Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Do you know the difference between a statute and the constitution?

Yes, the Constitution tells you that exercising free speech, like Zombie Obama, negates assault statutes if Islam is offended, so be prepared to get your ass kicked you big "doofus!"



It's in the "General Welfare" clause, right before the "Good and Plenty" clause!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

America has a long history of violating civil rights to appease dominant political or economic forces. Judges know who butters their bread.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I mentioned "civil rights."

It is not a "civil right" to practice Atheism by mocking others!





It IS a civil right to kick an Atheists or a Catholics ass for offending your precious RELIGION OF PEACE!

 

[cjh]

I mentioned "civil rights."

Good. Now show me how you're going to sue the KKK for intimidating black marchers.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

America has a long history of violating civil rights to appease dominant political or economic forces. Judges know who butters their bread.

That's what I said that ticked the Constitutionalists off!

They defend Islam!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

The Constitution is a list of things the government is and isn't allowed to do.

"Civil rights" are random whining grievances made up by society's weaker members because they lacked the cojones to stand up for themselves.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Seems Findlaw says different:

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rig...ent/have-your-civil-rights-been-violated.html

vette you are failing to understand.

civil rights are the foundation upon which the law is established to protect let us say a black guy from being discriminated against be a landlord. the actual crime if proven is a statute or ordinance enacted by local or state government. individual citizens are excluded from civil suits for civil rights violations. you can only sue the state and organizations.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

How would a black man, or any man or woman, sue a landlord, corporation, or any other private entity for a violation of his civil rights? What is the purpose of the EEOC for instance?

Are you going to maintain that "civil rights" are grounded in statute and not the Constitution? Are you going to maintain that "civil rights" aren't grounded in the Bill of Rights, or the 14th Amendment? Just curious.

you are being deliberately thick to perpetuate an argument.

nobody is this stupid, are they?

 

[cjh]

How would a black man, or any man or woman, sue a landlord, corporation, or any other private entity for a violation of his civil rights? What is the purpose of the EEOC for instance?

Are you going to maintain that "civil rights" are grounded in statute and not the Constitution? Are you going to maintain that "civil rights" aren't grounded in the Bill of Rights, or the 14th Amendment? Just curious.

If congress should rescind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private landlords and employers could discriminate to their heart's content.

The statutes create the right, not the Constitution.

That is an important distinction.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Submission to Islam has been institutionalized by our national security apparatus. The official handling of the Fort Hood massacre proves the case.

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist who had previously served at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, shot 45 of his fellow soldiers at the deployment center at Fort Hood in Texas, killing thirteen. It was the most deadly shooting attack ever on an American military base. Maj. Hasan, who had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, was charged with murder and attempted murder, but not terrorism. His court-martial will begin next month. Meanwhile, Maj. Hasan continues to receive military pay, as well as free medical care and legal representation from the Army.

Immediately after the shootings, President Obama called Hasan's actions "inexplicable" and suggested that he may have "cracked" under stress. The media followed suit, emphasizing the stress of treating soldiers emotionally scarred by war, and insinuating that Hasan had been unfairly picked on by his colleagues. One talking head said "we may never know if religion was a factor" in the killings. Another lamented that Hasan had failed to "reach out for help." In reality, Hasan had long exhibited bizarre, menacing behavior that would have gotten him kicked out of the Army several times over if not for his protected status as a Muslim. The sympathetic disinformation was intended to hide Hasan's actual purpose -- to kill as many infidel American soldiers as possible for Allah.
...

Diversity über alles

A few days after the massacre, Gen. George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, informed NBC's Meet the Press, "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." In case anybody had missed the point, Casey said the same thing during an interview with ABC News, "What happened at Fort Hood is a tragedy and I believe it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here."

Gen. Casey's remarks were criticized, but they were not widely understood. The Federal and military internal security apparatus appeared, on the surface, to have suffered an obvious, catastrophic failure. However, Gen. Casey was suggesting that the system was working as intended. Thirteen soldiers had died and dozens more were wounded, but the Islamic "diversity" that Maj. Nidal Hasan represented had not "become a casualty."

The system intimidated anyone who tried to raise questions about Hasan, overlooked his frequent displays of disloyalty and sedition, ignored obvious signs that he was potentially violent, deemed harmless his communications with a top al-Qaeda leader, fast-tracked and promoted him, and ultimately enabled his act of jihad against his fellow soldiers.
For Gen. Casey, not offending Muslims was more important than the lives of his own troops. Worse, his grotesque priorities reflected those of the Administration he served.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...rom_the_fort_hood_massacre.html#ixzz1nabVqUN8

Just another symptom of cultural suicide in the face of a real and present hostility to the doofus Infidels!

There's an "explanation" for every outburst of violence!

We are losing "civil" rights at the hands of the governmental education complex!

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

So the the 14th Amendment confers no protections of civil rights that bind private citizens or organizations?

Except in rare circumstances, the 14th Amendment binds only public entities and employees.

And those rare circumstances require a close state nexus.

http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

You can sue a landlord for a violation of your civil rights, says so right there in the link I provided.

DUDE!!!!!!

it is all about language. pay attention.

you sue the government and organizations directly for violations of your constitutional amd civil rights.

you sue individuals for violation of statutes and ordinances that are derived from those rights.

there is a distinction.

as a former plaintiff i know what i am talking about.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I think you're missing my point. CJ said a private citizen couldn't violate a citizens civil rights, I think that's wrong.

For instance from Findlaw:

Example 2: Applicant 2, an African-American man, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 2 is an African-American, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to him, because he prefers to have Caucasian tenants in his building. Here, Landlord has committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 2 based solely on his race. Under federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, Landlord may not reject apartment applicants because of their race.

(their emphasis not mine)

you ninny. you just validated our argument.

thx.

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

I understand the Constitution precludes government action but I also believe that civil rights laws are grounded in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. Clearly civil rights lawsuits against private citizens and entities happen every day, and punitive government action against private citizens in defense of civil rights happen every day as well.

I'm in favor of the government being required to treat everyone equally, but private citizens should be free to treat each other as they please as long as they don't physically or financially damage someone else. Hurt feelings don't count.

The government violates "civil rights" all the time. The trouble is, we've made it so difficult to redress that grievance that it's hardly worthwhile to complain.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I think you're missing my point. CJ said a private citizen couldn't violate a citizens civil rights, I think that's wrong.

For instance from Findlaw:

Example 2: Applicant 2, an African-American man, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 2 is an African-American, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to him, because he prefers to have Caucasian tenants in his building. Here, Landlord has committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 2 based solely on his race.Under federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, Landlord may not reject apartment applicants because of their race.

(their emphasis not mine)

i highlighted the pertinent information Vette. Statutes not the constitution.

 

[phrodeau]

It looks like off2bed gets it, but vetteman is still confused.