Monday, April 29, 2013

Christie defends Muslim lawyer he nominated to Superior Court during Hammonton town hall

Published: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 9:36 PM     Updated: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 9:36 PM
chris-christie.JPGGov. Chris Christie in this March 17 file photo.
HAMMONTON — Gov. Chris Christie today voiced his strongest defense yet of Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim lawyer he nominated to the Superior Court earlier this year, before a largely receptive town hall audience in Hammonton.
During the question-and-answer session, Christie quickly corrected an audience member who said Mohammed, an Indian-American who has been criticized by right-wing blogs for allegedly supporting radical Islamists, had defended terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed actually represented people in New Jersey who were not found to have participated in any crimes, Christie noted.
"If it is disqualifying for the bench to be an Arab-American in New Jersey who represents innocent people and gets them released, then this isn’t the state I believe it is," Christie said. "I’ve known this man for 10 years. He’s a good, decent American and New Jerseyan, he’s an outstanding lawyer, and he deserves the opportunity to be on the bench. I am proud to have nominated him."
Mohammed has yet to get a confirmation vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. His name was first floated for a judgeship during the Corzine administration, and if confirmed he would become the second Muslim state judge.
The rest of the town hall, Christie’s 11th this year, mostly followed a familiar script, with the governor delivering all his usual policy points and laugh lines to a standing-room-only crowd of nearly 700.
He blamed Democrats for inaction in the face of huge problems.
He took Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) to task for the stalled nomination of Anne Patterson to the Supreme Court. He said Sweeney was the man to lobby for a modified school funding formula that would direct more money to rapidly growing suburban school districts. And he said it was Sweeney’s move on legislation to curb pensions and health benefits for public workers, whose plans are heading toward insolvency.
"And the Assembly has done nothing, absolutely nothing, sitting around once again with their heads in the sand, praying for a miracle," he added, referring to an overhaul of the pensions and benefits system. "When the election comes this fall, you need to remember who acted and who didn’t."
The governor said he had not figured out where he would get extra school funds when asked how he would respond if the Supreme Court found his recent cutbacks in state aid for schools to violate the mandate to provide "a thorough and efficient" education.
Christie said the 40-year-old Abbott v. Burke case has directed $68.2 billion to poor schools without any tangible results.
The justices are unelected officials "making laws from the bench," Christie said. "They’re going to decide if they want to order $1.6 billion in additional spending. The problem is, we’ve got no money. The decision we all have to make is, can the Supreme Court of New Jersey order us to raise taxes? Can they order us to cut spending in all the other areas?"

U.S. Supreme Court justice considers outlawing speech against radical Islam

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Chuck Rogér
Clear Thinking Blog
September 21, 2020
Americans’ right to express opinions is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. But what if someone shouts “Fire!” in a public place when in fact there is no fire? And what if people get injured and killed in the resulting stampede? In 1919′s Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Let’s emphasize the thrust of the ruling:
Someone who causes harm to others by knowingly expressing a falsehood is not protected by the First Amendment.

In this case, truthfulness determines whether speech is or isn’t protected by the First Amendment. In other words, stating provable facts and expressing pure opinions are protected as free speech under the Constitution, no ifs, ands, or buts.
So then, when last week Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer compared burning the Koran to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the progressive crossed a line in the sand. If the man’s thinking were ever used to decide a court case, America as we have known her will have changed forever–for the worse.
Breyer’s logic suggests that since radical Islamists would riot and kill people after copies of the Koran were publicly burned, then we may want to outlaw Koran burning. The implications are staggering. Americans would be prohibited by federal law from expressing opinions against Islam.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Using Breyer’s “reasoning,” and I apply the term in the loosest sense, at precisely what points would expressing opinions against and stating facts about Islam become illegal? A typical anti-freedom “progressive,” Breyer doesn’t say. But with his rationale, since Islamists go crazy and kill people at the slightest provocation, must Americans be prohibited by law from writing anything that the zealots might take as offensive?
Now we come to a truly frightening aspect of Breyer’s thinking. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Breyer,
When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?
After hemming and hawing, Breyer spilled his guts, stating that while America’s “core values remain… how they apply can change…” Who should decide how to “change” the way Americans “apply” core values? Why ruling class elites like the justice himself, of course.
Breyer essentially said that since the internet makes it possible for news to travel instantly across the planet, the world is made much more dangerous by people simply express themselves in ways to which others may react violently. Therefore, courts should reinterpret America’s core values in light of the “global” community. Breyer seems to argue for courts to redefine free speech by taking into account whom the courts think may be offended by the speech.
So then, if we go down the path Breyer suggests, how much of a leap will it be to the next level of speech suppression? How long until America arrives at the place where the U.K. and the Netherlands are now? How soon will we find ourselves forbidden by law from saying anything publicly against murderers who would take what we say as reason to commit more murders?
We see how dangerous Breyer’s rationale is by applying it to another area.
Suppose illegal immigrants residing in America go Islamic on us. If the illegals simply turn into murderous zealots, then will Breyer and other “progressives” who “think” as he thinks argue for outlawing public expression that might incite murderous illegals to kick up the murdering to the next level?
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Isn’t it a lovely country that the enlightened progressives are fashioning for the rest of us unclean, gun-clinging, religion-clinging, bigoted masses?
This article was posted: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 11:24 am
Tuesday, April 30, 2013   

Home » Uncategorized

The U.S. Supreme Court and Islam

13 January 2011 Uncategorized 9 Comments Email This Post Email This Post
The United States Supreme Court honors Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, as a source of law and justice.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Islam

By Elias Abdullah
The United States Supreme Court honors Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, as a source of law and justice alongside Moses, Solomon, and Confucius. He is depicted in the Courtroom Frieze among the great law-givers of mankind.
Muslims understand that depictions of the Prophet are unlawful. However, in this case, this depiction created by a non-Muslim was done with the intention of honoring Islam and making the statement that Islam is an important part of American life and history. From the Supreme Court’s website:
The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
At this critical time in America’s relationship with the Muslim world, it is important to recognize this work of art as a symbol of the friendship America’s founding fathers had with Islam, as reflected in the Treaty of Friendship, one of the earliest treaties between the United States and a Muslim country, Morocco:
This is a Treaty of Peace and Friendship established between us and the United States of America, which is confirmed, and which we have ordered to be written in this Book and sealed with our Royal Seal at our Court of Morocco on the twenty fifth day of the blessed Month of Shaban, in the Year One thousand two hundred, trusting in God it will remain permanent…
This sentiment is repeated again the the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and Tripoli:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims), and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
In the same tradition, the 96th United States Congress (1976) passed a resolution honoring Islam on its 14th centennial:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
  • Sec. 1. That Islam is hereby recognized for the rich religious, scientific, cultural, and artistic contribution it has made to mankind since its founding.
  • Sec. 2. The Congress takes note of the contribution of Islam and wishes success to the fourteenth centennial commemoration.
  • Sec. 3. On the occasion of this anniversary, the Congress pledges its efforts to achieve better understanding, reductions of tensions, and the pursuit of improved relations with all nations of the world.
  • Sec. 4. The Congress requests that the President forward a copy of this resolution to the Chief of State of each country where Islam has a significant following and where celebrations will mark this important international event.
In conclusion, while Muslims will disagree with the artist’s method, they certainly can agree on the artist’s respect for Islam and its fundamental tenet, Justice.
Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. (Quran 16:90)
Narrated Anas: Allah’s Messenger said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one.” People asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624]

U.S. Supreme Court Eligibility Issue: Shame On You

By Devvy Kidd
Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist
With all the accumulated amassed during the past 4 years there can be no doubt that Obama was put in place to act as president by forces that many cannot yet comprehend.  Members of Congress knew, and failed to act, the Supreme Court knew and would not hear the arguments. 
Unlike Obama who won’t be impeached, states are working feverishly to make sure his name does not appear on the ballot.  Never forget it is far easier to impeach a judge like Kagan and possibly Sotomayor who enjoy being judicial activists. 
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
On January 3, 2012, Montgomery Blair Sibley filed a proper and correct Quo Warranto to remove the usurper, Obama/Soetoro, from office.
Let the impeachment of some begin!
On January 12, 2012, Montgomery sent a certified letter to Ronald C. Machen, Jr., United States Attorney for the District of Columbia:
“RE: Request pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332 to inform the grand jury of whether President Barack Obama may have violated Federal criminal law, my identity and your action or recommendation.”
Response: None.
By February 13, 2012, 40 days after filing the suit, the District Court Judge had not ruled on any part of the Quo Warranto suit, so Montgomery filed a petition for mandamus with the Circuit Court of Appeal.
March 7, 2012, that court ruled: “The district court’s delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.”
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court said without saying it that the case won’t be decided until October, sending a clear message to the lower courts they can sit on this while the putative president continues to sign bills into law and pretends to be Commander-in-Chief. October – one month before the pretend election.
Back in April of 2010, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a U.S. House sub committee the high court was evading the eligibility issue.
Continue reading

Obama’s campaign finance reform plans have faded

President Obama’s once-broad ambitions to clamp down on the influence of special interests have been largely abandoned since his reelection, dismaying longtime allies in the campaign-finance reform movement.
The predicament will be on full display Tuesday, when all five members of the Federal Election Commission will be serving past the time when their formal terms expired. The panel’s sixth seat remains vacant. The president has not made a nomination to the FEC, which enforces the nation’s campaign finance laws, in more than three years.
More from PostPolitics

O’Connor: Maybe Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken Bush v. Gore

O’Connor: Maybe Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken Bush v. Gore
Ex-Supreme Court justice suggests that the high court probably should have stayed out of the 2000 election.

Joe Manchin isn’t finished with gun control. Does it matter?

Joe Manchin isn’t finished with gun control. Does it matter?
THE FIX | The rebooted fight Manchin is promising will face long odds because it won't happen in a vacuum.

McConnell’s claim that there are ‘nearly 10,000’ tax codes nationwide

McConnell’s claim that there are ‘nearly 10,000’ tax codes nationwide
FACT CHECKER | Senate GOP leader says there there are nearly 10,000 state, local and municipal tax codes. Does it check out?

President Obama's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner

President Obama's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner
"I'm not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be." -- President Obama
The tumult follows a string of disappointments for advocates who favor tougher regulation of money in politics, including Obama’s decision this year to transform his campaign committee into an advocacy group, Organizing for Action, that can collect unlimited donations.
Obama also promised during his reelection campaign to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court opinion that allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on politics. Nothing has happened since.
In addition, the White House has not filled a position overseeing ethics and lobbying issues for more than two years — a job Obama created with great fanfare when he took office in 2009.
Reformers of both parties describe the president’s campaign finance record in unsparing terms.
“It’s disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who ran against Obama in 2008 and has spent years trying to limit the amount of money that pours into federal political campaigns.
In a joint letter to Obama on Monday, seven reform groups expressed their “deep concern about the nation’s corrupt campaign finance system and about your failure, to date, as president to provide meaningful leadership or take effective action to solve this fundamental problem facing our democracy.”
White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that Obama “has taken historic steps to reduce the corrosive influence of money in politics.”
“President Obama has done more in the past four years to close the revolving door of special interest influence than any president before him,” Schultz said.
When it comes to affecting the flow of private money into federal elections, however, many advocates think Obama has done more to open the spigot than close it.
In 2008, he became the first presidential nominee since Richard M. Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general-election campaigns. He also shattered fundraising records during his 2012 reelection bid, and allowed corporations to help underwrite his second inauguration with more than $8 million in donations.
But for many former allies, Obama’s decision to convert his campaign into a political advocacy group with unlimited funding was the final straw.
“The president has engaged in uncharted waters that open the door to influence,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist who describes Organizing for Action as “a precedent that other federal officeholders are likely to follow.”

ep. Louie Gohmert: ‘So Many Muslim Brotherhood Members’ Influencing Obama Admin. to Ignore Radical Islam Threat

Louie Gohmert
Getty Images
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) this week accused the Obama administration of being influenced by members of the Muslim Brotherhood into ignoring that the threat from radical Islam.
In an interview with the conservative World Net Daily, Gohmert said that particularly in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, “it’s very clear to everybody but this administration that radial Islam is at war against us.”
“I’m hoping either this administration will wake up or a new one will come in in the next election before irreparable damage is done because radical Islam is at war with us,” Gohmert repeated. “This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America.”
Gohmert blasted the decision to read bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, blaming Attorney General Eric Holder for blocking investigators from gathering information about additional threats to U.S. citizens.
“I guess, you know, with our attorney general having spent more time before being AG trying to help terrorists than trying to corral them, first impulse was let’s get him to stop talking,” Gohmert accused. “If it’s not bad enough that they bungled getting this guy picked up and his brother picked up and questioned before they blew up people in Boston, then now to get him to shut up when he has invaluable information potentially is just really egregious.”
Gohmert added that, “as smart as we’re told Eric Holder is, he knew the results of his actions would be to shut the terrorist up.”

The Will of Allah’: Ohio Church Service Turns Deadly After Man Reportedly Yells Islamic Rhetoric, Shoots His Father

ASHTABULA, Ohio (TheBlaze/AP) — Police in northeast Ohio are investigating a shooting outside a church that left one man dead after an Easter service. And the details may shock you.
A member of the Hiawatha Church of God in Christ said the man was shot soon after Easter services ended, around 1:15 p.m. Sunday. Joan Crockett said the man knew the shooter, and that a suspect was taken into custody.
Media reports — and the police — identified the victim as Richard Riddle, 52, and said his son was the shooter.
Ashtabula Police Chief Robert Stell told the Star Beacon in Ashtabula that dispatchers received multiple calls about the shooting from inside the church and that a mass shooting was feared. He said at least six other law enforcement agencies rushed to assist local police.
The Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland reported that the church’s pastor said congregants were leaving when they heard a gunshot. Here’s how WKYC-TV describes the shooting:
Rashad Riddle, waited outside of the church until his family came out. He said a few words before shooting his father, Richard Riddle, who died at the scene. A witness only remembers hearing one shot.
The shooter didn’t leave the scene following the shooting. When police arrived, they told him to put down his gun, which he did. Police then took him into custody.
But here’s where the details get a bit more curious. According to WYTV-TV, the suspected shooter, Rashad Riddle, yelled, “The will of Allah — this is the will of God,” either before or after the murder.
Those at the church described the chaos in detail.
Associate Pastor Sean Adams told The (Ashtabula) Star Beacon newspaper that worshippers started screaming, ducking down and calling 911 on cellphones after the shooting.
“”It was terrifying,” Adams told the newspaper. “The children were screaming and people were dialing 911. We were afraid to breathe.”
Adams said Reshad Riddle then continued into the church, still holding the gun, and yelled that the killing was “the will of Allah. This is the will of God.”
“People pushed me into a back office and said, `Somebody’s here with a gun,’” said the Rev. David Howard Jr. “The guy was outside hollering and acting crazy.”
There were no immediate reports of any other injuries.
Howard said the church has about 175 members and that congregants didn’t know what led up to the shooting.
“It’s such a tragic loss,” Crockett said.
County Coroner Pamela Lancaster told the Star Beacon that Riddle’s wound was “immediately fatal.” She said the body will be transferred to the Cuyahoga County coroner’s office for autopsy.

DEVELOPING: Obama Administration Accused by Many Career Officials of Threats to Benghazi Whistle-Blowers...

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.
“It's frightening, and they're doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we're going to kill you,’ or not ‘we're going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].” Continue reading via Fox News...

Proof: Hillary Clinton Deliberately Lied About Benghazi

hillary clintonIt is doubtful that anyone will ever forget the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, where a terrorist attack claimed the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Many Americans were left to wonder why CIA agents who could have helped were told to “stand down” when the Benghazi Consulate in Libya was attacked.
It is now a well-known fact that obvious attempts were made by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration to convince the American public that no one had any certainty about what was happening in Benghazi until it was too late to intervene. However, as more facts are uncovered, Clinton’s claim appears to be unraveling. Congressmen who have seen secret emails have come forward, saying that she deliberately lied about the investigation.
House Republicans recently ruled that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-ranking officials of the State Department were directly responsible for reducing security levels at the Libyan consulate despite a high threat environment. This contradicts Clinton’s testimony, given before Congress, during which she said, “The requests didn’t come to me, I didn’t deny them.” From the report;
To protect the State Department, the administration deliberately removed references to al-Qaida-linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by [United Nations] Ambassador [Susan] Rice, thereby perpetuating the deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a demonstration caused by a YouTube video.
Overwhelming evidence has now been uncovered to prove that the above statement made by Clinton was false, and that she did indeed deny requests for help. Communications such as e-mails have been uncovered, although only viewed by a few members of Congress, that prove repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. The report lays direct blame on Clinton, who personally gave approval to the systematic withdrawal of help from Benghazi as far back as April 2012.
In fact, thousands of pages of emails and documents were analyzed before the report was published. From CBS News:
["National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden] noted specifically that the administration gave Congress access to ten thousand pages of documents and that senior agency officials have briefed congressmen publicly and privately on the matter.”
State Department cables boasting then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged a plea for additional help from then-Ambassador Cretz. The cable was a formal request for tightened security at the consulate. Her signature on these documents clearly contradicts Clinton’s previous testimony claiming that the requests were handled by other professionals in the department and not by her. The Five House Committees announced on April 23 that they are holding Clinton and other State Department officials directly responsible for the fatal reduction of security at the consulate.
The House has also released an Interim Progress Report about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the following conclusions were reached:
Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, and President Obama and others in his Administration lied to the American Public by executing a cover-up.
Shortly after the attack, it was strongly inferred by both President Obama and Hillary Clinton that the assault was nothing more than a reaction to an offensive anti-Muslim YouTube video, although there is now substantial proof that these two individuals knew otherwise.
There is also evidence that any mention of terrorism was scrubbed from the White House talking points. Statements were later made by the office of the Director for National Intelligence that these points were indeed scrubbed, but it was done for reasons of national security rather than to engage in a cover-up. Those statements have now been contradicted by a 46-page House Republican report on the Benghazi attacks. Arguably, some of the most incriminating evidence–which has gone unreported until recently–is certain communications, including classified e-mails, that indicated the talking points regarding previous attacks in Benghazi were removed to “protect the State Department,” which is obviously not an acceptable reason for hiding such information.
Although Clinton has now testified, Congress has not yet heard from the United States government personnel who survived the attack. By a 67%-26% margin, voters believe these individuals should be subpoenaed if the State Department will not allow them to be interviewed by congressional investigators.
Meanwhile, Hillary is the Democrats’ favorite choice for next president. We live in dark times. It’s absolutely vital that people know she’s a liar with the blood of Americans on her hands. Please share this as much as you can on Facebook, Twitter, and in discussion forums. Get the truth out.

Speak Out While It's Still Legal:

comments
Read This Next:
  1. Video: Rand Paul Tells Hillary Clinton He Would Fire Her
  2. Hillary Busted For Benghazi Lies… Says It Doesn’t Matter
  3. Petraeus Bombshell: The Administration Censored The Benghazi Truth
  4. LEAKED: Obama Wants Power to Kill American Citizens
  5. White House: Killing American Citizens is “Legal” and “Ethical”
  6. Obama Kills US Citizen, 16-Year-Old Boy, Without Trial
  7. Obama Sends 140,000 Cans of Teargas to Muslim Brotherhood
  8. White House Threatens Bob Woodward: “You’ll Regret This”

Eric Holder: Soft on Terror, Again

 19
 0
 8
 

Print Article Send a Tip

On April 27, Attorney General Eric Holder defended a federal judge's decision to read confessed terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights after only 16 hours of interrogation, saying: “Everything was done appropriately, and we got good leads.” Holder's statement confirmed earlier reports that he had foreknowledge of, but failed to object to, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler’s decision to "mirandize" Tsarnaev.

Judge Bowler's sudden appearance at Tsarnaev's hospital bedside prompted alarm from the FBI agents who were questioning him. Holder is correct that the FBI had managed to obtain "good leads"; what he does not acknowledge is the leads they might yet have uncovered.
The failure to insist on as full an interrogation as possible fits a pattern of Holder standing up for terrorists' rights despite the danger to American lives.
During his confirmation hearings in 2009, Holder came under scrutiny for his role as President Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General in granting clemency to terrorists from the radical Puerto Rican radicals in the FALN organization. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Holder “instructed his staff at Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney to effectively replace the department's original report recommending against any commutations.”
The FALN case was not the only troubling evidence of Holder’s sympathy for terrorists. Holder served as senior partner in the Covington and Burling law firm, which took on the cases of 17 Yemeni terror detainees being held at the Guantánamo Bay prison. Holder also represented Chiquita Brands International in a plea bargain over payments to the AUC, a Columbian terrorist paramilitary organization, as Michelle Malkin noted in 2009.
In 2010, Liz Cheney and her Keep America Safe organization pointed out that Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) included nine lawyers who had previously represented Al Qaeda terror suspects. Critics charged, falsely, that Cheney was arguing that terrorists did not deserve lawyers. She did not dispute their right to counsel, but did question whether those who volunteered to provide it could be trusted with the nation’s security.
Indeed, over and over again, Holder has placed his left-wing political agenda ahead of national security. He insisted on trying 9/11 master plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court in New York City until he was forced to back down under political pressure. Shortly after the 2012 election, Holder seized the opportunity to bring Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law to New York City for a civilian trial, again regardless of the risk.
One of Holder’s top priorities at the DOJ was to investigate the CIA for interrogations of terrorists conducted under the administration of President George W. Bush. Ultimately, Holder decided not to bring any charges, but the investigation had reportedly damaged morale at the intelligence agency. Intelligence-gathering from terror detainees has since become a repeated source of trouble, from the Christmas Day bomber in 2009 to Tsarnaev.
Holder famously promised that bin Laden would not be read his rights because he would be killed first. As with much of the Obama administration’s policy on terrorism, however, bin Laden has proved to be an exceptional case. Holder has shown enthusiasm for the expansive use of executive powers, such as the use of drones, but has shown less enthusiasm for his fundamental responsibility of enforcing the law and keeping America safe.
Marc Thiessen, writing at the Washington Post, notes that Holder suggested in mid-2010 that the rules around Miranda warnings should be reformed to reflect the realities of international terrorism. Such changes were a "top priority," Holder promised. Yet despite Democrats holding control of both houses of Congress, Holder "failed to deliver," Thiessen observes, leaving the U.S. unequipped to deal with Tsarnaev.
Celebrated defense lawyer and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz was calling for Tsarnaev to be mirandized even before Judge Bowler had done so, largely because he believed the public safety risk had passed once both suspects had been neutralized. But others called Holder's move premature, and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence went further, calling it "absolutely disgraceful."
After the Boston Marathon bombings, President Barack Obama promised: “But make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this, and we will find out who did this, we'll find out why they did this." The DOJ had advance warning of the judge’s intent and did not dissuade her. At best, Holder’s conduct reflects appalling incompetence and confusion. At worst, it is part of an effort to place the rights of terrorists above the lives of Americans.

Jonathan Kay: China’s ruthless foreign policy is changing the world in dangerous ways

Jonathan Kay | 13/04/29 | Last Updated: 13/04/29 3:38 PM ET
More from Jonathan Kay | @jonkay
A security officer keeps watch outside the headquarters of China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) in Beijing.
REUTERS/Claro Cortes IV/FilesA security officer keeps watch outside the headquarters of China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) in Beijing.
Are we witnessing the end of the “American age”? It depends whom you ask. But one thing is certain: Thanks to the near-bankruptcy of the American welfare state, Washington is losing both the means and desire to project power across the world. Inevitably, nations with deeper pockets — China, most notably — will fill the void.
This process already is underway in many parts of the world. That includes large swathes of Central Asia, where Beijing’s billions are beginning to revolutionize regional infrastructure and alliances — in dazzling but potentially dangerous ways.
Analyzing Beijing’s foreign policy is a relatively simple exercise. That’s because, unlike the United States and other Western nations, China doesn’t even pretend to operate on any other principle except naked self-interest.
On one hand, China has courted Israel as a partner in developing Mediterranean gas fields — but it also has been happy to do business with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, and has sold weapons that ended up in Hezbollah’s arsenal. In South Asia, meanwhile, China has cynically helped Pakistan check India’s regional role, even as China’s state-controlled press has warned Pakistan that Beijing may “intervene militarily” in South Asia if Pakistani-origin jihadis continue to infiltrate Muslim areas of Western China.
In the east, China’s policy has been to claim every square inch of the South China Sea, and intimidate every smaller country that dares to oppose its claims. China also props up North Korea, the most totalitarian nation on earth, for no other reason than that China’s leaders dislike the prospect of a U.S.-allied unified Korean peninsula on their doorstep. Even when Sudan’s government was butchering its own people in Darfur, Chinese energy companies were happy to do business in Khartoum.
Unlike the United States and its NATO allies, China never had any desire to see its soldiers patrolling the streets of Kabul and Kandahar
China’s foreign policy ambitions are growing in unexpected directions. As John Hopkins University scholar Christina Lin argues: “Paradoxically, while the U.S. is pivoting eastward to contain China in the Asia Pacific, the resurgent Middle Kingdom is pivoting westward on its new Silk Road across the Greater Middle East.”
Unlike the United States and its NATO allies, China never had any desire to see its soldiers patrolling the streets of Kabul and Kandahar, or to sacrifice lives and money in furtherance of “nation-building.” As with Chinese operations in Africa, Beijing’s initiatives in Central Asia and the Middle East are ruthless cost-benefit enterprises aimed at extracting Afghan mineral riches, and otherwise enhancing China’s national interests.
ANDY WONG/AFP/Getty Images
ANDY WONG/AFP/Getty ImagesU.S. General Martin Dempsey, left, and his Chinese counterpart General Fang Fenghui inspect a guard of honour during a welcoming ceremony at the Bayi Building in Beijing last week.
Those interests, Lin, notes, include (1) securing safe and secure oil and gas routes, such that China can ensure its energy needs are met even in the event that its coastal supply routes are blockaded or otherwise disrupted; (2) creating a bulwark against the infiltration of Islamist terrorists into China’s Muslim regions from Pakistan and neighboring Muslim countries; and (3) stabilizing and integrating the Xianjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, which occupies a sixth of China and is regularly beset by Islamist agitation.
In the new Great Game, as in all realpolitik arenas, no vacuum lasts for long
At the centre of China’s plan for Central Asia and the Middle East is a pipeline, road, rail and power network that could eventually extend from the Pearl River Delta, west through China into Central Asia, and eventually all the way to the Mediterranean. This scheme would greatly benefit landlocked nations such as Afghanistan, but it would also be a bonanza to Iran, which likely would end up being a full partner in any such megaproject. (Lin, for instance, has sketched out a scenario in which an Iranian railway line into the western Afghan city of Heart would be integrated with a Chinese network that extends south from Xianjiang into the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif.)
Of course, this is a region that could desperately use more economic development. But the prospect of such development being done under joint Iranian stewardship is a disturbing one — not least because it would completely undercut any effect that Western sanctions would have on Iran’s nuclear program.
Most Americans (and Canadians) have supported the idea of leaving Afghanistan “to the Afghans.” But we’re not really doing that at all. In the new Great Game, as in all realpolitik arenas, no vacuum lasts for long. And soon, we likely will be dealing with a deep-pocketed China that seeks to turn the entire region into a logistical and energy-supply back-office for its coastal economic powerhouse. In the process — almost as an afterthought — it will be helping to prop up one of the most malign regimes on the face of the planet, Iran, just as it has done with Sudan and North Korea.
That is just the way China does business. In the long run, it is this amoral approach to global affairs — not the apocalyptic utopianism of militant Islam, which already show signs of extinguishing itself — that will be the greatest threat to the Western democratic ideal.

Bad moon over America

Author
By Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives)  Monday, April 29, 2013
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
As the events in Boston played out over the last two weeks, one facet of this administration’s actions kept troubling me.  I couldn’t quite see it through the dense fog of information and accusations at first, but then in the dark of a restless night after my oral surgery a few days ago, I looked skyward and asked God Almighty for some light on the big picture, because I’m a “big picture, bottom line” kind of guy.  It seemed that within seconds, the clouds overhead began to break, and out of the darkness rose a full moon.  Somehow it seemed like an answer, but how?
I thought about my family and friends and then about my country and the world.  I tend to be a little dense at times and it still wasn’t quite clear to me what the moon rising on the horizon had to do with my hope for divinely inspired insights and revelations.  Amid the haze of my pain and medication, I startled myself by talking out loud to the Almighty, perhaps a bit too testily for which I hope I will be forgiven. “Don’t you see,” I fumed, “I’m just trying to get some perspective on our situation. How can I help people if I can’t get their attention on the big problems looming right in front of us?”
Perhaps it was the medication, but for the life of me I thought I heard God chuckle a bit as I just stood there staring at the odd moonlit shapes and shadows around me.  It’s strange how moonlight makes the colors go away, turning everything monochrome.  The dark shadows of a rising moon distort and lie about what is really around you.  The buds and flowers on the oak and cherry tree branches which seemed so beautiful and reassuring on the previous spring afternoon suddenly become foreboding and stark.  The slightest, rustling breeze puts one’s senses on edge, seeing what your imagination is hearing.

Bad moon rising

Standing in the darkness, my thoughts wandered to a song from my youth by Credence Clearwater Revival, Bad Moon Rising. The lyrics were well imprinted in my subconscious: “I see the bad moon arising. I see trouble on the way. I see earthquakes and lightnin’. I see bad times today. Don’t go around tonight, well, it’s bound to take your life, there’s a bad moon on the rise.”
I already felt sick and the thoughts induced by that rock scripture weren’t very comforting.  Not being one to leave fate completely to chance, I walked back inside where I chased a couple more pills with some clear water in pursuit of my own “revival.”  While waiting for the promised relief I took a deep breath and badgered the Almighty yet again, clearly showing my heightened exasperation, for which I have since apologized.
“Please excuse my blindness, but what am I missing here?  I see a full moon.  How’s that relevant to Boston or Benghazi?  How does that tell us anything about the times we’re in?”

Bad economic moon

I complained to God that I’ve written about the peril our economy is facing as this president and his administration are kissing up to the globalists, and are in apparent agreement with their curses on our currency with their proclamations that they intend to “just kill the dollar.”  In those moonlit moments, I complained about how wrong it seemed that no one has yet to challenge the president by asking whether the statement made by a high level Obama Administration official is truly their intent or if this official perhaps misstated the administration’s position.
Perhaps “we the people” don’t have the right perspective on the matter and there is a defensible situation that the president and this administration could envision where “killing” the dollar was a wise alternative that could be made to make sense to the American people… and for that matter, all other people around the world who rely on a stable U.S. dollar as their country’s reserve currency.  I again stared at the rising arc of the full moon.  I felt a bit indignant at the indignity of the situation.  I again begged God out loud, “please, please help me to see the obvious, if it’s actually that obvious!  What am I missing here, what’s right in my face that I’m not seeing?”

A tale of two moons

I closed my eyes and for a moment and I thought God directed a little nod to me, telling me to “look again!” After giving my eyes a moment to readjust, I looked back up at that full moon. In the blur and for an instant I was seeing double! Albeit briefly, two moons.
Instantly, like a silver bullet to the center of my brain it hit me, striking me hard right between the eyes and in a Godly instant it was clear as day.  It’s all a matter of perspective! The Almighty allows me to see it clearly now, it was always right there, but I just didn’t comprehend it correctly, or completely.
Now, bear with me here for a moment as my thoughts instantly went to the predicament my friend had over some neck ties that were marketed for men a few years ago. They looked conservative and relatively innocent so my friend’s mother had bought a few for him as a gift.  He had occasionally worn them around and never gave it a thought until his girlfriend’s mother had asked him, rather incredulously, if he thought it was really appropriate to wear a particular tie (his favorite until then) to a relative’s wedding where they were headed as a group.  She said “all those dead heads, skulls and naked women are really not very respectful to the sensibilities of the congregation who do not expect to be insulted by such indignities in God’s house. It’s just not right!”
Well, my friend failed to see the pictures hidden within the pictures. In his defense, he claims that a little color blindness mixed with intermittent dyslexia contributed to the problem. We were both amused that he could not see what his future mother-in-law saw so clearly and so immediately.  Upon his arrival at the church, he walked directly into the rest room where it seemed that most of the clergy and half of the choir were present. There, along with the choir and clergy, he explained his plight as they all stood in front of a mirror and looked for several long seconds at my friend’s tie.
Almost simultaneously, perhaps assisted by the mirror’s correction of the dyslexic-crossed brain wires, there it was, the montage of madness hidden within the tie that his mother-in-law so readily saw. Following a group blush, my friend quickly removed his tie and entered the church. Later, he recounted that he tossed that tie and the others into his fireplace, disposing of them like a possessed Ouija board. He watched as the flames contorted the colorfully glowing, coiled and writhing forms until they flattened dead to ashes.  He is amazed to this day at how the obvious pictures within the picture had eluded him so completely.  He has repeated the tale to me many times since, vowing that he “won’t be fooled again.”
That’s how I feel now, it all a matter of perspective, and I also am vowing to never “be fooled again!”
Against the backdrop I have painstakingly but purposefully detailed, I see Barack Hussein Obama now and in the past bowing to foreign kings and princes, and I see his officials, staff and even the people closest to him doing the same.  He pays these foreigners the dignity of his bows… but from my perspective, and America’s perspective, we’re just getting MOONED. There, I said it. We’re getting MOONED by the president and the members of his administration who are following his lead.
But, as if that’s not bad enough, we’re also getting MOONED by Congress.  They won’t pass a budget, but don’t you dare be one day late on your taxes. They bend over and pay foreigners, globalists, and murdering Wahabist/Jihadist scammers with the sweat off our brow.  They dignify their foreign benefactors evil deeds with deep virtual bows, while imposing the indignities of their MOONING stench upon us in the form of increasingly invasive burdens of regulations and taxes, further hampering our ability to function as a nation.
As any farm kid in flyover country can tell you from personal experience, you can’t run, let alone move very fast in farm-fresh fertilizer muck. The deeper and wetter it is the slower you go; and whatever you do, watch where you step, don’t let it slop over the top of your boots because the smell doesn’t wash away easily.
Now you might imagine that the subject of being “mooned” is a bit over the top and as such not suitable for “decent folk” to discuss publicly. Given the divine origins of my current enlightenment, however, I’ll continue along with anyone so inclined to further consider my divinely inspired thoughts on the perspective we are being provided by those “assuming the positions” of representative leadership within our fine Republic.
I will, however, pause momentarily to allow any of you who feel the need to exit this article now, due to my references to the Almighty and the angst this might have caused the atheists and even the Progressives among you. Blame it on the “mentical” (my new word) damage as a consequence of my pain and medication if you must, and accept my sincere apologies as you depart.
There is, however, an interesting historical precedent for “mooning,” which is a bit of trivia you probably thought you could do without. The first known incident of “mooning” someone reportedly took place in 66 AD, when a Roman soldier mooned Jewish pilgrims on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. It was near the beginning of the First Roman–Jewish War and caused a riot that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jewish pilgrims. As we fast forward a couple thousand years, apparently little has changed.

The Obama moon rising

It was four years ago this month that photographs and video appeared of Barack Hussein Obama bowing deeply to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah at a G20 meeting, causing criticism by some conservative commentators who opined that his gesture was nothing more than a Hillbilly gaffe, or ignorance of protocol, considerately giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.  Others believe he exercised proper etiquette in that situation. I submit to you that given the events and news headlines of the last 5 years, both assertions are utterly incorrect and fatally naive.
Obama’s deep bow was the body language of submission, and equally disgusting as his predecessor’s kissing and hand holding with his Saudi counterpart. First, let’s stick with being mooned as this action is more relevant to present-day events, including but not limited to the murderous attacks in Boston on April 15, 2013.

The blood red moon over Boston

Can you tell me with absolute certainty exactly what happened in Boston on April 15, 2013? Do you believe the official government narrative of all accounts of that day and the days that followed? If you question the events and the identity of the perpetrators and hold the government accountable in your position as watchmen, you risk being marginalized and described with pejoratives by the power elite. Yet, the bombing attack provides us with the most recent clues about what is taking place directly in front of us, as the holes in the official narrative are nearly as large as those that exist in the security at our southern border and just as numerous. Despite the many inconsistencies that can be identified and dissected, one critical aspect of the Boston marathon bombing will provide valuable, if not undeniable insight into the deep bow or bad moon rising.
It is the account of Saudi national Abdullahrahman Ali al Harbi.  If that name is unfamiliar, it is because our government and the corporate media intends it that way. In fact, the mere unauthorized discussion of al Harbi comes with the threat of jail for boots-on-the-ground field investigators. It is that serious and that much of a threat to the ultimate powers of government.
Glenn Beck and Alex Jones both extensively covered the account of al Harbi, which is the best example of the latest mooning of every American. Therefore, I will not rehash the details here. The case of al Harbi, however, included so many senior administration officials, that this bow to the Saudis (and the mooning of America) was so incredibly deep that from my perspective, it appeared that they were all not just bowing, but grabbing their ankles.
The now infamous bow to the Saudi King was like a bad moon rising over America, much the same as the first recorded “mooning” by a Roman soldier that ended up causing the deaths of thousands of Jewish pilgrims some two centuries ago. It’s a matter of perspective - on which side of the bow you are on. Unfortunately, Americans have been “mooned” in favor of the Saudis, but despite ample evidence have yet to realize it.
Failure to understand that the bow we witnessed has put all Americans under imminent threat of permanent brain damage as a result of hypoxia to our brain cells - the body politic of America. The oxygen deprivation that will cause our deaths is due to our elected officials, from the president to members of congress, being forced to maintain the contorted position of a deep bow turned into cranial-rectal inversion therapy at the behest of our Saudi controllers.
The Saudis, their globalist handlers and every person on the “proper side” of the deep bow contortion are laughing at you while you willingly sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters in battles that do not represent our best interests.
How does that make you feel? If you’re not angry, and I mean damn angry, then you’re not seeing the bigger picture.

Finally, the full moon

From Benghazi to Boston, no one from this administration or congress can reveal the truth, for doing so will expose the deep and incestuous U.S.-Saudi intelligence connections and common agenda. It will expose the Muslim Brotherhood inside and outside of the government, from the Department of State to the military to the Department of Homeland Security.
If you’re looking for answers from congress about Benghazi, you will not get them, for the captains of America’s body politic are all involved, and are placing all of us in extreme peril. If you cannot see, for example, that America was deeply involved in the illegal transfer of arms to anti-Assad terrorists on behalf of the Saudis in violation of international law, and the misallocation of American men, women and assets in pursuit of that agenda, then you are not looking in the proper places. How much clearer can it be that America is being used to establish a pan-Islamic empire? How much clearer can it be that we are assisting and protecting the Saudis at every turn?
By dancing to the tune of the Saudi royal agenda, the way is being paved for a new armed conflict in the Middle East that will make the totality of the conflicts over the last half-century tame by comparison. I’m talking about World War III. Every American administration since the early twentieth century has bowed to the Saudi-globalist interests, culminating to this very point in history. Does it now make sense how and why Barack Hussein Obama was “selected” to be in office at this moment in time? Just follow the money, which buys influence.
Now is the moment of decision for all Americans who can see the “big picture.”  Through our words and deeds, either we compel our elected officials to “think American,” break free from this Saudi-globalist agenda, and require them to pay us the dignity of addressing us directly, respectfully and appropriately as fellow citizens and not subjects, or we must draw our own deep red line in the sand. It’s the American way. Otherwise, we better prepare to limber up and start our stretching exercises immediately, for the next big bow in which we’ll likely be required to participate will break even the most flexible among us.