Archive for July, 2010

A Sad But Fair Ruling

Posted in Politics on July 30th, 2010

Judge Susan Bolton, United States District Court for the District of Arizona As pretty much everyone who’s even marginally aware of American politics knows, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday, halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents. Many people believe and are eager to say, either with glee or anger, that this is a victory for President Obama and a defeat for Arizona.

It was not, however, truly a victory for the Obama Regime, nor was it a defeat in Arizona’s defensive battle against the crime and destruction wreaked by the illegal immigrants invading from Mexico. All that actually happened was that Judge Bolton failed to hand Obama’s legal myrmidons a total defeat.

For Americans the preliminary injunction against enforcing some of the more active and probably more effective parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 is sad and more than a little frustrating, but it is a fair and practical measure for the court to take. With several lawsuits pending against Arizona’s new immigration law in addition to President Obama’s attack upon it, it makes sense to block enforcement of those parts of SB 1070 that would most likely result in the legal chaos and morass of wrongful imprisonment and civil rights lawsuits resulting from their being enforced and then overturned after they had been applied to people.

Related Reading:

A Court of Wings and Ruin (A Court of Thorns and Roses)
Famous Crimes the World Forgot: Ten Vintage True Crime Stories Rescued from Obscurity (Volume 1)
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win
A Nation of Nations: A Great American Immigration Story
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

The Wrong Answer

Posted in Politics on July 29th, 2010

Crack CocaineThe Liberals in Congress led by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) have passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 which will greatly reduce the sentencing guidelines for possession of crack cocaine and completely removes the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine.

Even the Republicans, sadly browbeaten by the incessant fraudulent claims of racism from the Left and its minority tenants, agreed to support it. So it now just awaits the signature of America’s First Black President in order to become the law.

It should come as no surprise to any American that the Democrat-controlled Congress, equally steeped in the pro-drug culture and ethno-guiltism, when faced with a very real problem chose the wrong answer to it and did so because that answer fit into their ethno-guiltism and cynical and desperate desire to curry the Black vote during the lead up to the 2010 Congressional midterm elections.

A saner and less ethno-guiltist governing body would have increased the penalty for powder cocaine to match or more closely resemble that for crack cocaine, especially given the worsening, violent, and destabilizing situation in Mexico right right now.

But it’s almost axiomatic that the Liberals will always support and endorse the wrong answer to real problems – when they even honestly understand the problem at all.

Related Reading:

Crimes Against a Book Club
The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government
Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse
Drugs: Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life
Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs

American Shari’a?

Posted in Politics, Religion, Society on July 29th, 2010

Liberals and various other dhimmi traitors have repeated ad nauseum how the Muslims are not to trying to and could not instate Shari’a law within the US. They have of course been sadly proven wrong. Shari’a law has already come to the US wrapped in multiculturalism and carrying a diversity training manual.

It’s grim day for America indeed when judges in our own courts betray our country and that is exactly what happened recently in New Jersey.

It’s really just a twist on a horror story that is at least as old as Islam.

A 17 year-old Muslim girl from Morocco was coerced into an arranged marriage to another Moroccan Muslim who she had never before met. Later, due to America’s lax immigration policies, they settled in Bayonne, NJ where the man’s mother came to live with them.

Some three months later the Muslim male’s comprehensive emotional and physical abuse began. His repeated raping of the girl, reported as a being a finale to his physical abuse sessions, began shortly thereafter and were apparently punitive in nature.

A sad but all too common story among Muslims, but this particular story has a twist that makes it worth mentioning. The girl, taking advantage of having been relocated to America, worked up the courage to leave her “husband,” filed charges her abuser and rapist and took it to court.

That course of action proved less than effective. The judge decided that because the rapist was Muslim and she was “married” to it under Shari’a law it could not be considered to have either abused or raped her because it was a Muslim and abusing and raping one’s wife was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited. The judge in question also refused to allow a restraining order to be filed against her rapist.

Details from the NJ Appellate Court:

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

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.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action.

The one saving grace is that the rot apparently hasn’t spread to far throughout the NJ courts system. Judges Cuff, Payne and Miniman of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division overturned the ruling by the Muslim-loving dhimmi filth presiding in the lower court.

The trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault and criminal sexual contact, but that defendant did not have the requisite criminal intent in doing so. His conclusion in this respect cannot be sustained. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2c(3) establishes the principle that criminal statutes that do not designate a specific culpability requirement should be construed as requiring knowing conduct.

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist . . .

[N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).]

Defendant’s conduct in engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

While I’m gratified that the Appellate Court reaffirmed its commitment to America by reversing the lower court’s foul ruling, blithely issuing a terse statement that the judge was mistaken is hardly sufficient at all.

The judge in question was not mistaken; he was Wrong and Evil. This is proven by his placing the the cultural proclivities and beliefs of the cultists of the Pedophile Prophet, Muhammad over American law. The judge has by his own actions shown himself to be a traitor and an active enemy of America – one made more dangerous to our women and children by his insinuating himself into a place of authority within the New Jersey Family Courts system.

~*~

Obviously, the first course of action that Americans should take is the extermination of the “husband” in question. Following that necessary cleansing the dhimmi judge who decided that it was legally permissible for a Muslim to abuse and repeatedly rape his “wife” because doing so followed the tenets of Islam should be hunted down and summarily executed.

Sadly, such actions, though right and proper in this instance, are forbidden by our laws. 🙁 It would require truly committed patriots, preferably without families to support, who were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to visit the appropriate retribution upon the Muslim vermin and the vile and traitorous judge in question.

Sacrifice would be necessary since the law must be upheld. Anyone who went outside the law to punish these filth must be willing to surrender themselves for trial and conviction afterward.

Worse, any reprisal or retribution has been made greatly more difficult because the Appellate Court impounded the records of the matter, publishing only the redacted ruling that is cited in this post . The case is merely cited as S.D. v. M.J.D [A-6107-08T2] and the details of original case, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FV-09-1792-09 is not available. This means that it will be very hard to identify, much less locate, either the Muslim rapist or the traitorous dhimmi judge.

I will, however, continue to research the matter and will post any identification, location, and/or contact information for the rapist or judge that I can find as an update to this post. That way Americans will have the ability to follow their respective consciences in this matter and to visit whatever retribution they feel is appropriate upon these two vermin.

Related Reading:

America's First Daughter: A Novel
Understanding Dhimmitude
Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturism
The Courage to Heal - Third Edition - Revised and Expanded: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse
99 Days