents, I saw the last holdouts of the "whites only" and "coloreds only" water fountains in small southern towns - mostly poor rural places. On one occasion, the "whites only" fountain was out of order, so as a stubbornly independent kid, I simply drank out of the other water fountain, to my parents' dismay. They didn't actually care which fountain I drank out of, they were simply concerned that I would offend the local populace.

Instead of being meekly rebuked, I crossed my arms (always a harbinger of my stubbornness rising) and declared the segregated system "just dumb". I further quite adamantly expressed my opinion that the local population would be better served by getting one good working drinking fountain, instead of having one crummy one and one that didn't work at all.

My parents tried to hush me, but I was not a hushable child, any more than I tend to be a 'hushable' adult. ( I fear my co-admins may have just choked on their beverage of choice at their respective computers.)

I proceeded to pose what seemed to me to be a logical question, didn't we all drink out of just one fountain without any problems? My mother agreed that was probably true. I pointed out that unless we actually saw who drank out of a fountain before we did, we wouldn't even know if it was another white person or not. My mother agreed this was true. So, I pointed out that it didn't really matter who drank out of a fountain, because it didn't make any practical difference, so it was just DUMB. "Just dumb" was my chronic and persistent protest of all adult illogic.

My parents gave up the hushing battle and simply picked me up bodily, threw me into the back of the family car, and hurriedly drove away to avoid an incident. My parents tried to explain how people felt, that it wasn't about logic.

I held to my conclusion that segregation was just dumb; not, I regret to say, for the inequality of it - I didn't really understand that part of it until later. I objected to the redundancy, the impracticality of it, in the face of poverty.

I find that as an adult looking at the current policy of our government towards gays in the military, I feel similarly that the policy of prohibiting people from serving because of their sexuality is "just dumb". We have always had men - and women - serving in our armed forces who were not heterosexual. Eisenhower had a notable experience in World War II in the European theater with having to relent to allow lesbians in the military, for example.

We have veterans of our current wars who have served with distinction, including people who have been honored for their courage in combat. We have graduated officers from the various service academies who have gone on to lead our armed forces in combat, without any more consequence resulting than that from shared desegregated drinking fountains.

Which does not alter the feelings of those who object. Minnesota has experienced the homophobic murder and beatings of gays in our history. We have right now so-called ministries and politicians, and their respective supporters, who contribute to that homophobia by claiming that muslims have the right idea in executing gays, who claim that the muslim and 'judeo-christian' faiths correctly label homosexuality an abomination. Perhaps the most egregious claim is that all homosexuals are child molesters, that homosexuals "molest 117 individuals" before being "found out". This is a factually inaccurate claim that is calculated to create fear and hatred. You can see a video of it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYF2Og1nMI

I have read comments from a devout catholic commenter who sincerely believes that the crisis in the Roman Catholic church is clear evidence that homosexuals are child molesters, because the priests who abused children "buggered little boys" more often than they abused girls, according to the statistics of the church.

Never mind the illogic of the reasoning, it is not about reason.

They claim to be upholding moral values; it is not about moral values. Values are the excuse, the justification, the attempt to defend the indefensible.

They don't want to hear facts or reason any more than those southern whites who believed in the necessity, the importance, the sacred tradition of segregation.

In every case fear will be the weapon of bigotry, whether it be the fear that blacks are criminals and that black men are just dying to rape white women, or the fear that homosexuals are all sexual predators and child molesters who want "to bugger little boys".

Predictably, religion will be dragged out to justify the bigotry that is too weak to prevail, to persuade, by fear alone. Dire predictions of divine retribution are the hallmarks of the worst of the religious zealots who try to preserve and extend the bigotry.

Predictably patriotism and fears for our security will be dragged out, claims that our military will fall apart if we do this. Similar arguments were made against desegregating the armed forces. It is an old, tattered, predictable fear tactic, not a valid argument.

In every case where fear fails to stop, the bigots will resist by trying to slow the progress, wailing that those who would act justly are forcing this evil thing on them. Just as predictably, those who come later will look back with the 20/20 vision of history and with clear hindsight, view the discrimination against gays as equally incomprehensible.

I have learned the adult lessons of diplomacy, that it is not useful to one's position to insult those who think differently by helpfully pointing out their position is 'just DUMB" even if the intent is only to be logical, to reason, not to be demeaning.

There is no more point in expecting logic to prevail in this instance. Some change will come through persuasion, but the majority of real change will come because, like Truman, those who can make the change find the strength to act. It is unrealistic to expect that we will have complete consensus so long as we have elected officials like the gormless Republican Rep. Gohmert of Texas, or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a supporter of the man who is in the video ranting against gays and who shares his view.

It is unrealistic to expect that logic or persuasion will prevail over bigotry. The opposition of those who are so very wrong hurts our fellow citizens through this kind of discrimination, denies them dignity and honor, denies them careers, and denies us the valuable service of their courage, and skills. It is foolish for us to indulge the bigots any longer or to let this decision be dictated by the lowest denominator instead of the highest.

History shows us there will always be opposition. There are and will continue to be segments of the armed forces that are virulently homophobic. That opposition will exist between now and the conclusion date for the study; it will exist during the 60 days after the study is completed (presuming the study affirms the position of the majority of the military leadership as currently expressed).

History teaches us that like the changing attitudes towards desegregation and race, the only thing which will succeed is to steel ourselves to take the plunge. George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peter Allen came up with the song and lyrics "everything old is new again". An anonymous author perhaps was the wisest when he - or she - came up with the saying "''Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up."

It is time to learn the lessons of history. Again. And to pay that price, whatever it will be.

Ihre Dokumente, Bitte

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV, Constitution of the United States

The Legislature of the State of Arizona did something recently which reflects poorly on both the United States and the people of that state. The legislature passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed a sweeping bill which criminalizes being in the state of Arizona without legal status. SB 1070, which will go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, makes it a criminal offense to be in the state without being either a US Citizen or to have legal permission to be in the United States. The bill makes it very clear that it is attempting to enforce federal law relating to immigration control and control of the borders.

This law contains some troubling constitutional provisions. The first, most troubling section is quoted below:

"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (capitalization from original)

The troubling phrase here is "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". This is a violation of the right of persons to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has determined that where a police officer stops a person and demands identification, that such as stop constitutes "a seizure" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968). What then, constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States? The statute is silent on what constitutes a reasonable suspicion, but it does not take much to extrapolate from there: anyone who is Hispanic will surely face suspicion, anyone with an accent, (especially Hispanic) will be subject to stop and a demand for their papers. The law essentially means that anyone who can be potentially stopped should carry their papers on them at all times. That US citizens will be stopped and accosted, and thus, have their civil liberties violated is an absolute certainty.

An associate of the author's is a specialist in immigration law. His views on this statute, after reading it were that the bill's author had little if any grasp of federal immigration law and how the three federal agencies who enforce and regulate immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (CIS, CBP, ICE) operate. Further the definition used for a trespassing alien is linked to 8 USC 1304 (3) and 1306 (a). 8 USC 1304(3) deals with a requirement for an alien to carry their green card, when it has been issued legally. There are a multitude of reasons for someone who is a lawful permanent resident but not have a green card, including renewals, lost or stolen cards, spouses or children of lawful permanent resident, etc. 8 USC 1306(a) deals with aliens being required to register with immigration authorities when required to do so by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not all immigrants are required to do so, mostly those from countries who are defined as sponsors of terrorism, etc.

The Constitution of the United States grants to Congress the right to determine standards for entry into the United States. (Article II, Section 8) During the early part of US history, immigration control was the furthest from the minds of both the public and Congress. However, in the 1880's, ugly bouts of racism and bigotry took place, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A series of acts over the years now restrict who can enter the United States and qualify for residency and the right to work in the US. Throughout all this period of time, however, it has been Congress which has passed and dealt with immigration and nationalization matters. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in Ping vs U.S. 130 US 581 (1889) where Justice Field wrote, "That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence." 130 US at 603. The logic used by the Court was that control over its borders is a part of sovereignty, and that it is a nation which has control over its borders, not individual provinces or subdivisions within that nation.

It is widely agreed that our immigration system is broken. However, what isn't widely known is that there are already laws on the books to discourage unauthorized entry into the United States. People come to the United States to obtain jobs and to try and support their families in their native lands. They take jobs that not many people want, because these jobs often pay minimum wage or even less. They usually do not have any form of benefits or heath insurance. However, if there are no jobs for these people, the incentive to come and stay in the US becomes less. Certainly, the draw of family and a wealthier lifestyle is important. During fiscal year 2008, slightly over criminal 1,100 arrests were made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Of these, only 135 were of owners, managers and human resources officers charged with knowingly harboring or employing aliens. The remainder were undocumented aliens who were further charged with identity theft and social security fraud. It was not until 2009 that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano issued guidelines that indicated that more effort is going to be placed on worksite enforcement. This is long overdue.

Immigration reform is something that is needed in the United States, although perhaps not with the addition of new and onerous requirements on employers. Rather, enforcing existing law, requiring all employers to verify the eligibility of all potential employees and requiring that any name/social security number mismatch be fully investigated would resolve many of the immigration problems through reduced work opportunity for those without legal authorization to work and catching those with false papers earlier. As technology gets better, as the databases and fingerprint systems get better, it is already becoming more difficult for those without valid permission to work in the US to be here.

The Mexican government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens who are living or traveling in Arizona, urging them to make sure they have their papers on them at all times and to report harassment by law enforcement to any of the five consulate offices in Arizona. However, the action by Arizona has not helped Arizona's reputation, and if there is anything that would discourage tourism, this is a good example.

This law has already resulted in a number of conventions and other planned events which were planned for Arizona to consider other locations. Both the Republican and Democratic Conventions had been considering Arizona, and both parties have expressed concern about this law. The Arizona Hotel and Convention industry has been pleading with the rest of the country and world not to blame them, but, in honestly, why not? Its the voters of Arizona, including their members, who put the racist and bigoted lawmakers who approved this bill in office. They can and must speak loudly to their legislature to either rescind this bill, or the voters will, at the ballot box, rescind the members who voted for it. Hispanic voters are a voting block which increased clout. The Arizona politicians and their supporters may find themselves in trouble at the polls come November.