McCabe confirms Trump haters were out to get him. (See 1 below.)
And:
https://thefederalist.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will Democrats try and beat a somebody with a no-body? They did with Obama and looked what happened. (See 2 below.)
And:
Will the Democrat Party wind up like UK's Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn?
It could if they remain silent and reluctant. You reap what you sow. (See 2a below.)
Finally:
Can a female bartender become a con-man and does this op ed writer know something we do not? (See 2b and 2c below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Venezuela turns to Israel to help rid itself of Hezbollah and Iran.
Though I have no proof, I suspect a diplomatic friend of mine is involved. (See 3 below.)
And:
There were those who thought I was nuts when I wrote; " It is only a matter of time before Sharia Law comes to America and threatens our Democracy." (See 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
Finally:
Are Americans naive and capable of enough guilt to be scammed? Was Barnum correct? (See 3d below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
European nations would rather conduct commerce with Iran than break off relations and contact with Iran. If England/France etc. were threatened by Iran the results might be different but because Israel is at risk Europeans are less concerned. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No doubt you have seen these before but having graduated from law school and never practiced I could not resist. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
McCabe Confirms Seditious Conspiracy Against Trump
Andrew McCabe, former acting director of the FBI and Comey’s second in command, revealed that the seditious conspiracy of invoking the 25th Amendment over policy disagreements with President is indeed true. Breitbart reports:
FBI officials met to discuss the idea of whether the 25th Amendment could be implemented to remove Donald Trump from office, CBS News confirms.“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”Pelley interviewed former FBI acting director Andrew McCabe who is promoting a new book with details of the conversations.“[McCabe] is the very first person involved in these meetings who has come out and spoken publicly,” Pelley said on CBS This Morning on Thursday. “They were counting noses, they were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating ‘This person would be with us. That person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort. … This was not perceived to be a joke.”
This is a serious charge, and would be worthy of an investigation of the likes levied against Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Maybe It’ll Be Beto
The Democrats are going to lose if their nominee can’t hold a stage with Trump.
By Daniel henninger
How many other people watched the entire 80 or 85 minutes of President Trump’s rally in El Paso, Texas, Monday night on Fox? The pre-rally expectation was that this event would be an effort to build support for the border wall. Instead, it obviously was a test-run of issues for the 2020 campaign, covering everything from A to Zzz.
At 9:55 ET, Sean Hannity cut away from the speech to denounce the border deal emerging in Washington. Then it was back to the rally’s remaining 40 minutes. It was strangely mesmerizing. Let me say this: Any Democrats with a stake in winning in 2020 should set aside their anti-Trump phobias long enough to watch that rally. Truth is, their candidate may not be able to compete with what this guy’s got.
Democrats who think the Trump rallies are just Mussolini-like stage events that will turn off most voters are talking themselves out of winning the election before it has begun.
Any disinterested person watching Mr. Trump in El Paso would have to admit that by now, with a lot of practice, he’s producing political performance art at a high level. Matching it will be tough.
With sustained energy and animation, he rolled through every imaginable administration accomplishment—the economy, taxes, energy production—even passage of the farm bill (“our wonderful farmers”).
He did antic riffs: “Is there any place that’s more fun to be than a Trump rally?” He invoked his target audience’s traditional values, and all of this with Trumpian shrugs, amazed head-shaking and dramatic pauses to let the audience’s energy build. (That said, Mr. Trump’s incitement of crowds like this one against reporters assigned to cover his events is abhorrent. It has to stop.)
Now think of the list of Democrats competing for the party’s presidential nomination, put any of them in your mind’s eye in a one-on-one competition with Donald Trump—the debates, the campaign’s omnipresent media glare—and ask yourself: Which one them has what it’s going to take to stay in the ring with this personality?
I’m not saying Mr. Trump is unbeatable. I am saying that to beat him the Democrats are going to need a lot more than “Trump is the devil and we need Medicare for All.” And they’re going to need a candidate who does more than fill their identity-politics punch list. They need someone who can compete in public every day with the devil himself.
Who might that be?
Ask an expert. Ask Donald Trump. He gave his answer Monday night in El Paso, stopping to mock “a young man who’s got very little going for himself, except he’s got a great first name.”
That would be Beto.
Mr. Trump derided Beto O’Rourke’s counter-rally in El Paso as attracting a few hundred people. “Not too good.” Well, it was a lot more than that. Mr. Trump also said something about this being “the end of his presidential bid.”
Maybe not.
Despite being a recently obscure congressman from El Paso who last fall narrowly lost a Senate election to Ted Cruz, and despite no declaration of a presidential run, Beto O’Rourke is prominently in the national conversation. Why?
Because he’s “got it.”
No one can quite figure out why, but crowds love him. Liberals thousands of miles away send him money.
The charisma needed to compete at the highest level of politics is hard to identify and often apparent only after someone has won. It isn’t just about being “likable,” a word currently obsessing the media. Politicians at every level know how to be likable. Many have what it takes to get elected to the U.S. Senate but not enough magic juice to reach the presidency. Joe Biden’s multiple failures at presidential runs come to mind.
Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Ike, JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had it. Women? Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi had it. They commanded any room they entered.
The critic Robert Hughes once described modern art as “the shock of the new.” From Europe to the U.S. today, people want the shock of the new in their politics. Barack Obama delivered it, and Donald Trump delivered it. By November 2020, American voters may well want something newer than daily force-feedings of Trumpism.
This is not an argument that Mr. O’Rourke is on his way to the White House. Every day now is a chance to blow yourself up or be blown up. Nor is presidential politics reducible to personality. Policy and party will matter.
Mr. Trump’s El Paso rally should be a reality check for Democrats sorting through their limitless candidate list. Their opponent won’t be just “Trump” but an incumbent president. Progressives and their media affiliates can produce all the Trump fear and loathing they want. If their candidate can’t hold a stage with him, they won’t win.
2a) A Lesson in Anti-Semitism
2a) A Lesson in Anti-Semitism
Look across the pond to see where the Democrats could end up.
The Editorial Page
Bipartisan support for Israel has long been a feature of American politics. But as the Democratic Party moves further left, it is increasingly home to vociferous anti-Israel voices. An anti-Semitism crisis in the United Kingdom’s Labour Party shows what happens when a political party doesn’t rebut such views.
Labour General Secretary Jennie Formby recently announced that the party had received 673 complaints of anti-Semitic acts by its members in the past 10 months. These numbers are likely low. Margaret Hodge, a longtime Labour Member of Parliament, said she had filed some 200 grievances since the fall. Well-known television personality Rachel Riley has been subject to vile online abuse for her efforts to expose Labour anti-Semitism.
This is a lesson for U.S. Democrats tempted to excuse anti-Semitism in their ranks as over-enthusiastic political opposition to Israeli policies from neophyte politicians. That’s how Labour chief Jeremy Corbyn got his start, attacking Israel from Parliament’s back benches. After hailing Hamas and Hezbollah representatives as “our friends” and attending a wreath-laying at the graves of 1972 Munich terrorists, Mr. Corbyn and Labour tried last summer to blur the line between anti-Israel views and anti-Semitism when adopting a definition of the latter for use in party disciplinary matters.
Some American Democrats admire Mr. Corbyn. Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crowed on Twitter earlier this month about a long and inspiring phone call she had with the Labour leader. American Democratic leaders seem to understand how dangerous such rhetoric is—but then so did Mr. Corbyn’s Labour predecessors who didn’t take his ideological challenge seriously. Democrats need to make an affirmative case for supporting the Jewish state, lest anti-Israeli politics evolve into outright anti-Semitism.
2b) Ocasio-Cortez: Only the Latest in a Long Line of 'You're Gonna Die' Con Men
"There is a sucker born every minute." Who among us cannot recall being conned?
In the 1970 tear-jerker Love Story, the dying Ali MacGraw delivers this gem: "Love means not having to say you're sorry." With this declaration by Erich Segal, the author of the best-selling novel, millions were supplied the litmus test for the quality of their relationships: if you are expecting me to apologize for mistreating you, you obviously don't know what love is. We blush.
The typical structure of a confidence game has five elements: the perpetrator, the shill, the mark, the offer, and the response. The shill, secretly collaborating with the perp, reassures the mark by appearing objective and kindred to the mark. The mark is the naïve, unsuspecting victim who will suffer some loss. The offer is a perceived positive: receiving something desirable or avoiding something undesirable. The response is what the mark does to receive the offer. No one wants to be the mark, though I daresay all of us have looked back with regret: I can't believe I fell for that (the offer)!
Examples abound. Let's recall a few that are relevant.
In the 18th century, Thomas Malthus wrote that exponential population growth would exceed food production and drive humanity to, best-case scenario, endemic poverty. He persuaded and influenced many intellectuals, not the least of whom was Charles Darwin, who incorporated Malthusian theory in his theory of evolution.
In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich, a disciple of Malthus, picked up the baton, insisting that zero population growth was the only solution to stave off massive (hundreds of millions) starvation. Ehrlich's best-selling The Population Bomb (essentially an ecological handbook) sold over two million copies within a few years of publication. The first sentence of the book is "The battle to feed all of humanity is over."
Al Gore, erstwhile presidential candidate, has devoted his post-political life to saving the planet from anthropogenic activity. His award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, released in 2006, predicted irreversible global warming and a complete absence of Arctic ice during the summer — both to occur within ten years.
Malthus, Ehrlich, and Gore were (and are) taken seriously by highly respected and extremely influential people. Their prophecies were not gentle, advisory alerts; they were apocalyptic, intentionally inciting global fear.
Malthus offered a solution to catastrophic starvation: reduce the population by delaying marriage, thereby producing fewer offspring — the math indicated no more than two children. Two hundred years and a sevenfold increase in population later, the main problem with insufficient food is distribution. Note: Malthus married at age 38, and the happy couple had three children.
Ehrlich's solution was to hunker down and hope the terror he foretold would shock the world into a thinning of the herd — zero population growth through birth control and sterilization. Fifty years and a twofold increase in population later, the main problem with insufficient food is distribution. Speaking of shills, Ehrlich's book was broadly ignored until he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, after which it became a bestseller. He returned to the show numerous times (Smithsonian). Note: Ehrlich had a vasectomy...after he had a child.
Gore insisted that the only solution to catastrophic global warming is a massive reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Thirteen years and a 30% increase in annual global CO2 emissions (The International Energy Agency) later, the Arctic has yet to be ice-free. Note: Al Gore's carbon footprint is considerable, with estimates ranging between ten and thirty times that of the average American.
All of this brings us to the latest forecast of doom: "The world is gonna end in twelve years if we don't address climate change[.]" So spoke Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez several weeks ago. Much ink has been spilled over Ocasio-Cortez's subsequent infantile, illiterate, and false assertions. There is little need to pile on. But the shills are falling over one another to endorse the "Green New Deal" — the "massive" blueprint for avoiding cataclysm. There is no point in calculating whether Ocasio-Cortez's two million-plus Twitter followers have the aggregate I.Q. of a Comedy Central audience — they and innumerable others are marks, and many of them can vote. They are certainly more vulnerable to frightening hyperbole than past generations who fell under the spell of Malthus, Ehrlich, and Gore. Indeed there are good arguments to suggest that the current crop of adherents are even more resistant to rational discourse.
Here's a thought experiment. Standing in front of the Ocasio-Cortez hordes, you explain: supposing for a moment that her dreams have some connection with reality, if Ocasio-Cortez could impose them on America and make them true this very second, it would not add one day to the twelve-year life expectancy she gives the planet — because she cannot impose them on the rest of the world. Persuasive?
How many departed from a viewing of Inconvenient Truth unable to dry their eyes from torrential tears shed for those massive, magnificent, majestic, soon to be extinct polar bears? If your heart was not breaking for that cuddly beast unable to save itself because of too thin ice, well...you need to check for a pulse. Such gripping headlines cost innumerable sleepless nights among those sensitive enough to fully grasp the devastating reality: these are polar bears, for heaven's sake, and humanity, out of stupidity and selfishness, is annihilating every last one of them.
This time, there is so much more at stake — the clock is ticking, and the future of all life, not just bears, on Planet Earth hangs in the balance.
But let's be fair: the prediction business is devilishly difficult...especially when it pertains to the future. Defenders argue that hyperbole is helpful to starting a conversation, like a slap in the face to get the attention of the person seemingly unaware of the fire in the building. Paul Ehrlich now says his real intent was to make population control an acceptable topic to debate. Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the challenge of climate change to the attention of the world. Extreme predictions are tactical and justifiable; accusations of hypocrisy are dismissed: pay attention to what they say, not what they do. But such hype and hypocrisy make many rightly suspicious of a different agenda that has little to do with saving the planet.
When the fanatical façade is stripped away, it's the same old game: if you want to live, surrender control of your life. The con is on...again.
2c) 3 Democrat Policies that Must Die for America to Survive
In 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. There, Lincoln observed that "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." While Lincoln was talking about the dangers of slavery, his message also applies today. More particularly, congressional Democrats are so obsessed with defeating the president that they have lost touch with reality. Some of the proposed policies by those on the far left will serve to destroy the country from within by leaving the country more porous, more vulnerable, and in dire financial shape. For this reason, these far-left policies must be rejected.
Immigration
Almost three weeks ago, President Trump announced a three-week temporary end to the partial government shutdown that did not include funding for a border wall. In doing so, he put country over politics and put the onus on the Democrats to negotiate in good faith and to put partisan politics aside on the issue of border security. The three-week period ends today. According to the Washington Examiner, just days away from another potential government shutdown, House and Senate negotiators reached a "bipartisan" deal "in principle" that provided 1.375 billion dollars in funding for physical barriers along 55 miles of the Rio Grande Valley. In addition, per PBS, the deal would include "funding for U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain an average of 45,274 people a day for the rest of this fiscal year, which Democrats assert would force ICE to cut daily detentions for the rest of the year.
If the president does not have adequate funds to build the wall, our borders will remain highly porous, and people who are in the country illegally could be set free. In addition, "Senate Democrats recently introduced legislation to prevent the president from using military and disaster relief funds to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall should he declare a national emergency," according to The Hill. In other words, they blatantly attempted to circumvent the president's powers under the National Emergency Act.
The Democrats' refusal to adequately fund the border wall simply to get back at the president is dangerous and leaves the country more porous and more vulnerable.
Taxes
According to some of the far left, the time has come to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. There is no better example than the State of New York. According to the New York Post, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren (D) and New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently proposed that "Americans who happen to be very rich pay upward of 70 percent tax on their incomes." Ocasio-Cortez intended to use the tax hike to fund her Green New Deal. According toAmericans for Tax Reform, "[t]he current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket. New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent."
While some might argue that the "very rich" should pay more in taxes, the "progressive" proposals by Warren and Ocasio-Cortez have historically failed and carry certain risks. For example, the wealthiest people in New York (and elsewhere if other states follow suit) could decide to leave the state for a more tax-friendly environment. Additionally, companies could decide against setting up shop in New York if they face exorbitant taxes, making for fewer job opportunities. This socialistic approach was previously implemented in Sweden and failed miserably.
The impact of such exorbitant tax hikes would hurt individuals, businesses, and jobs throughout the country. Sadly, these failures would be the byproduct of our own policies and decisions.
Medicare for All
Medicare for All sounds nice on paper. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and several other Democrats have strongly pushed for this type of system. In essence, this system abolishes Medicare and outlaws private insurance. Therefore, the government controls everyone's medical care and decides on the payment schedules, treatment options, and coverage (and limitations thereto).
However, because the government will be paying for all medical care, it will pay doctors and hospitals at reduced rates. As such, since doctors can't make up their losses by billing private insurance (which is barred), they will have to see more patients, thereby reducing the quality of care. This would ultimately hurt everyone. Elderly patients would be hit particularly hard because their medical conditions are typically more complicated, and doctors would push them to the end of the line, given the amount of time it would take to see them. According to The Hill:
There's no disputing what Medicare-for-all would cost. The left-leaning Urban Institute and the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimate $32 trillion over 10 years. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wants to hike the marginal rate on the uber-rich to 70 percent. That would raise less than $1 trillion dollars in a decade, a mere fraction of the cost of Medicare-for-all.
Sanders himself offered several tax-hike proposals, including a job-killing hike in the capital gains rate to as much as 64.2 percent, but all of his tax-hike proposals together would bring in less than half the revenue needed.
Here's the bitter truth: According to Congressional Budget Office data, raising $32 trillion in tax revenue would require adding 36 percentage points to the marginal tax rate of every federal income taxpayer in the United States. Not just the rich — everyone. The single woman earning $82,500 and the couple earning $165,000 would see their rates soar from 24 percent to 60 percent. Ouch.
As is evident, this far-left system (proposed by some within the United States), is virtually impossible to maintain and is un-sustainable.
The United States is a melting pot with people from all over the world. It is a country that welcomes people with open arms and gives them the opportunity to live the American dream. Our freedoms rely on our nation's laws and policies, the majority of which are just and fair. Unfortunately, some of the proposed policies by those on the far left will serve to seriously hurt the country by leaving the country more porous, more vulnerable, and in dire financial shape. For this reason, these far-left policies must be rejected.
Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and practicing attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Guaidó adviser: Israel can help us remove
Hezbollah, Iran
By Ruth King
Exclusive to Israel Hayom: Senior Venezuelan opposition member says presence of Iran, Hezbollah and other terrorist elements in the country “is very concerning. … Israel can help us establish the necessary apparatuses to contend with this problem.”
A senior member of Venezuela’s opposition, which supports interim President Juan Guaidó, told Israel Hayom on Tuesday that the presence of Iran, Hezbollah and other Arab terrorist elements in the country “is very concerning” to the democratic opposition and will pose an “immense challenge” to the new government after the socialist regime of Nicolás Maduro is ousted.
“We are presently formulating policy pertaining to defending Venezuela’s internal security and are looking for help and advice,” the senior official said. “And Israel can help us establish the necessary apparatuses to contend with this problem when the political change in Venezuela realized.”
Venezuela’s socialist regime has close relations with Iran and has allowed Hezbollah to establish operational hubs in the country. Additionally, the Maduro regime maintains close ties with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and sends them money – even as the people of Venezuela are themselves desperate for humanitarian aid due to an increasing scarcity of food and medicine.
Extremist elements in the Arab and Muslim worlds – Iran, the Palestinian Authority and Turkey – have declared their support for the tyrant Maduro in his current standoff with the popular uprising against his rule. Israel, meanwhile, is the only country outside of America to stand by Guaidó, whose exclusive interview with Israel Hayom on Tuesday reverberated across the globe.
In an effort to amplify economic pressure on the Maduro regime, the senior Venezuelan opposition figure called on the American administration to pressure U.S. allies in the Arab world to end their financial support for the regime and sever commercial ties with it.
The request comes amid reports that several Gulf states recently purchased large quantities of gold from the Maduro regime. In the meantime, Miguel Pizarro, Guaidó’s adviser on humanitarian affairs, confirmed in a conversation with Israel Hayom that the opposition is already in contact with Israel over humanitarian aid.
“We know that Israel is interested in contributing in this regard, along with other nations,” Pizarro said.
“We prepared a strategic plan for urgent aid to our neediest populations and we need a lot of medicine, hospital medical equipment and help treating people [suffering from] extreme malnutrition,” Pizarro told Israel Hayom. “We are establishing warehouses along the border to receive aid; we have already built a collection center in Columbia and we are preparing to open another center in Brazil and in other countries.”
Pizarro added: “We welcome all help we are given, as the Venezuelan population needs any help possible. The regime will have to allow this aid to enter [the country], because it’s a matter of [saving] people’s lives. We are applying all possible pressure to force the regime to allow this aid into the country.”
Air defenses on the border
Meanwhile, Maduro appears to be increasingly afraid of foreign military intervention and has deployed air defense systems at San Cristóbal – near the border with Columbia. The development follows his decision to refuse foreign humanitarian aid. Now, online video footage published by the opposition shows S-125 air defense batteries near the frontier.
The S-125, a particularly outdated Soviet-era system, was used by the Egyptian army during the War of Attrition against Israel (between 1967 and 1970) and the Yom Kippur War. The system would pose no problem for any advanced air force.
In an interview with the BBC on Tuesday, Maduro accused the Trump administration of “warmongering in order to take over Venezuela.
Maduro added his hope that “this extremist group in the White House is defeated by powerful worldwide public opinion.”
Speaking in the capital, Caracas, he told the BBC: “It’s a political war, of the United States empire, of the interests of the extreme right that today is governing, of the Ku Klux Klan, that rules the White House, to take over Venezuela.”
Also on Tuesday, Guaidó supporters returned to the streets nationwide to keep the heat on Maduro and demand that he allow humanitarian aid into the country.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a telephone call on Tuesday evening that Washington should avoid any interference, including military, in Venezuela’s internal affairs.
Moscow has invested billions of dollars into Venezuela’s economy and oil production.
3a) The Road to Shariadom' in America
The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) is part of an international network of Muslim scholars that preaches shariah rule as a government system, even issuing a fatwa delineating sharia's "superiority" over democracy. It is one of many Muslim organizations now dangerously and politically active in the United States. They include the 25-year-old Council of Islamic Relations, CAIR, self-described as a "Muslim civil rights organization" with an Islamic perspective on American public issues. More recent organizations – created in 2015 and similarly politically dedicated – include JETPAC, the Justice, Education and Technology Policy Advocacy Center, which encourages American Muslims to get involved in local politics, and MPower Change, committed to creating a political platform for Muslim issues and organizing around it.
All these politically active Muslim-American groups, prominent Muslims and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations within the U.S. publicly avow that they have no intention of implementing sharia in the U.S. Yet, their stated political goals, public statements and recent reports, betray their true intentions: to grow in political strength sufficient to replace our democracy with their religious governance.
More than 100 top Muslim leaders belong to AMJA, which began in 2003. Imams at over 3,100 U.S. mosques look to AMJA for instructional guidance to lead their congregations. The group's name in Arabic, "The Group of Sharia Specialists in America," implies its purpose: to impel Muslims to follow its comprehensive, sharia-compliant fatwas. Many of the group's leaders attended Egypt's Al-Azhar University, the world's highest academy of Islamic learning and interpreter of the definitive sharia text – The Reliance of the Traveller.
Thus, AMJA possesses authority to provide legal rulings for the worldwide Islamic community and keep all Muslim Americans and affiliated Muslim Brotherhood organizations in line with unalterable sharia law. The organization rules on how Muslims must conduct themselves in the non-Muslim world until sharia becomes law. One fatwa revealingly instructs Muslim judges in non-Muslim countries to judge by Sharia "as much as possible, even if by ruse."
Following the 2016 election and the perceived "calamity" of Trump's victory, AMJA issued a major, fatwa-filled report: "AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap." It cited concern over three specific Trump administration actions: the executive order barring entry to those from "countries of concern" – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen – support for a congressional bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization and the announced move of the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
In response, AMJA's Roadmap calls on Muslims to defend Islam and use U.S. constitutional rights to their benefit. It cautions them to defer to trained scholars, assumedly AMJA leaders, and avoid violating sharia tenets. It calls for Muslim unity, alignment of their dawah efforts and coalition building with other ethnic and religious groups and movements that serve Muslim community causes. The Roadmap also issued veiled threats to American citizens.
The foundation for AMJA's Roadmap exists in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, entered into evidence during the 2008 HLF-Hamas trial. The secret internal document, written by senior MB officials and a Hamas leader, clearly defined the Brotherhood's goals, activities and infrastructure in America. It elucidated plans to infiltrate and take over American democracy and the Constitution and replace them with an Islamic government and sharia. It clearly defines its "work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."
AMJA's general secretary, Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, who also founded Mishkah Islamic University of North America (formerly Sharia Academy of America) has proclaimed that the Muslim American community seeks to improve its position regarding jurisprudence, rather than imposing sharia, as they are not yet in a position to do so in the west.
However, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman and co-founder, was more forthright in a 1993 interview when he stated that he wants the U.S. to be governed by Islamic law in the future. In 2003, he admitted that if Muslims became a majority in America, they would likely seek to replace the Constitution with sharia. CAIR, an un-indicted, co-conspirator in the HLF-Hamas trial, has thwarted efforts to protect fundamental constitutional rights, such as the American Laws for American Courts, ALAC, legislation which seeks to prohibit foreign laws from being used in U.S. courts. CAIR has falsely claimed anti-Muslim bias in a bill that actually protects Americans from foreign law and affirms America's commitment to the U.S. Constitution.
The newer Muslim American organizations not surprisingly echo the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and AMJA positions and activism. MPower Change, co-founded by MB operative, Linda Sarsour, joined CAIR to fight for repeal of Trump's entry ban on people from designated terrorist havens. It also endorses the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that targets Israel. It has worked to increase voter turnout with #MyMuslimVote partners national network and held the first ever, National Muslim Voter Registration Day, registering new voters at 50 different nationwide events, including many mosques, and called 10,000 voters in a #CallingAllMuslims phone-bank effort.
Meanwhile, JETPAC developed proprietary software for social media outreach, fundraising, canvassing, and media communications. It also teaches promising candidates grassroots organizing techniques and how to leverage civil rights issues for Muslim community causes.
In November 2018, CAIR, JETPAC and MPower Change jointly published "The Rise of American Muslim Changemakers: Political Organizing in the Trump Era." The report showcased Roadmap and MB strategic plan results. It summarized successful efforts to increase Muslim participation in the American political process and reaffirmed the MB's commitment to influencing the political landscape and advancing Islam. Promoted as "an analysis of the rise of the American Muslim political class in the Trump era," the report profiles the 276 American Muslims who ran for office between 2016 and 2018. They raised $16.2 million and ran for mostly local, county and state legislative offices. Of those, 131 were elected, 36% women and 64% men. More than half of the candidates were in California, New Jersey, Minnesota and Michigan, states with the largest Muslim populations.
The report also used data on American Muslim voter attitudes from CAIR's 2018 midterm election exit poll survey of 1,027 respondents to provide insight into increased Muslim participation and political success. It characterized Muslim Americans as "unapologetically Muslim" in the face of alleged "Islamophobia" and as aligned with progressive leftist voices in the current political spectrum, citing a 78% Muslim vote in the midterm elections for Democrats. It calls attention to the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry and discounts the role of understandable public concerns about rampant Islamic terrorism and of blatant attempts by Muslim leaders to integrate sharia aspects into American communities. The report also mentions, as an example of bigotry, opposition to build a mosque at the 9/11 site and fails to recognize the insensitivity of such a plan. It also fails to mention worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks and Muslim ideology spewed nationwide in mosques and universities that are radically antithetical to western principles of liberty and equality. The report attributes "Islamophobia" to the Republican Party, particularly in the Trump era, rather than righteous caution concerning Muslims after radical Islamic activity in the U.S. and abroad.
Despite these conclusions, the report characterizes American Muslim candidates as focusing on community needs to ensure that "American political culture serves everyone, equally and equitably." It says most American Muslim candidates enjoy localized and highly networked support with overlapping constituencies or "intersectionality," affiliate with the Democratic Party and align their interests with those of other ethnic and religious minorities. Remarkably, given Islam's position on homosexuality and drugs, they support LGBTQ and promote marijuana decriminalization. As these positions are antithetical to Islamic norms and values, this smacks of pure opportunism to ally with the Left to advance Islam.
The political advances of these new American Muslim organizations, detailed above, are not surprising. For three generations, the Muslim Brotherhood in America has been building an observant Muslim base to integrate sharia and promote Islam. Their work is beginning to bear fruit as evidenced by the burgeoning of Muslim American political power. This a horrifying prospect given that Islamic doctrine unalterably prohibits the separation of mosque and state, mandates the supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims and codifies the dominion of men over women. We should be alert and recognize that this movement represents a growing threat to democracy and American values.
3b)
OPINION: Ilhan Omar Brings Shame To American Muslims
Opinion
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), an American Muslim of Somali origin, shames American Muslims with the anti-Semitism she has brought to Congress.
As a naturalized American and a Muslim woman myself, it was gratifying to see the first Muslim women in American history elected to Congress inaugurated this year.
Now American Congresswomen Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are among the most empowered Muslim women in the world. They enjoy access to the corridors of American power, the mandate of American constituencies that they represent and influence over domestic and international U.S. policy.
Further, as a migrant to the United States, Omar was granted asylum from her Somali origin and rose from refugee to elected politician in 23 years; few other nations can offer a dispossessed refugee such extraordinary opportunity.
But as a Muslim devoted to combatting contemporary anti-Semitism by serving within the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation, I am deeply dismayed to see Omar brandished anti-Semitic beliefs almost immediately after assuming office. They are beliefs she has held for years. (Leaders of Minnesota’s Jewish community approached her prior to her election to express deep concern regarding her anti-Semitic leanings).
Omar’s half-hearted apology when faced with appropriate bipartisan rebukes rings hollow. At the least, her ejection from the House Foreign Affairs Committee is warranted — Omar’s approach to Middle East policy, which is contaminated by anti-Semitism, cannot be considered in America’s interest.
Worse, as a Muslim expert in Islamism, I recognize her anti-Semitism as emblematic of deep Islamist sympathies. Political scientists identify anti-Semitism clearly circumscribed within Islamist ideologies and charters to consistently lionize a new Islamist anti-Semitism as a central Islamisttenet contingent on the extinction of the Jewish people. Her affiliation with Islamists must be examined.
Also consistent with overt Islamist sympathies — both Omar and Palestinian American Tlaib have publicly affiliated with BDS — the Boycott Divestment and Sanction movement that seeks to expunge all international engagement with Israel, including even academic and medical settings.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree it is correct to label BDS anti-Semitic. In electing these Muslim women, Americans now confront rank Islamist anti-Semitism among the highest offices of political power.
For Muslims in America, we are faced with the realization that Muslim anti-Semites claim to speak for our Islamic faith and our Muslim identity. They invite hostility to our own communities, and more misunderstanding of Islam within America. This is despite the reality that Islam reveres Judaism, the Torah, Moses and the Jewish people as legitimate believers, and Jerusalem as belonging only to the Jews — all documented within the Quran. The Quran’s truths will go unknown in the shadow of Muslim congresswomen spewing anti-Semitism and all Muslims will be thus branded anti-Semites.
The University of Southern California Shoah Foundation defines anti-Semitism as: “The negative beliefs and perceptions about Jews that manifest in intellectual physical and rhetorical expression of hatred towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, community institutions and religious facilities. When criticism of Israel demonizes, delegitimizes or holds to a double standard, it is a manifestation of anti-Semitism.”
By singling out AIPAC (the America Israel Political Action Committee) for criticism, Omar was failing to contextualize all American politics as a liberal democracy, one that by definition permits organizations and groups of individuals to lobby the government to represent interests important to citizens.
Omar also failed to observe Muslim organizations lobby the US government to much greater financial and political impact. This includes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, ($27.3 million in 2017 ) and its long-standing rival Qatar ($24 million up until 2017, with most — $16.3 million — spent in 2017 alone). Both nations dwarf in financial sums any dollars devoted to lobbying by pro-Israeli organizations, including AIPAC, which has an annual outlay of just over $3.5 million.
Omar revealed her ignorance of AIPAC’s engagement with policymakers. Far from employing congress persons, instead, like all lobbying organizations, they can make donations for political purposes but not to salaries.
Concern about Israel and Palestine is not anti-Semitic. Indeed, in the United States a two-state solution is a widely held hope and a legitimate political position to assume, one that I share.
Yet Omar showed no evidence of this in her sentiments and cannot be said to be advocating for Palestinians. Those claiming her freedom of speech was infringed were wrong.
The First Amendment permits Omar’s anti-Semitic speech in the United States even as anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks rise at an alarming rate. They far overshadow attacks on other minorities.
Today, under the increasingly thin guise of an advocacy movement, BDS is no more than a vehicle legitimizing anti-Semitism and the distinctive Islamist ideology of demonization and non-normalization of Israel and dehumanization of Jews, Judaism, Jewry and Israel. BDS’s key advocateshonor the indefinite and generational Palestinian right of the return meaning BDS seeks no less than the permanent eradication of Israel.
America’s Muslims must distinguish themselves from these patently anti-Semitic views. If we fail to distance ourselves from these sentiments, we Muslims in the Diaspora will invite animus from our host communities and be personally responsible for the debasement of our own faith by our own hand.
Qanta A. Ahmed (@MissDiagnosis) is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Committee on Combating Contemporary Anti-Semitism Through Testimony at the University of Southern California Shoah Foundation.
3c) ‘Anti-Semitism spreading like poison’: France stained by weekend of vandalism & year of hate crimes
By James Caplan
France’s interior minister has vowed to take a tougher stance on hatred, after multiple incidents of anti-semitic vandalism, and a spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes last year.
Parisians were greeted with crudely daubed anti-Semitic slogans on shop fronts last weekend, including swastikas sprayed over images of late politician and Holocaust survivor Simone Veil, and the German word for Jews (“Juden”) sprayed on a bagel shop in the city center.
A memorial tree planted in honor of a young Jewish man, tortured to death in a 2006 attack, was also chopped down. Visiting the suburb where the tree once stood, Interior Minister Christophe Castaner declared that “anti-Semitism is spreading like a poison, like a venom.”
“It’s rotting minds, it’s killing,” Castaner continued, before vowing to crack down on anti-Jewish hatred.
Castaner did not blame any particular group for the spread of anti-Semitism, but some within the French government and media were quick to blame extremists among anti-Government ‘Yellow Vest’ demonstrators. Government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux linked the graffiti to an arson attack on the home of Parliamentary Speaker Richard Ferrand one week earlier, believed to be the work of the Yellow Vests. The Union of French Jewish Students also pinned blame for the racist daubings on the Yellow Vests.
The bagel bakery’s owner disputes the link, and said that the graffiti appeared on his shop hours before protests broke out nearby.
Moreover, France has been struggling with anti-Semitism long before protests began last November. The number of reported anti-Semitic attacks in France rose 74 percent last year to 541, up from 311 in 2017. The most vicious of these attacks was carried out by Islamic extremists, who have revived an ancient religious conflict on the streets of modern France.
After surviving the Vichy government’s roundup of Jews in 1942, 85-year-old Mireille Knoll was was stabbed to death and set on fire in her apartment last March by her Muslim neighbor. Prosecutors said the attack was motivated by the neighbor’s anti-Semitic beliefs.
One year earlier, another elderly Jewish woman, Sarah Halimi, was killed by a Malian man who shouted: “Allahu Akbar,” before throwing her out of a window. In 2015, a gunman pledging allegiance to the Islamic State terror group killed four people in a Kosher supermarket in Paris, while 2012 saw three children and a teacher from a Jewish school in Toulouse killed by an Islamist fanatic.
Ilan Halimi, whose memorial tree was vandalized over the weekend, was abducted and ransomed by a group of attackers who believed that all Jews were rich, and could afford to pay up. His family could not afford the ransom, and Halimi died after being tortured for three weeks. In court, the ringleader of the attackers appeared unrepentant, declaring“all Jews are my enemies” and pointing upwards while saying: “Allahu Akbar.”
After every attack, the French government pledged to do more to combat anti-Semitism. However, some of France’s Jewish population – the largest in the world behind the United States and Israel – have had enough. An EU-wide survey last year found that French Jews were among the most likely to consider emigrating to Israel, where citizenship is a birthright for Jews worldwide. More than 20,000 of France’s roughly half a million Jews made the one-way trip since 2014.
“In two months we’ll be emigrating to Israel because of the anti-Semitism in Europe,” one French woman told the survey. “Nothing is being done about it. So we are leaving voluntarily.”
3d) Black-Only Reparations? Good Luck!
On February 10, Steve Hilton's The Next Revolution Fox TV program had a small panel discussing the infamous "Green New Deal." One of the guests, Tezlin Figaro, wasn't happy. She allowed that she was tired of hearing about the green deal and that it is time for a black New Deal.
She wanted reparations of various types, but exclusively for blacks. When it was brought up that in the last two years, black unemployment had drastically improved, she just said, "Not good enough." She repeated this line to several issues that were brought up to show improvements in the black community. She wanted plans for blacks only. All this was because they had suffered from slavery and by extension reduced opportunity over the years.
People rarely take this direct tack anymore. These days, there's a little more finesse, trying to include all aggrieved parties. Ms. Figaro was having none of it — blacks are deserving of their own attention and special programs.
Since I firmly assert my right to disagree with a black person and not be called a racist, I feel justified in pointing out a couple of things.
There are two problems with her theory.
1. Who is "black"?
2. Whatever the amount, it will never be enough. You can't stick one little pinky toe in these waters.
On the first issue — who is actually "black"?
Shall we use the Elizabeth Warren standard of 1/1024? Universal DNA testing would have more corrupt outcomes than a South Florida election.
Shall we use the Rachel Dolezal standard of "identifying" as black? When freebies are at stake, a lot of identifying would be going on.
Shall we just go with skin color? I don't think so. The capturing and sale of native African populations was largely a west African phenomenon. Would our large Somali population share in the largesse? They did not come through the slave ship route and do not share the slave ancestry story that Ms. Figaro presumably has.
Somali-Americans are nonetheless definitely black. Ironically, they are largely Muslim, Islam being the only widespread belief system in which slavery is an integral part. I'm not talking about the de facto enslavement of women who undergo genital mutilation and are denied education or any other experience that might serve as an entree to a non-Muslim life. A great many passages in the Koran and the Hadith refer to the etiquette of slavery — who can and can't do what to whom and the like.
Where do Caribbean blacks fall on the scale of reparations worthiness? Some Italian-Americans with a good suntan are darker than they are. What about Indians (from India), some of whom are quite dark?
The committee assigned to determine blackness for this purpose would never finish its assignment.
The current trend in advertising at every level in the U.S. is to show groups and spokespeople that represent as many races as possible. Clothing and other family-oriented product promotions are almost always now shown with interracial couples. This trend has a normalizing effect and makes Ms. Figaro's job of deciding on reparations recipients based on blackness very difficult, indeed. It's cool to be "inclusive," and Ms. Figaro's demands are anything but.
On the second front, how much is enough? Some people may agree with Ms. Figaro and may feel that had their great, great grandfathers had a fighting chance at the American business game, they might be millionaires today. They might like the American taxpayer to concede the success they may have had, compare it to their actual present lot in life, and pay the difference. This is more than merely dopey; it is insufficient.
Cash for presumably lost opportunities does not address the "pain and suffering" angle. That's where the real money is. But even that wouldn't matter, because it would also be insufficient, in letter and in spirit.
Clearly, reparations for blacks alone is not workable. Even more importantly, why seek to institutionalize your victimhood? Why enshrine the loss of your ancestors in a permanent posture of being somehow less than whole? I admire those ancestors — they survived, they procreated, they succeeded. Ms. Figaro should contemplate the Holocaust-survivors who refused reparations because they did not want to monetize their suffering or cheapen their dignity. All they want is for people to know what happened so it doesn't happen again. Ms. Figaro is an attractive, intelligent woman who is proud of her heritage — no more so than these Jews.
I'm not saying there's no there there, but ignoring victories like increased employment and the increased rate of normalizing our social differences does not contribute to constructive debate. There are plenty of accomplishments for black Americans to be proud of, individually and collectively. If equality is what you are really after, more progress might be made by highlighting positive things rather than projecting bitterness and making unreasonable demands.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Pence urges EU to pull out of nuclear deal, says Iran planning ‘new Holocaust’
US Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday demanded that European Union allies follow Washington’s lead in withdrawing from the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal and cease efforts he said are designed to evade US sanctions.
4) Pence urges EU to pull out of nuclear deal, says Iran planning ‘new Holocaust’
At Warsaw conference, US vice president calls Tehran the ‘greatest threat’ to peace and stability in Middle East
US Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday demanded that European Union allies follow Washington’s lead in withdrawing from the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal and cease efforts he said are designed to evade US sanctions.
Speaking at a Middle East conference in Poland, Pence accused Iran of being the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, adding that it was the “greatest threat to peace and security in the Middle East,” and accused the clerical regime of plotting a “new Holocaust” with its regional ambitions.
He lamented that Britain, France and Germany created a special financial mechanism that Washington believes is aimed at “breaking” tough US sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions were eased by former US president Barack Obama’s administration under the terms of the nuclear deal but were reimposed after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement last year.
Pence said the EU had “led the effort to create mechanisms to break up our sanctions… against Iran’s murderous revolutionary regime.”
“It is an ill-advised step that will only strengthen Iran, weaken the EU and create still more distance between Europe and the United States,” he added, according to a transcript by the Reuters news agency.
US and European divisions over Iran led France and Germany to opt against sending their top diplomats to the Warsaw conference.
As Iran’s clerical state marks 40 years since the overthrow of the pro-US shah, Pence vowed maximum pressure while not explicitly urging regime change.
“As Iran’s economy continues to plummet, as the people of Iran take to the streets, freedom-loving nations must stand together and hold the Iranian regime accountable for the evil and violence it has inflicted on its people, on the region and the wider world,” he said.
US sanctions “will get tougher still” unless Iran “changes its dangerous and destabilizing behavior,” Pence said.
Earlier at the same conference, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “confronting Iran” was an essential requirement for achieving peace in the Middle East.
“You can’t achieve peace and stability in the Middle East without confronting Iran, it’s just not possible,” he told reporters ahead of a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Islamic Republic is a malign influence in Lebanon, in Yemen, in Syria and in Iraq, the US top diplomat went on.
“The three H’s — the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah — these are real threats, and there are others as well. But you can’t get peace in the Middle East without pushing back against Iran,” Pompeo said.
On Wednesday night in Warsaw, Netanyahu used a joint photo op with 10 Arab foreign ministers to urge Arab states to continue normalizing relations with Israel, hailing the opening event of the so-called “Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East” as a “historic turning point.”
“Yesterday was a historic turning point. In a room of some 60 foreign ministers and representatives of dozen of governments, an Israeli prime minister and the foreign ministers of leading Arab countries stood together and spoke with unusual force, clarity and unity against the common threat of the Iranian regime,” Netanyahu said.
The summit appears to be the first time an Israeli leader and senior Arab officials attended an international gathering centered on the Middle East since the 1991 Madrid peace conference, which set the stage for the landmark Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians.
The two-day conference, which was originally called with a focus on countering Iran but now carries the toned-down and vague goal of seeking stability in the Middle East, opened Wednesday with a dinner at the Royal Castle in Warsaw’s old town.
Pence addressed the guests: “Tonight I believe we are beginning a new era, with Prime Minister Netanyahu from the State of Israel, with leaders from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, all breaking bread together, and later in this conference sharing honest perspectives on the challenges facing the area.”
Palestinians have been heavily critical of the conference, with officials describing it as an effort by the US to advance anti-Palestinian positions.
Raphael Ahren contributed to this report.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)HOW DO COURT RECORDERS KEEP STRAIGHT FACES????
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
______________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
______________________________
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
______________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
______________________________
WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
______________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
______________________________
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral...
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral...
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________
And last:
And last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment