Let’s Help Geller Beat Lawfare

Pamela Geller lg

John R. Houk

© July 22, 2011


Remember how Rifqa Bary’s purist Muslim (i.e. Radical Islamic) parents tried to force their 16 year old daughter home after she fled for her life to Florida? Rifqa had converted to Christianity in Ohio and was found out by the family. In essence apostacizing in Islam according to the Quran and Hadith is reason enough for a death sentence. Rifqa feared she would be the victim of an honor killing so she departed with the help of a charismatic Church in Florida.


This is where things got a little thorny in the legal realm.


Once Mo Bary found out where her daughter was he proceeded with legal measures to extradite her from Florida back to Ohio proclaiming all the time that his precious baby-girl, (by now) 17 year old Rifqa had nothing to fear from her crazy – err – doting parents.


Pamela Geller continuously kept Rifqa in the news with her blogging efforts. Geller is a renowned anti-jihadist and anti-Islamist blogger. Geller receives vitriol from Leftists and Muslim apologists much like Ann Coulter does with her anti-Left Conservative humor. Geller is a hero by showing no fear to the violence and legal jihad that flows toward people who take a stand against the evil portions of the Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sharia Law.


Rifqa stuck to her guns and claimed her father had accosted her prior to fleeing to Florida. One thing Rifqa feared was if she was returned to her parents that they would ship off to Sri Lanka. The Bary’s were legal resident aliens. If Rifqa was sent back to Sri Lanka she felt the honor killing would be carried out there.


Rifqa managed to stay free from her Parents in Ohio by being remanded to juvenile detention until a Judge could decide her fate. The stall tactic worked for as soon as Rifqa turned 18 she applied for her own resident status which was granted. Wisely Rifqa Bary has drifted from the public eye to continue to evade the threat of an honor killing.


So why do I rehash this legal victory for Rifqa Bary?


Bary’s lawyer in Ohio sued Pamela Geller for her part in keeping Rifqa free. Attorney Omar Tarazi is claiming defamation. Tarazi is taking the stand that his connections with CAIR does not he has a connection with Islamic terrorists. The suit against Geller is for 10 MILLION bucks.


Here is a PayPal method via email to aid Pamela Geller


Pamela Geller and is becoming a victim of Legal Jihad or what call Lawfare. The lawyer(s) handling the Bary’s side has had connections to CAIR. CAIR is the certified unindicted co-defendant from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case in which key HLF people were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas the Islamic terrorist organization representing the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (Gazastan-Hamastan).


As pointed out by Julia Gorin writing for Political Mavens: Are we going to allow Geller to fight this legal battle alone? Dear God in Heaven I pray not! Geller has a pro-bono lawyer; nonetheless legal costs arise and the money has to come from somewhere. If you are one wishing to take a stand against Islamic Lawfare you have to truly consider donating some dough to Geller’s Defense to overcome her being buried by moneyed lawyers that will keep legal motions going to bankrupt Geller and her lawyer with legal fees perhaps without even losing the case to the Bary family.


JRH 7/22/11 (Hat Tip: Grendel Report)

Makes Schools Better or Allow Transfers for those Who CARE

Kelley Williams-Bolar was released from the Summit County Jail Wednesday morning after serving all but one day of a 10-day jail sentence for improperly enrolling her children in Copley-Fairlawn schools. (Phil Masturzo/Akron Beacon Journal)

John R. Houk

© February 2011


In most States across the nation it is the law that your children must go to Public School within the system in the School District in which you and your family reside. If you reside in a School District in which a partial amount of the schools or the entire District sucks academically, you have few options for your children.


If you are a person of means or a working Joe American willing to make sacrifices to provide your child or children with a better education you can shop for a private school. In a lot of cases Joe American cannot afford private schooling even if the school makes an effort to be affordable for working class Americans like some religious affiliated schools attempt to do.


Another option is for a Charter School which is a Private School that takes Public School vouchers for tuition. If a Charter School exists within driving distance your child has to cross the hurdle of being qualified. If the qualification hurdle is achieved then your child/children get placed on ye old waiting list.


Another option is you can root up your family and leave a house you possibly own and move to a better School District where a house payment may be unaffordable or the rent is too high.


There are probably other legal options to pursue, but the above options came to me off hand. One option that many parents take is to fudge on their residence in registering their child/children in a better school within their School District or in a nearby School District.


Oops! What happens if you get caught fudging on your residence requirements to get your kids in a better school?


This is what happened to Kelley Williams-Bolar for getting caught trying to better her children’s education:


She was convicted of falsifying records by claiming that she lived in her father’s home. Her father lives and pays taxes in the district of the better school. Williams-Bolar spend ten days in jail, received three years probation, ordered to perform community service and was fined $30,000. (WAPC – February 1st, 2011)


I can you believe this was the penalty for a victimless crime of – GASP! – extricating her children from a School District providing a derelict education to another School District that would educate her children?


I find it unbelievable that the MSM has not jumped on this as a story that everyone should know about! I mean a $30, 000 fine sounds a bit exorbitant to me, how about you?


JRH 2/2/11

Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law

Sharia & Liberty 2

John R. Houk

© November 7, 2010


On November 2, 2010 the State of Oklahoma passed anti-Sharia Law State Question 755 with an overwhelming 70% approval rating. SQ 755 prohibits State Courts to utilize Islamic Sharia Law as a precedent for any legal decisions in Oklahoma. This may seem frivolous as in the myth of Separation of Church and State; however the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided make this an infringement of Religious Freedom issue.


Frankly there are aspects of Islam which need to be infringed upon. Really the religious aspect of Islam is absolutely a religion that should be protected by Constitutional Law; however there is a Political Islamic part of the religion that must be prohibited at all costs not only in Oklahoma but in ALL of America. You see, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam’s religious theology and political ideology are interwoven in that religion. Religion and politics are so interwoven in Islam that the legal affairs of a Muslims life are as intrinsic to worship as are the religious practice of worship. In Muslim dominated nations Sharia Law is more than the basis for the rule of law it is encoded into the frame work defining rights and punishment theo-politically in political society and the affairs of government. If I should hazard a guess, the intrinsic nature of both theology and politics in Islam is a major reason that medieval restrictions on civil rights and in adjudicating criminal punish for crimes is harsh beyond the comprehension of possibility of Westerners.


A classic example of theo-politics in Islam is marriage. Islam validates the right of a husband to punish his wife (or wives) for disobedience in affairs of the household and in the marriage bed. In the latter that means a horny husband may force (i.e. rape) his wife to have sex with him. In Christianity the husband is the head of the household much to the chagrin of Secular Humanists and feminists. Although history has shown that Christian males have abused this Biblical headship to excuse wife beating and probable the rape of their wife, both are DEFINITLEY contrary to Biblical Scripture:


22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[
a] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[b] (Emphasis added. Ephesians 5: 22-31 NKJV)


Check out the official ruling of Muslim Clerics (in Christianity this would be Ministers, Priests and theologians with Doctor of Theology credentials) on husbands raping their wife.


Samir Abu Hamza, who runs an Islamic centre in Melbourne, ridiculed Australian laws banning forced sex within marriage.


Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: ‘Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?’


He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands’ sexual demands.


The firebrand preacher also said a man was entitled to use ‘limited force’ as a last resort to punish a disobedient wife. (Daily Mail 1/22/09)

And here:


“In Islamic Sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape,” The Independent quoted cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed as saying.

Men accused of raping their wives should not be prosecuted as “sex is part of marriage”, said Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. He made the comments to the blog The Samosa — and reiterated them to the The Independent.


Sayeed told the website: “Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage.


“Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.”

British law makes rape within marriage illegal.


Sayeed also suggested that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police.

“Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives… have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.”

Asked how men found to have raped their wives were to be punished, he said: “He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.”
(Deccan Herald 10/14/10)


North American and European Clerics have decided that marital rape is not rape because there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. My fellow Oklahomans and Americans these Islamic Clerics are representative of what Muslim apologists would deem the leaders of Moderate Islam in the West:


Islamic Cleric residing in the UK – Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed – representing Britain’s Islamic Sharia Council:


Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”

In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.


Sayeed asserts the Islamic Sharia Council bona fides:


No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.


The point being made by Sayeed is that the Islamic Sharia Council ruling does not represent Radical Islam (aka Salafi, Wahhabi and/or Deobandi). Rather the Islamic Schools of thought are diverse and therefore is representative of mainstream (Moderate) Islam.


The representative of Moderate Islam in North America made sure that their moderate brethren in Europe were superior to North American Moderate Muslims. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America also assert that there is no such thing as marital rape by the mere virtue of Allah establishing the superiority males over females; hence husbands over wives. It is the duty of a wife to provide sex at any time the male requires it; thus there is no rape in Islam:


In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable. (Emphasis is mine, ibid.)


Marital rape is just one of a multitude of Islamic permitted violence encoded in theo-political Islam. You would think in America that jurisprudence would be wise enough to recognize that the political intrinsic nature of Islam is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the evolving validity of human civil rights which are distributed equally to both male and female genders in the United States. Oklahoma’s SQ 755 passed by over 70% of Oklahoma voters who recognized that Sharia Law CANNOT allow its tentacles of repression to begin wrapping itself within the American rule of law as many European nations have allowed to happen.


If you think that a Judge in America would not fall for Sharia Law being utilized as a precedent in American criminal or civil law need to examine a recent ruling by a New Jersey Judge:


Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex


Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).


He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).


And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”


Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time. (Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch 7/24/10)


Since the political aspects of Islam as encoded in Sharia Law are as intrinsic as Islam’s theological worship, it is not surprising that Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR has filed a law suit against the State of Oklahoma. SQ 755 thus is indeed a restriction of the religious practice of Islam because Oklahoma Law now has made it the rule of law that the medieval barbarism of Sharia cannot be accepted as legal precedence in Oklahoma State Courts. BUT I say if any religion’s intrinsic faith is to overturn the Rights of U.S. Constitution, that religion’s political aspects should be made illegal to uphold the Constitution. The irony is CAIR Oklahoma will attempt to shoot down SQ 755 by using the very Constitution that Sharia Law abrogates.


Check out this email sent by ACT for America bringing public notification of CAIR’s intentions against the U.S. Constitution.


JRH 11/7/10


CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban


Sent by: ACT for America

Sent: 11/5/2010 1:21 PM


CAIR’s real agenda revealed:


Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”

Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998


As the National Journal story reports below, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed suit to block implementation of State Question 755, known as the “Save Our State” amendment.


SQ 755 prohibits Oklahoma courts from using sharia law when judging cases. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters, garnering over 70% support.


ACT! for America played a key role in educating the voters about SQ 755, including two weeks of statewide radio advertising, 600,000 automated phone calls with a message recorded by former CIA director James Woolsey, editorials and letters to the editor, and radio interviews.

Prior to the vote CAIR’s Oklahoma director had argued SQ 755 was unnecessary because there was no chance sharia was coming to Oklahoma.


The CAIR lawsuit now confirms what CAIR leaders have said in the past—CAIR’s real agenda is the importation of sharia law to America.

Consider Omar Ahmad’s quote above. What is he actually saying? That sharia law should govern America.

Consider this 1993 quote from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”


What is Hooper saying? That sharia law should govern America.


Not surprisingly, in recent years CAIR has been quiet about this agenda, but now that agenda has been smoked out by SQ 755, a measure which is not discriminatory nor inhibits the practice of religious Islam, but protects non-Muslims and Muslims alike from the tyranny of sharia law.


Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma Over Sharia Amendment


By Althea Fung

November 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.


A Muslim advocacy group is suing to stop a measure approved by Oklahoma voters on Tuesday that would ban judges in the state from considering Islamic law in court proceedings.


About 70 percent of voters approved State Question 755, which says “the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”


Muneer Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Oklahoma chapter, filed the suit in U.S. District Court to block officials from certifying the measure. Awad told the Wall Street Journal the measure violates the First Amendment right to practice religion without government intervention.


CAIR legal adviser Gadeir Abbas said SQ755 was “designed to stigmatize Muslims, to turn the Constitution of Oklahoma into a vehicle for oppressing a minority that is currently unpopular.”


The “Save Our State Amendment” was proposed by Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who said the amendment isn’t about persecuting Muslims but keeping the Oklahoma judiciary system from “sliding down a slippery slope.”

Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who worked to get the amendment passed, said on Fox and Friends this morning that it’s about not allowing criminals to use religious code to circumvent the system when they’re “prosecuted for beating or assaulting their wives or daughters.”


“What we really need to do is make sure people can’t void the impact of criminal law by citing their religious beliefs,” he said.


In New Jersey, a judge declined to place a restraining order on a Moroccan man who forced his wife to have sex. The ruling was later overturned.


A hearing is set for Monday.

Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law

John R. Houk

© November 7, 2010


CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban


ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.   

SCOTUS, Life Sentences and International Law

Terrance Graham at 16

It is time for a rock and a hard place of what is right and of what is wrong.


At the age of 17 Terrance Graham was given a life sentence for breaking parole. Graham was involved in some armed robberies at age 16 in which there were no deaths. He was sentenced to one year for this. He broke parole when he was caught fleeing the scene from a non-lethal home invasion. In the adult world this would be strike two. I am guessing the seventeen year old Graham was a cocky kid at 17 for the Florida Judge threw the book at him.


Terrance Graham was 16 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant in which one of his accomplices hit the restaurant manager over the head with a steel pipe. Graham served one year in jail, then was released on probation. Six months later he was arrested fleeing the scene of an armed home invasion robbery.


The judge revoked his probation, but rejected the four-year prison sentence recommended by the Department of Corrections and instead sentenced Graham, by then 17, to life in prison without parole. "If I can’t do anything to help you," said the judge, "then I have to . . . protect the community from your actions."  (NPR 11/9/09)


Graham was informed by the Judge he felt Graham was beyond help and so chose to give the kid a life sentence even though the recommended prison sentence was four years. In the brief articles I’ve read about Graham there is no indication of his actual demeanor during sentencing. Was the 17 year old contrite about his crimes? Did Graham cop an attitude that he was above the law and that he could do whatever he d**ned well pleased because he would just get out and no one could stop him?


The Left is all about the kid was a child in the eyes of the law and you would be imposing cruel and unusual punishment (EIGHTH Amendment) upon someone who does not have the maturity to comprehend the life time consequences of a crime. The Right is all about the Constitution and protection for the community at large rather than stroking a repeat offender already at the age of 17.


So what is right and what is wrong?


On a purely subjective level I have to tell you I can’t see giving a minor under the age of 18 a life sentence without any possibility of parole for a non-lethal crime. I think that tips the scale toward cruel and unusual punishment in relation to the crime committed. On the other hand if a minor committed a heinous murder I do believe considerations for either a life sentence without parole or a death sentence should be considered. Again the circumstances involved for a minor committing the crime should be weighed. Like was it a murder of spontaneous passion or a well calculated premeditated murder. Was the minor afflicted with childhood trauma in which mental health counseling did not reach the minor who turned to murder for whatever level of mental disorder – purely crazy, tired of molestation or beatings, simply a case of a delusional sociopath incapable of feeling emotion and so on. I don’t know that a death sentence should be carried out for a nut case kid who went on a heinous murder rampage. I think a life sentence with the possibility of parole based on clinical findings of counseling should be involved. Again, there should NOT be a life sentence without the possibility of parole. There should never be a life sentence without parole for a non-lethal crime for a juvenile.


Now what about the practice of States utilizing “Three Strikes” in felony convictions for a life sentence? What if the first two strikes occurred when a person was a minor?


Without knowing the law I would have to say the level of offense and the age the kid when the felony occurred should be weighed in Three Strikes cases. For the most part I highly favor the Three Strikes punishment. There is no reason for society to put up with a career criminal who commits felony after felony. Putting up with that makes society crazier than some actual nut cases.


So back to Terrance Graham: should he have been sentenced to life without parole at 17? NO!


The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision indeed ruled that a life sentence without parole was an EIGHTH Amendment violation under the cruel and unusual punishment clause for a minor juvenile. I am a Conservative and I agree with that decision. This is in the right.


The part of the decision I find disturbing is the Supreme Court’s usage of extra-Constitutional Law that was considered as precedent in its ruling in favor of Graham. SCOTUS cited International Law that the U.S. has not bought into via a Senate approved Treaty. In effect SCOTUS – the Branch that exists to protect the Constitution – used case law outside of the United States based on the huge amount of Nation signatories relating to rights for children. This is scary because the rights for children agenda is a Leftist United Nations agenda designed to usurp parental guidance for their children. Again I have to reiterate that America is not a signatory of this U.N. initiative to disrupt parental prerogatives in training a child.


The Judicial Branch of American government in its supreme finality has thus created case law that can be cited in the future by Leftists who can further dilute the U.S. Constitution into a meaningless relic of yesteryear that will be esteemed and honored but not followed according to the Founding Fathers’ original intent.


This is wrong.


JRH 5/19/10

BHO’s Brilliant Political Savvy

Obama Transformation

I am beginning to realize that President Barack Hussein Obama’s nomination to replace Justice John Paul Stevens is a shrewd choice. It has been suggested by the ex-Navy Chaplain given the boot for praying in Jesus’ Name that Elena Kagan is a lesbian. Klingenschmitt is so convinced of Kagan’s homosexual lifestyle that he has put together a petition to oppose Kagan’s nomination based on her alternate lifestyle choices. It should be noted that the Obama Administration has denied a homosexual lifestyle choice by Elena Kagan. However here is one homosexual blog that believes Elena Kagan is a lesbian and would be extremely pleased to have a homosexual representative on the SCOTUS bench.


Now here is where BHO’s brilliance enters the picture. Elena Kagan is not universally liked by Leftists. The Leftists could care less if Kagan is a homosexually oriented person or not. The controversy looming for Leftists is that Kagan appears to lean toward the Right on issues of Executive power for the President (ala GW/Cheney, Patriot Act etc.). In the Leftist view, a Conservative’s use of Executive power to enable the Presidency more leeway in protecting American citizens is a criminal offense. Because of Kagan’s alleged affinity to a strong Executive Branch, there are many Leftists up in arms about Elena Kagan’s nomination to Supreme Court.


“… that replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially to the Right (by "the Right," I mean:  closer to the Bush/Cheney vision of Government and the Thomas/Scalia approach to executive power and law).”


“Consider how amazing it is that such a prospect is even possible.  Democrats around the country worked extremely hard to elect a Democratic President, a huge majority in the House, and 59 Democratic Senators — only to watch as the Supreme Court is moved further to the Right?  Even for those who struggle to find good reasons to vote for Democrats, the prospect of a better Supreme Court remains a significant motive (the day after Obama’s election, I wrote that everyone who believed in the Constitution and basic civil liberties should be happy at the result due to the numerous Supreme Court appointments Obama would likely make, even if for no other reason).”   Glenn Greenwald, Salon


“Regardless of your particular views on these matters, that diversity is both vital and fair in the hiring process has long been a central plank in progressive thinking.  It takes little creativity to imagine what Democrats would say about a Republican Supreme Court nominee with a hiring record similar to Kagan’s.  The question is whether they will be as consistent as these law professors are in applying their claimed beliefs to their own side.  This is the issue that caused Linda Monk to rescind her endorsement of Kagan.  Will Kagan-defending progressives now suddenly say that diversity is irrelevant?  Will they try to claim that there were no qualified minorities for the Harvard Law School faculty?  How will they reconcile everything they’ve always said about diversity with Kagan’s record as Dean?”


“… choice is Kagan, you’ll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence:  "I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it’s quite possible she’ll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice."  In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama’s choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama choice.  Isn’t that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism?  Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama’s selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.” Glenn Greenwald, Salon 


Here in lay the political brilliance of President BHO. Imagine a closeted homosexual that is Conservative on the SCOTUS bench. If Kagan is a closeted homosexual, it is doubtful anyone on the Senate Committee interviewing her will bring that up publicly. The reason for this is because it has been made politically incorrect to ask one’s sexual preference if the obvious answer is homosexual. The public outcry of bigotry and homophobia would be screamed by all those moral relativists that believe homosexuality is an inalienable right based on biology. (Incidentally this is one reason Secular Humanism, Homosexual Activism and Leftist thinkers are diligent to destroy Biblical Christianity. The reason is Biblical Morality is completely contrary to moral relativism.)


Also imagine a Conservative that is more secular minded than religious (there are many) and sees the potential of a Leftist nominee voting on the side of Slanted Right issues more often than not. That Conservative GOP will be inclined to vote to confirm a closeted homosexual Elena Kagan as a new Justice of the Supreme Court.


BHO’s brilliance lies upon the divide and conquer choice of his nominee to the Supreme Court. Certainly more Dems will go with their leader than not. It is fairly certain that some Republicans will vote to confirm a possible Slanted Right nominee from a Leftist President.


I am no fan of the Leftist transformation that President BHO is leading America toward; however if Elena Kagan is confirmed then this could be one of the premier political victories BHO has enjoyed since bucking the odds to win the Democratic Party nomination for President.


As long as Kagan does not step up and claim she is a homosexual and yet is a closet lesbian, how will she vote on some of the most divisive political issues facing America since the American Civil War? Would Kagan take up the torch for homosexual special rights over equal rights for all citizens? Would Kagan stay close to Conservative concepts of Free Speech and Religious Freedom over multicultural diversity? Would a Justice Kagan support Constitutional fuzzy concepts of security over civil rights when national security is at stake? Would Kagan become a Leftist stooge on the bench first for Obama and then later for Leftist leaders whether they are Presidential or Legislative? Would Kagan judicially consider the Constitution over her personal views and her political allies’ views?


No one on the Left or the Right could be certain of how Kagan will decide issues until the time arrives. THEREFORE, the unlikable President for a socialist-humanist transformation in America is politically brilliant. You gotta believe BHO has an inside track on how a Justice Kagan would decide cases before SCOTUS; however it would not be the first time that a confirmed Justice did not meet the appointee’s expectations if that does occur.


(If indeed Kagan is a lesbian, HERE is a good Conservative reason not to confirm her as a Supreme Court Justice.)


JRH 5/12/10 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Final Victory for Kaufman on the State Level

Joe Kaufman

Islamic organizations have pursued a legal path in the Western World termed Lawfare (or Legal Jihad) have tried to use the wealth that pours into their financial coffers from Muslim donations (zakat) of the Ummah and wealthy Muslims in particular. Most of the source of the wealthy Muslims is the result of oil wealth. The Muslim nations with the most oil are also the hotbed locations of what the West calls radical Islam.


There has been a history of Lawfare in the West against Western Journalists and journalism that is critical of the Islam that ends up supporting Islamic terrorism globally. The whole purpose of Lawfare is to extort a journalist, author or publishing house to not print exposing anti-Islamic (okay, let’s say radical) articles, essays and books. The extortion has to do with the seeming huge wealth of Islamic organizations or Islamic billionaires. The goal of Lawfare is to threaten or tie up the finances of people and publishers with expensive litigation. An individual most likely would be bankrupted if they were to confront the huge legal fees involved in Lawfare litigation. America has begun to take steps to nix Lawfare legislatively and judicially. One such victory against Lawfare has been the ongoing case of multiple American-Islamic organizations pursuing Lawfare against Joe Kaufman.


I have been tracking this off and on since 2007:


Judge Rules Against Six Flags Protestor


Fifth Column Radical Islamists Use Western Perks –


Free Speech and Joe Kaufman


Joe Kaufman Whoops Legal Jihad


You can kind of see the progression. The last post above related to the Texas Appellate Court throwing out the case against Kaufman. The Islamic organizations pursuing Kaufman did not stop at the Appellate level, rather they used the litigation prowess to take Kaufman to the Texas State Supreme Court in order to bully or bankrupt Kaufman.


I am gratified to report Kaufman has found success in his free speech rights with vindication from the Texas State Supreme Court. I wonder if Lawfare oriented Muslims will try their hand in the Federal Court system and work it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? Time will tell. Go Joe Kaufman.


JRH 2/1/10