Wednesday, June 15, 2011

George Soros and the Islamic Brotherhood, Strangelove

What? You mean to say the people who are saying not to be concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood seem to be Islamicizing relatively secular Muslim and Arab nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and that we should not only NOT concerned but should have such political representative political-groups here as funded by civilization, nation, baby destroying anarchist and legalized hard drug advocate George Soros? No. Surely you jest. My tongue is bursting through my cheek. Clearly this is exactly the sort of thing he funds when not funding Saul Alinsky variety neo Marxist socialist radicals in the West. What's in your wallet? Now why would someone like Soros do such a thing, does he love Islamic law? Nope. But he does love destroying civilization and believes Islam and Marx will punch it out in the end and Marx will prevail. But where will that leave billionaire extraordinaire? Amazingly like most atheists who actually don't believe or ultimately care about anything...well...I doubt he cares.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Bad jokes, new hopes

"Bad jokes, new hopes" a recent post you may well appreciate here:

Monday, May 04, 2009

President Obama Health Human Tiller Alinsky connections

This important Australian blog has a story about abortion and an Episcopalian priest who calls abortion a blessing. Rush Limbaugh once cynically said that abortion is the sacrament of liberalism. This priest is coming very close to agreeing with Limbaugh. Read the amazing Australian perspective here.

If you are curious about the HEALTH and HUMAN services, George Tiller, the Saul Alinsky connection, be sure to read my brief comments at the end of the blog here.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


Without the aid of 911 or Katrina, the last 8 years of relatively important to silly to down right stupid and duplicitous questioning of President Bush motivations about the ECONOMY and about the MILITARY have ALL come come to roost upon President B. Hussein Obama. To read a litany of all these important NY Times questions all neatly summarized and put in parody, check out my article on facebook here.

For those without facebook the eighteen questions involve; threat to national sovereignty, national defense, UN involvement, House approval, stonewalling protests, accusation of Nazi tactics, questions of the captured getting a fair USA trial or Gitmo, oil in Somalia, perceptions of being the world bully, will Cindy Sheehan camp out at the ranch in N. Chicago, by killing some pirates aren't we assured that we are creating hundreds more, what about the poor, what about hegemony, what about empire, what about world perceptions, what about revenge for Clinton's failure at Mogadishu, Somalia, etc.

You can probably think up a dozen more that were so important and serious that now are overlooked in favor of a commander in chief who single handedly 'gave the order to shoot' who rides forth on his white horse to conquer in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, has a larger military budget that Bush or McCain proposed, and now is embarking on a military campaign in our national interests in Somalia, again.

Nevermind. Oh look, he is looking right at me. Oh, I feel that tingle. Isn't Michelle absolutely lovely!

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Yale Law appointee, Sharia, Reconstructionism, concern

DL is an evangelical Christian and unlike his more popular brother David is a serious journalist. Immediately below are my comments arising from his article on Yale Law School Dean and Obama appointee, Harold Koh. David's published article on Koh is at the very end, FYI. So I am asking in response to David's article:

Why not have a separate legal system for Judeo-Christian reconstructionism? Let me say from the start and clearly that I am against this. But I am asking the question because so many brilliant ones see no problem with simultaneously having USA law based on common law, natural law, and being a constitutional, democratic, republic, and having Sharia law at the same time in the same country.

You know, the cultic Reconstructionist's view of institutionalizing Judeo-Christian civil theocratic law (with *their* *strong* Old Testament -O.T.- hermeneutic and understanding of such) is really not that far from Sharia if you are under LAW and not grace. Sharia has wife stonings, the O.T. has adultery and paganism practitioner death penalty. Sharia has killing of full families over homosexual immoralities and 'honor', the O.T. just has the death penalty of the actual practitioner after proper witnesses and judicial procedures. I suspect both would not want their legal funds and legal taxes paying for pornography and abortion and gay marriage. Perhaps someone can tell me where under Sharia these are funded by law...

So do you think the Yale, Obama lawyer will want Sharia AND Judeo Christian reconstructionism law in the USA? Frankly, I hope we can reject both and just go back to getting-REAL about natural law, real guilt when appropriate, appropriate cultural shame with forgiveness possible, and respect for conscience without having to Big Brother, legislate, litigate, micromanage, and FUND everything.

How about a ban on late term abortions, end the slide to gay marriage, not intervene in monogamous partners if they aren't radicalized-exhibitionistic types, and stuff like that? It seems a no brainer, but Obama and the Yale sorts of HIS choice (there are other fine choices available even in the Ivy League schools) seem to not reason in these ways.

Am I missing some glorious aspects of Sharia in the USA? What does N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L. and Planned Parenthood think? I have heard no shrieking from their quarters lately. Or do they just want fragmentation and the destruction of a principled democratic republic as a kind of liberational French revolution of sorts? My best guess? That is exactly what it has always been about. Alleged 'wounded wound-ers' seeing how many they can take down with them and lifting none up. Pathetic to see it being baptized in so many quarters as some sort of humble christen-dumb contrition. Discernment? Common sense? With the current direction of hope and change? Not yet.

Joe Whitchurch
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Obama pick favors international law
Posted: March 31, 2009
David Limbaugh 1:00 am Eastern

As usual, President Barack Obama is multi-tasking the dismantling of the American system on so many fronts that not all of the outrages can be properly monitored. So while you should be mortified by his dictatorial power grab withGeneral Motors, please don't miss his recent nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as legal adviser for the State Department.

In his new position, Koh not only would represent the United States before international bodies, such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice, but also would influence the degree to which laws of other countries should influence American jurisprudence.

After reading an alarming piece by Meghan Clyne in the New York Post concerning the Koh nomination and the degree to which Koh believes it's appropriate for courts to consider other nations' laws in interpreting our Constitution, I read a number of Koh's legal writings and speeches.

Clyne reported that New York lawyer Steven Stein said that Koh, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Is Shariah law coming to a court near you? Get "Stealth Jihad" – Robert Spencer's expose about efforts to quietly establish the Muslim system in Amerca

It turns out that on March 21, 2007, Carol Iannone, on Phi Beta Cons blog, published a letter from Stein to Dean Koh about his Yale Club remarks. Stein wrote, in part, "In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Shariah,' among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S."

Whether or not Koh ever responded to Stein's letter, Stein's representations of Koh's remarks are certainly consistent with Koh's writings that I reviewed.

In Fordham Law Review, Koh asserted that the U.S. "Supreme Court is divided between two judicial camps: the transnationalists and the nationalists." Koh considers himself a transnationalist and justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito nationalists.

Koh explained the differences between these two judicial philosophies. According to Koh, transnationalist judges look to U.S. interdependence, whereas nationalists tend to look to U.S. autonomy. Transnationalists think about how U.S. law fits into a framework of transnational law, while nationalists see a rigid foreign and domestic divide. Transnationalists think that courts can "domesticate" international law (make it part of our law), whereas nationalists think that only the political branches can. Transnationalists favor the development of a global legal system, while nationalists prefer a national legal system.

In other words, nationalists don't believe that it's appropriate to look to foreign law in interpreting our Constitution. They believe that only the political branches, not the courts, can adopt provisions of international law, and they don't believe in slavish deference to global legal authorities, such as the International Criminal Court.

Transnationalists clearly believe in an ever-changing, living Constitution and reject originalism (interpreting the Constitution according to its original understanding). They are obviously globalists, not overly concerned with American's national sovereignty. They see the international community, in the words of Koh, as a "community of reason" and believe that American judges, in interpreting our Constitution, can resort to this "community of reason" (foreign laws) to choose between two "plausible" legal positions. Indeed, Koh wrote approvingly of United States Supreme Court decisions acknowledging "evolving standards of decency" and that we may look to this global community of reason to determine what those standards are.

If any of this is too legalistic, let me quote from Koh's "Jefferson Memorial Lecture on Transnational Legal Process After September 11," published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law.

In his introductory remarks, Koh said the United States, along with North Korea and Iran, form "the axis of disobedience," that is, those nations "whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after Sept. 11." Are you beginning to see the picture here?

If not, try his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16, 2008, in which he lamented that the Bush administration forfeited the "universal sympathy" America enjoyed as a victim of the 9/11 attacks with a "series of unnecessary, self-inflicted wounds, which have gravely diminished our global standing and damaged our reputation for respecting the rule of law," including Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, ... indefinite detention of enemy combatants, military commissions, warrantless wiretaps, evasion of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights treaties, excessive government secrecy, attacks on the United Nations, and others.

It's no surprise to me that President Obama seeks to install as assistant State Department legal counsel a man who, like George Soros and a host of ultra-left-wing bloggers, believes America is always the bad guy and that we should rehabilitate ourselves through following the wisdom of foreign nations and international bodies.

Does it surprise you?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Emergency rooms not clogged with the uninsured...

When I saw that headline I thought of how often I have heard this and assumed it to be true. Kind of like repeatedly hearing that those who oppose farming unique human embryos for spare parts, oppose stem cell research. If you hear it often enough you might believe it and not ask questions. For my stem cell example, everyone I know approves of stem cell research, but most strongly disapprove of taxpayers being forced to fund unproductive research that involves intentionally killing unique human embryos to obtain THEIR stem cells. There are lots of other sources of stem cells that ARE productive, and venture capital groups ARE willing to invest in, called adult stem cells that require no killing of young human lives.

My next apparently faulty assumption from the emergency room headline was that they were backed up by an overflow of illegal aliens. Perhaps it was the source of the article that made me wonder if they'd take that tact. But alas it is just exactly the opposite of what you might expect. In fact, the touted governmental solution, is once again the actual problem! Read the short, surprising article for yourself here.