Ronald Reagan Quotes

Saturday, August 16, 2008

McCain v.s. Obama? How about None of the Above

Obama makes all kinds of claims of being a Christian, and a man who loves America, yet he his core values say totally the opposite. He supports abortion/infantcide which is nothing more than organized/legalized genocide propagated by the far left. He also supports the radical homosexual agenda, and opposes an amendment to the Constitution that would protect the definition of marriage.

McCain is not much different accept he's a Republican, instead of a Democrat. He still is just about as liberal as most left wing Democrats, and has done a lousy job connecting with Bible believing Christians.

Many may very well hold their nose and vote for McCain, or be fooled into voting for Obama, but there is a better Choice for Americans, Alan Keyes is his name!

More and More Americans are choosing to vote their conscious, and are moving to third party candidates. You should too!!

Check out Dr. Keyes !!

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Was Hamdan's Trial Fair?

Crossposted from STACLU:

After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple counts of material support for terrorism. Legal groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights quickly criticized the ruling. Certain media elements were not far behind. Much of the criticism was understandable, and much was distorted through the lens of bias. Most of the criticism ended up being deflated after a surprisingly lenient sentence of five and a half years, including five years and a month already served. This sentence fell short of the thirty years to life the prosecutors wanted. Even one of Salim’s defense attorneys admitted the verdict was fair and just. However, a fair outcome doesn’t necessarily reflect a fair process. So, are the military tribunals for the Guantanamo detainees fair? To answer this question we must critically look at both sides of the argument, the details of the process itself, and understand how we arrived at this point.

When war has been declared the United States has made use of military tribunals to try captured enemies outside the scope of conventional civil and criminal matters, historically providing a trial for combatants acting in violation to the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions established what most countries have adopted as the international standard regarding such rules.

The perception pushed by some is that combatants held at Guantanamo deserve protection under the provisions provided by the Geneva Convention. Others argued that the essence of the Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and civilians and that terrorists violate this by being non-uniformed, negating this distinction and endangering innocent civilians. This argument applies that Prisoner of War status and the rights that come with that should not extend to those that violate its rules. The Supreme Court settled this argument in 2006 in favor of extending many of these rights to captured combatants held at Guantanamo. This decision was Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which extended certain rights to the detainees and placed limits on the authority of the executive branch. This decision was the catalyst for Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorizing the establishment of military commissions within the parameters set by the Supreme Court.

The 5-4 ruling in Boumediene vs. Bush threw another wrench into the efforts to prosecute prisoners at Guantanamo by determining that habeas corpus rights extend to these prisoners and that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended those rights. Defense lawyers used this ruling in an attempt to delay the military trial of Salim Hamdan, but were unsuccessful in their argument that the procedures violated certain constitutional rights. District Judge James Robertson ruled against delaying the trial on the grounds that these arguments could be raised on appeal after the completion of the trial. How this ruling’s precedent will affect future proceedings against Guantanamo detainees is yet to be seen.

Determining whether the military commission process is fair requires looking at several factors. Hamdan’s trial served as a test case for the government prosecutors and the detainee defense lawyers. Behind Hamdan there are around 80 other Guantanamo detainees, including five alleged September 11th plotters, the Pentagon intends to try before the commissions. It is important to observe Hamdan’s case to determine the probability of fairness in future military commissions because of the precedents it has set.

Most of the key criticisms in Hamdan’s case were addressed. The concern that evidence obtained through coercive interrogation would be used was alleviated when the judge excluded statements obtained from Hamdan prior to his arrival at Guantanamo. Concerns remained over allowed statements obtained after his arrival due to defense allegations they were obtained through abusive procedures. However, no convincing evidence was presented to prove these allegations. Defense attorneys were also given adequate opportunity and access to challenge secret evidence. Many other points exist in favor of the fairness in this trial including the fact that Hamdan’s conviction is automatically appealed to a military appellate court. That court can reduce, but cannot increase, his sentence. Hamdan can then appeal to U.S. civilian courts as well. However, many legal concerns remain such as the question of whether his prosecution violated the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. Concerns addressed in Hamdan’s case do not guarantee future trials will be addressed similarly, but recognized respect of precedent makes it probable.

In my opinion, Salim Hamdan received a fair trial and a lenient but just sentencing. The system in place for future military trials is still not perfect, but provides more protections and rights for captured enemy combatants than ever provided in history. Certain elements definitely need to be addressed while others are yet to be determined. The legal journey to refine the process has only begun.

Posted as a part of a Stop the ACLU Blogburst. Visit Stop the ACLU if you would like to participate...email jay-at-stoptheaclu-dot-com.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Illinois to Prosecute Christian Man for Defending Himself Against Homosexual

The state of Illinois is moving ahead with the prosecution of an 18 yrs old for defending himself against a homosexual activist who assaulted him first. The confrontation took place on the streets of Champaign Ill when a homosexual activist got into Brett VanAsdlen's face after he expressed a harmless comment to friends as they passed the spot where homosexual Steven Velasquez, and his homosexual friend were standing holding hands at the time.

Velasquez reportedly immediately got into VanAsdlen's face, making physical contact with him. VanAsdlen in order to defend himself against the rabid homosexual, shoved Velasquez to the ground. The homosexuals then phoned the police, and VanAsdlen was then arrested and charged with committing a hate crime.

The State of Illinois is moving ahead with a completely bias case against the 18 yr old. The State seems not to care about the fact the the Homosexual committed the first act of physical assault against VanAsdlen, it rather test it's hate crime statute on a Christian, than defend his civil rights against the tyranny of the far left fringe of society.

What is even worse is that left wing blogs are smearing VanAsdlen, calling him a "gay basher", and referring to this as a viscous 'hate crime'!

We live in times where homosexuals can be the oppressors and aggressors, assaulting and intimidating those who disagree with them, and cry 'hate crime' like a bunch of spoiled little babies.

So far these cases have been resulted in the laws being challenged and shot down by the courts because they violate the Constitutional rights of the those accused of committing 'hate crimes'.

If this case continues to move forward and results in a conviction, this will set a very dangerous precedence for the future of America. People should have the right to defend themselves against anyone, including someone who is a homosexual who may assault them, or violate their civil rights.

Call State’s Attorney Julia Rietz (phone: 217-384-3733)
http://www.co.champaign.il.us/statt/contacts.htm

Tell her to DROP the ONE SIDED FRAUDULENT case against Brett VanAsdlen!!
Self Defense is NOT A CRIME!!

Also tell her to charge homosexual Steven Velasquez with assault as well!!


HATE CRIMES LAW THREATEN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM



HOMOSEXUALS ADMIT HATE CRIMES LAWS ONLY BENEFIT THEM

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

IS OBAMA THE NEXT HITLER?

First B.Hussein Obama heads across the pond to wow the crowds in Europe with his charismatic mass appeal, and collects thousands of dollars in campaign funds from Europeans. Then when he heads over to visit with the Leader of the Palestinian Authority, known terrorists line up to protect him.

Now a SHOCKING new revelation has hit the fan again! Mobs of Obama supporters are posting expressing racist, and hateful rhetoric on his website. For instance "Burn the Jews! They are calling for Obama to "level the playing field for the the Palestinians" by supplying them with the same weapons and bombs the U.S. is supplying to Israel to use as they please in their own defense.

Whether Obama himself supports this type of hateful propaganda is up in the air, it has been speculated that he indeed has a Muslim background, having attended an Islamic school at least for part of his childhood.

Experts have determined that the birth certificate his campaign produced was indeed fraudulent, leaving everyone wondering just who B. Hussein Obama really is, and what his core values really are. Why he does not place his hand on his heart during the 'Pledge of Allegiance' or the 'National Anthem'. Why also he was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran, instead of the Bible?

It is NO joke my friend! Obama and his radical supporters are a bunch of anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel - Hate Mongers!

These people pose a huge danger to this nation, and should NOT be tolerated!

If Obama gets into office, you may loose much more than your job, your home, and your national sovereignty! If could loose your life also as Obama's radical leftist crusaders take to America's streets to cleanse America of Christians and Jews!!

This is NOT to be taken lightly! This is NOT a test! It's REAL! WAKE UP NOW!!