Posted on 02/25/2012 2:05:08 AM PST by yoe
(Andy McCarthy's) post on a criminal prosecution in Pennsylvania that was dismissed based on an application of sharia law and a recognition of the special, privileged status of Islam is the most chilling thing I have read in quite a while. This is Andy’s account of the events that led to the prosecution:
The victim, [atheist activist] Ernest Perce, wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume and pretended to walk among the dead (in the company of an associate who was the “Zombie Pope” — and who, you’ll be shocked to learn, was not assaulted). The assailant, Talag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant, physically attacked Perce, attempted to pull his sign off, and, according to police, admitted what he had done right after the incident. The defense argued that Elbayomy believed it was a crime to insult the prophet Mohammed (it is, under sharia law), and that because he was in the company of his children, he had to act to end this provocation and set an example about defending Islam.
As you will see, Judge Martin did not lecture the defendant about free speech or how disputes are resolved in a civilized country. He instead dressed the victim down for failing to appreciate how sensitive Muslims — including the judge himself — are about Islam.
The most remarkable thing about this story is the judge’s soliloquy in which he explains why he dismissed the case. It was recored by the complainant. You can read the whole thing at the link; here are some excerpts:
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Bump
bfl
These were the words of the judge. How in the world can it be legal for him to find this man guilty on this personal basis?
Is the judge, whose last name is "Martin," a Black Muslim or a Muslim convert? He mentions having spent time in a Muslim country, but it doesn't sound as if he's foreign born.
HORRIFIC ping to yet another case of
the Religion of bloody pieces . . . thankfully no blood this time.
Obama won’t be able to defend this guy in an election year. Perfect time to impeach him.
Our very own elected congress is passing laws including what they would call “hate speech” toward muslims, which is anything that is said to disagree with anything muslim as a hate crime. Im with Newt, we have to reign in these lunatic judges who rule from the bench and we have to remove those in congress who forgot thier oath of office.
How did a Muslim get to be Judge in the first place.
He is very white, and former military, where he spent time in the Middle East.
He’s a white soldier who served 2 tours in Iraq and converted to Islam.
He was uncontested in his election and received 97% of the vote, running as a republican and probably campaigning on his record as a military person.
The decision itself was that if the intent of the attack was to harass (as the charges stated) there would have been more of a ruckus than was indicated by the video which I understand he refused to view or the testimony of the cop which he discounted. He called it a he said/she said type situation even though the Muslim admitted to the attack, apparently because the Muslim claimed he didn’t act out of rage or a desire to harm but just wanted to make the mockery stop. And the judge accepted that.
The rationale he used is basically the same that a person might use for justifying a fallen soldier’s family attacking Fred Phelps when he holds a sign up at the funeral saying the soldier will rot in hell because he “tolerated faggots”. The idea is that it is an emotional time, the subject is near and dear to the person’s heart, and the person is asking for trouble by taunting that other person.
And that atheist probably was asking for it, although what he did was legal. The judge might have tried to call it aggravated assault using the logic he did. But instead he basically claimed that it’s not harassment if the intent is to “make the mockery stop”. If that is a fine, legal, justified motive, then every murder in this country is justified.
This judge acted as if only Muslims are cut to their very essence by mockery, but that is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. Does he think Catholics or other Christians are not cut to their very essence if they are required to commit what they believe to be murder? By his ruling it would be legally justified for any Christian to “make the mockery stop” by silencing the people who are forcing them to fund and/or perform abortions. One of the most effective ways to “make it stop” is by bullets. That seems to be what the judge is justifying.
This is very, very dangerous precedent. I really, really hope that this decision is appealed, because the methodology of Muslims when trying to get sharia instituted is to get a judicial ruling in a very local setting and then have another very local setting cite the ruling as precedent, thus putting the precedent in place for the whole country. It’s finding the 2 weakest links and forcing the stupidity of those 2 weakest links - and the unwillingness of people to “make a big deal” out of something everybody knows is stupid because it seems too small to worry about it - to become the precedent for everybody.
This judge ignored probative evidence and substituted his own knowledge (judge’s knowledge). A Youtube containing the audio of the judge’s decision also said that the judge threatened to put the victim in prison if he made public the tape(s) showing what had happened in this case, so not only do we have the accused harassing the victim physically, but we have the JUDGE harassing the victim through threats of legal punishment. This is stuff you would expect to see in Iran, where “judge’s knowledge” substitutes for legally-probative evidence and on the basis of that “judge’s knowledge” victims (such as a 14-year-old girl who was raped by her 34-year-old uncle)are actually executed. The judge in this case mentioned that if this atheist had been in a Muslim country he might have been executed.
What makes this especially chilling to me is the fact that Judge Michael Malihi basically did the same kind of ruling in the GA Ballot Challenge, where he wrote off all the evidence that was presented - even evidence that is normally self-authenticating such as records from a previous court case (passport documents) or mere eyewitness testimony (which doesn’t have to be expert testimony) - and then made a positive determination of Obama’s eligibility based on no probative evidence whatsoever, which appears to be a claim of “judge’s knowledge”.
There are our 2 cases where sharia carried the day, where the use of “judge’s knowledge” prevailed, although the ballot challenge is being appealed. But because it’s about Obama’s eligibility no judge is going to overturn it (since Soros and his minions will simply threaten the judge with the same threats they made to silence the media companies, which is a documented fact) and the precedent will stand - this time in an actual court rather than simply an administrative hearing.
We are in very, very dangerous territory here. Those who poo-pooh both the Obama eligibility issue and his self-stated support of the Muslim agenda are playing with fire that will soon set this whole nation and world aflame if we don’t get serious.
There is much more information on another threat that is about this Pennsylvania case, and how it ties in with a bunch of other stuff we’re seeing in regards to Obama. I suggest that anybody who is interested start reading at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2850278/posts?page=61#61 and follow through to the rest of the thread. Lots of links along the way.
Some links that didn’t get in there were from other sharia-related news stories that came out yesterday, including that:
Radical Muslim groups are now deciding what training materials our FBI uses to train about Muslim terrorism (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850357/posts )
Obama apologizes for the burning of Korans ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2850382/posts ) - and I read on another thread (that I didn’t ping myself on) that John Bolton says the Korans had been desecrated by Muslim prisoners by writing in them and by taking pages out, and the proper way of disposing of desecrated Korans is by burning them, so Obama is apologizing after 2 of our soldiers were killed by a supposed ally after the US disposed of Muslim-desecrated Korans in the way that Islam requires them to be destroyed.
CAIR is accusing Florida of demonizing Islam by seeking to ban the use of sharia in US courts ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2850399/posts )
Throughout the thread I suggested that people read, there are links to support various claims I have made. There are a bunch more links that could be included as well. One of these days I’ll put this stuff together so people can access it all at once.
I said: “There is much more information on another threat that is about this Pennsylvania case...”
That should have been THREAD, not threat.
Now anytime I see some infidel mocking the Pope, or Jesus -- like in 'gay pride' parades --- I can cap him. Or whack some commie scum desecrating the Flag of the USA like those 'undocumented immigrants' do when they march to 'demand their rights'.
You're a real Peach judge. So thanks again for setting legal precedent.
Ah, but that’s only if Jesus, the Pope, or the Flag of the USA are the very essence of your being. And this judge seems to be arguing that only Muslims believe something to the very essence of their being.
Just like Muslims are the ones who don’t have to buy health insurance that will fund abortions for their employees - because they had an imam say they consider insurance to be gambling, which goes against their very essence.
So a Muslim presumably can’t have car insurance that everybody else has to have, and that’s fine because it’s part of his very essence to not have insurance.
But Mother Theresa herself would be required to abort a precious little one created by the Lord she loves - because it’s not like it actually really matters to her.
Welcome to sharia in the United States of America, where Muslims can do whatever they want and non-Muslims are subject to dhimmi taxes and/or executed for being infidels.
Our entire system seems led by men/women/? who seem to have already chosen the first step of submission to Islam. Either by defending Shariah Law in Court-when one of the two parties -perhaps both -are Muslim— or by using Islam to “educate” and prove our multicultural diversity in schools.—Or in Government-the appointment of Judges who are either Muslim—or useful idiots i.e. progressive/ to the passage of laws to make the building of Mosques at -or near Ground Zero or elsewhere -or the approval of Memorials that reflect Islam as they pretend to honor our dead. Or just writing legislation to advance or protect multicultural atheistic humanism.Our system is divorced from what was established.
And raises the question are we worthy of the name American even today?
Well done.
Thanks for the info. When I saw “spent several years in the Middle East,” I wondered if perhaps he was a former military convert.
butter, what you have said is very true. And I think the strategy will be exactly what you have said, that is, to get local precedent that then will be expanded from one court to another.
The Noble Islamic Gentlemen, with this preferential treatment, have scored yet another of a series of one-way ratchets in their long-term goal of establishing the World-Wide Caliphate.
It is not necessary that they ever become a majority in any country (though this has been established already in a few localities), it is only necessary that the large bulk of the population is subservient to their theocracy.
And this is how the assertion of their superiority comes, on little cat feet in the fog. We ourselves have set up the playing field for them, by first demanding “political correctness”, a means of giving minorities a protected status. But this “political correctness” is only a one-way path. Islam recognizes no such reciprocity for minorities in those countries in which they have a numerical majority.
Keep in mind, people, that persons of northern European origin have clawed their way to the top in the cultural and economic competition with the rest of the world just BECAUSE they were descended from the most bloodthirsty, ruthless, arrogant, cutthroat bunch of pirates the world had ever known up to then. But we have grown soft, and show emotion when none is called for in some of our dealings throughout the world, and now we are faced with a new bunch of bloodthirsty, ruthless, arrogant, cutthroat bunch of pirates, who mean to displace us. It is time to revert to our natural heritage, and reassert we will not be dominated by what is frankly, a bunch of second- or third-rate humanity, who cannot create anything of their own, but are very good at intimidating their neighbors into giving up hard-won birthrights for the pirates’ passionate urges.
Do you think for a minute that there is enough technical expertise among Islam to create, say, a worldwide wireless telephone network? Left to their own devices, they would still be communicating by a courier riding on horseback bearing a message written on parchment. But what do they do with these cell phones they manage to come into possession of? They rig them as triggers to detonate roadside bombs set up for ambush of passing travelers. And not just for defensive purposes, but as an advantage in asymmetrical warfare, an assault weapon, since they have few delivery systems in the conventional sense. They have no highly technical means of designing and manufacturing strike weapons, so they send in suicide squads or even individuals, whose purpose is not to make strategic gains of territory or economic advantage, but to intimidate and throw the defense capabilities of the entities toward whom they have directed their wrath off-balance.
Their attack objectives are not military units, but to the relatively defenseless non-military parts of the people they are attacking. Thus we have 9-11, and an attack, brutal in its conception and execution, that was to break the dominance of the Western world, and was supposed to show the leaders of what is known as the “free world” that the perpetrators mean business.
It only meant that a certain relatively small faction, who had hijacked the entire cultural heritage of one of the older civilized societies in the world, was now challenging the leader of the world, the United States, for the right to assert and exert power everywhere in the world.
Ann Colter had it exactly right when in response to 9-11, she proclaimed that we should “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity.” But alas, this perfectly reasonable response was met with cries of “racism” and “hate crime” on the part of the Politically Correct, and thus, a potential advantage was lost in the long-continuing cultural war with that apostasy known as Islam.
Islam came into existence because a sun-crazed old hermit, suffering from what today we would recognize as schizophrenic paranoia, chose to re-write the existing religious texts, interpreting them in the light of his own warped judgment, and discarding the parts he felt of no particular importance. Armed with this new philosophical standard, he raised a small band of fierce and equally crazed warriors, and proceeded to spread his version of the (much-abridged) religious writings of the time at the point of sword. When captured, the enemy was given three choices: A. Convert to the religion of the people who held him captive and join them; B. Submit to the superiority of his captors and become a slave to their wishes; or C. be executed on the spot.
Everything else a Muslim may do in this world, is pretty much summed up in that short creed. There is nothing equivalent to the Ten Commandments, from the Old Testament, or the Golden Rule, from the New Testament, anywhere in the Koran, or any of the various haditha writings based on the text of the Koran. There may be mercy, but there is no justice in Shari’a law, based in large part on the interpretations of the Koran, which calls for swift judgment without appeal or often, not much logic behind the decisions rendered by the religious/civil authorities.
There is no separation of the religious and the civil in Islam. The law is what the imam says it is. In any other society this would be considered to be on a par with the doctrine of “divine right of the king”, exemplified by the pronouncement by graphic novel character Judge Dredd, “I am the law.”
There is a streak of religious “tolerance” in this country that we must remain “hands-off” the free practice of the religion of another, but this bumps into a little bit of a conundrum when that free practice involves violence in conflict with the established law of the nation. Killing family members for failure to obey the strictures of the acknowedged religious affiliation of the senior member of the family is illegal under the codes of law accepted in most Western countries, but is perfectly agreeable under Shari’a law. Does no one else see the obvious conflict here? Adoption of Shari’a law at the exclusion of the existing civil and criminal law is no solution, it is surrender, not only surrender, but abject surrender.
A surrender we cannot afford. This is a major weapon in the fight against chaos. Above all, we must keep our system of law and order.
AT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2850278/posts?page=47#47 somebody posted a really good summary showing the progression of how the Muslim agenda works when Muslims hold various percentages of the population. This is a systematic process.
In a follow-up to that post I noted that though the US is listed as having 1% Muslim population, what we see here now is more like what you’d expect from a 10% Muslim population.
I suggested that could be because the real population is closer to 10% when you factor in Muslims illegals coming through our southern border - particularly since direct, unchecked flights from Iran to Venezuela were said to be transporting Hezbollah operatives to send up through our soft underbelly diligently kept wide open by Eric Holder - and the fast-tracking of legal US entry by Hamas operatives.
I also suggested that US Muslims may be bolder because we have somebody in the White House who may have been put in place by a communist-Islamist alliance which intended for him to pave the way for the coming of the Mahdi - and Obama told the Egyptian ambassador privately in January of 2010 that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda but that the Muslim world needed to be patient with him while he got Obamacare passed and then he would focus on the Muslim agenda. And if you look at what he’s done since getting Obamacare crammed down our throats, EVERYTHING supports the Muslim agenda both in the world and in the US.
So does this mean when someone calls me a “Jesus Freak” I can bash their heads in without recrimination? Just askin’
Ever since the Civil Rights, which was unconstitutional but somewhat “acceptable” to the populace as reasonable, judges want everything “EQUAL”. But nothing is equal, because no religion is. ANd the last thing a minority wants is equality because a government wants to dominate and not be equal in power with people, lest the people wage their force and whips it to work as the servant it is.
Civil Rights was a stealth way to “side” with the “former slaves”, so that the government SERVANT, could then rule the master tax payer.
THe key is that they make their equal clause constitutionality and arbitrarily decide what is equal or not, reasonable or not, shirking responsabilities and responsabilities of others here and there in a corrupt deal.
This case is a case of a cult member supporting another one. The judge should have recused himself.
What is unconstitutional is when the government imposes a business what he or she should be with and what joke or costume dress is acceptable when it is a public holiday. This is not legal. Government is not an army deciding on its garrison what is going on, we tell the government what to do on its own garrison, and it is not to offend us and disrespect us to that end.
But it is all unionized and “activized”, so to speak. The brainlessness, huger feeling fear and the looting is in charge, sin wrecks havoc.
They have completely reduced the term constitutionality to a body of feelings. IT is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.