Systematic Deception at High Levels of Government, With Devastating Consequences

March 21, 2012 by

There’s an organization called the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) that reportedly published a paper in 2007 that instructed Muslim jurists to “do everything within their power to make the Islamic Shari’a supreme, even if that means engaging in deception in certain cases.”

I don’t know how influential AMJA is among Muslim jurists; hopefully not much. In any case it’s an outrage that it’s encouraging legal professionals to engage in deception in order to implement its agenda.

But you know what? Legal professionals in the Justice Department got caught red handed in what appears to be a clear case of engaging in deception. It wasn’t with the purpose of making Sharia law supreme, but it had the effect of making Obamacare law supreme.

In their attempt to convict Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (who later died in a plane crash) for alleged monetary improprieties – a conviction that was later overturned – at the trial the DoJ prosecutors allegedly withheld key evidence that would have exonerated Sen. Stevens, according to a report. Not only that, but they “selectively quoted the foreman to make it appear as if he had said the opposite, and they used his comments to falsely attack Stevens.” In other words they deceived and misled in order to convict him. That doesn’t reflect well on their character or integrity.

It has all the markings of how things get done in corrupt governments of third world countries. And this wasn’t some little private law firm in Podunk, Kentucky doing this. It was the United States Justice Department.

A report ordered by Judge Emmet Sullivan found that the attorneys engaged in “systematic concealment” of “significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the names of the DoJ attorneys in question are Matthew Friedrich, Rita Glavin, Brenda Morris, Joseph Bottini, James Goeke and Edward Sullivan. To be sure, some of them could deserve less blame, if any, than others; e.g. it’s possible that factors such as incompetence or naïveté rather than willful misconduct played a role, for some of them. Sullivan appears to have been the victim of management problems. And he, Goeke and Bottini reportedly urged disclosure of material that would have helped the defense, only to be rebuffed by Friedrich and Glavin. Still, the report concluded that Goeke and Bottini  deliberately withheld the information. Confusing, eh? (Update, March 23. In today’s WSJ a letter to the editor written by a partner of Matthew Friedrich states that “Mr. Friedrich was not among those under investigation and is not accused of any ethical improprieties in the report’s findings,” and that Mr. Friedrich is “a lawyer of the highest integrity.” But that adds to the confusion, because Friedrich appears to be one of those who rebuffed other attorneys’ request to disclose the key information. Still, If more information is forthcoming on Friedrich or any of the other attorneys, it will be duly noted.)

Despite the legal hot water they found themselves in, one wonders if they took solace in a certain event that took place a year and a half after the Stevens conviction. That was when Obamacare got passed, with all the devastation it’s wreaking on our healthcare system. You see, DoJ’s conviction of Sen. Stevens came just a couple of weeks before the 2008 election. That caused him to lose the election to Mark Begich, an Obamacare supporter. Sen. Begich provided the 60th vote to pass it.

The ends justify the means, perhaps some of them were thinking. Which is what the folks at the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America are probably thinking as well.

Filed Under: Legal Abuse, Radical Islam Tagged With: , , , , , , , , Leave a Comment

Medieval Middle East Thinking Gets Applied to U.S. Law

February 29, 2012 by

I just read one of the most unbelievably alarming things that I’ve read in a long time. A U.S. judge let off the hook someone who assaulted an athiest for mocking Mohammed, because “in many Arabic-speaking countries something like this (mocking Mohammed) is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

When I first cursorily read it I thought it was the assaulter saying that, and I was ready to tell him, “Dude, you’re not in the Middle East anymore, where they do those things. You’re living in America now. Let me tell you a thing or two about how things work here. We have freedom of speech. People are allowed to mock religions. Being able to do that without fear of physical punishment is one of the things that make our country so great. If you don’t like it, then go somewhere else.”

But then I read it again. I had to do a double take, and catch my breath, when I saw that it was the American judge who said that!

Yes, Mechanicsburg, Penn. District Judge Mark Martin said that. I’m still reeling over it.

So Judge Martin, let me tell you a thing or two about how things work in America. This isn’t the Middle East, where they do those things and where the standard of living and quality of life are substantially lower than here, largely because they do those things. You’re living in America now. We have freedom of speech. People are allowed to mock religions. Being able to do that without fear of physical punishment is one of the things that make ours such a great country. If you don’t like it, then move to another country. Or at least resign from your judgeship.

Let us hope that there are not more people of authority out there who think along the same lines as Judge Martin. If there are more and more like him, then say goodbye to America as we know it.

Filed Under: Free Speech, Legal Abuse, Radical Islam, Religion Tagged With: , , , , Leave a Comment

When a Liberal Meets the Paleoliberals

February 12, 2012 by

Great article by Eric Bell, a filmmaker and writer who started a project to document the events surrounding the building of an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., with the aim of portraying the proponents of the center in a positive light and the opponents of the center in a negative light – not necessarily to be intentionally biased but because that’s what he genuinely believed. He got funding and support from Hollywood bigwigs to bring the film to fruition.

But then he started learning some truths about militant Islam – truths that would make any genuine liberal shudder. The Arab spring had turned into a winter, where non-Muslims started fearing for their lives. He informed the funders that he wanted to mention some of these issues in his film. “I wanted to show what happens to countries when they gain a Muslim majority, how women are treated, that homosexuals were executed, that free speech did not exist, that the forced Islamic Law was not consistent with Democratic Values – anything and everything I could think of.”

But he soon learned that he was dealing with a lot of paleoliberals. They didn’t want to hear any of those ugly truths. “Eric you are starting to sound like an Islamophobe,” they told him. “We don’t want to make a movie that promotes fear. Let’s just stick with the existing plan, okay?”

Bringing up those realities about militant Islam constituted  “hate speech” and “propaganda designed to spread fear”. There’s a site called “Loonwatch” where people – such as Bell – who criticize radical and violent Islam are called a “loon”, in the pejorative sense. (That’s ironic, because the loon is one of the most beautiful species of waterfowl. Its call is also one of the most beautiful sounds of nature.)

Unwilling to stick with the original script, Bell had to give the money back. He also got banned from writing for the Daily Kos, for revealing his liberal (as opposed to paleoliberal) tendencies. He suffered plenty of other blowback as well.

“Given the incredible density of the popular Liberal mind, …the readers of my articles were unable to see how the beliefs of Islam were in direct conflict with human rights, gay rights, women’s rights and basic Democratic Values.”

Those people are what you call paleoliberals. And unfortunately, they greatly outnumber the liberals.

Filed Under: Leftism, National Security/Foreign Policy, Radical Islam, Terrorism Tagged With: , , , , Leave a Comment

Classic Hitch

December 4, 2011 by

Cool as a cucumber, smooth as silk. That characterizes Christopher Hitchens’ reaction  to a questioner in the audience whose voice seems fairly mature and articulate, until you hear what he’s saying – at which point he comes off as quite immature. In a nutshell the questioner says that it’s America’s fault that the jihadists attack us.

Gotta love Hitch’s initial response. He takes a drag from his cigarette, a sip from his drink, lets the man have his say, and keeping with the flow of things says “There you have it ladies and gentlemen,” as the audience applauds the questioner. Someone not familiar with Hitch may think that he’s going to agree with and expand upon what the questioner has to say. Hitch says again, “there you have it.”

And then he goes for the jugular: “You see how far the termites have spread.” (Disclaimer: This blog doesn’t endorse using such metaphors in describing others, apart from terrorists and the like. To Hitch, by contrast, it’s not a concern.)

Hitch then proceeds to coolly and methodically disembowel the man who just spoke.

It’s art.

Watch the five-minute video here.

Hat tip to TheDC.

Filed Under: Radical Islam, Terrorism Leave a Comment

Incentivizing Terrorists

November 19, 2009 by

In what has got to be one of the most bizarrely absurd rationales given by any presidential administration in the history of the United States, attorney general Eric Holder said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in a civilian court because he killed civilians.

Deliberately killing civilians – particularly thousands of them – is the most heinous form of warfare one can wage. Those who do so are the lowest of the low, the scummiest scum of the earth. There should be special, hard-hitting tribunals set up just to deal with these kinds of rodents, as there was after WWII to deal with the Nazis who killed civilian Jews.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist William McGurn crystallized the folly of trying KSM in a U.S. civilian court. It sends the perverse message that “if you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.”

We have institutions, particularly the Geneva Conventions, that aim to incentivize those who wage war to target soldiers and not civilians. McGurn quotes William Burck who says that the Obama administration’s decision “demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone.”

With this single step, McGurn points out, the Obama administration is giving al Qaeda a huge incentive to kill more American civilians on American soil, rather than to attack soldiers overseas.

Filed Under: Radical Islam, Terrorism Tagged With: , , , Leave a Comment