This is Jbjd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jbjd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jbjd
Recent Activity
I listened to this posted snippet and really believe Ms. Ingraham, rushed for time according to her clearly worded caution toward the end of this interview; carelessly conflated the posters sponsored by Pamela Geller, to which the rest of us realize Mr. Ghouse obviously referred, with the FBI "Wanted posters" - she explicitly used this phrase - the names/religions of people appearing on which were overwhelmingly Muslim, disproportionate to the domestic U.S. population, for example.
Here's the comment I posted on this blog in November 2008. PG, what a disaster the voters' stupidity is turning out to be, for our country. Before she was 'fired' from the BO campaign, I tried to warn people. To find out what the man would be like as President, look at his choice of advisers now. I cited Ms. Power's writings a few years ago, that the U.S. government should unilaterally invade Israel to create a Palestinian state because otherwise, 'powerful people within the U.S.' (read, Jews) would never allow this outcome. When he fired her for referring to the former First Lady as a "monster," I asked, rhetorically, why people appeared to be so offended that Ms. Power spoke this way about a former First Lady but not upset that she would recommend unilaterally invading our ally to appease the Palestinians; or that BO, with no foreign policy experience and a history of close associations with anti-Semites, would have chosen her to advise him on foreign policy in the first place. President Obama is no worse than I feared he would be.
"No one would dare allow papal or Talmudic law to decide a case..." We do allow Jewish law to decide 'cases' (arbitrations). http://jbjd.org/2011/03/20/right-rejects-religious-adr/ (Enough with the hyperbolic words of death. Assuming the judge in that FL case had issued a bad ruling in a long line of bad rulings, he can be legally impeached in a process that is far less cumbersome than trying to educate one civically ignorant citizen.)
Toggle Commented Mar 21, 2011 on Sharia Becomes Law in Florida at Atlas Shrugs
"Apparently the former owners wanted to use Sharia Law, the current owners wanted to use Secular FL Law. The judge decided to remand it back to be decided under Sharia Law." Cites, please.
Toggle Commented Mar 20, 2011 on Sharia Becomes Law in Florida at Atlas Shrugs
Until I find the original case, I can only infer, the Plaintiff suing the Respondent filed the requisite court documents either to initiate a lawsuit or, if FL has a binding arbitration or mediation law, to initiate this process. Having initiated the process, however, they now had to determine by what rules the mediation would be conducted. They chose Sharia. Based on the decision of the parties, the court ruled, Sharia would guide the mediation. However, evidently, the court did not reduce that ruling to writing at that time. (The word "interlocutory" is used in relation to this first order. This means, the final disposition of the case had not been reached and thus, this was not a final ruling on the merits of the case.) Subsequently, a party asked the court to reduce this oral order into a written order. Mediations and arbitrations are regularly conducted according to religious rules, per the agreement of the parties. http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.nuIWL7MOJtE/b.5394441/k.BD56/Home.htm
Toggle Commented Mar 20, 2011 on Sharia Becomes Law in Florida at Atlas Shrugs
This is not an example of the codification of Sharia law into the criminal or civil code of FL. Rather, it is a judicial decree that makes sense considering these underlying 'facts' which I extrapolated from the order. Parties previously engaged in a lawsuit in court agreed with each other to enter binding arbitration to settle their current dispute. This means, they agreed to mediate in a forum in which the 'mediator' and not the parties to the dispute, would ultimately decide who gets what. And the parties would accept that decision. (In fact, binding arbitration resembles contract law, in a sense. Only, the mediator gets to write the final contract.) The parties also agreed as to the rules of that mediation: Sharia. They asked for and received an (oral) order formalizing their agreement. Now it looks like one of the parties to that agreed binding arbitration asked the court to issue a written order of that previous oral order. (Perhaps the other party is balking at the turn the mediation is taking; or is dissatisfied with the final ruling of the arbitrator.) FYI, the ruling of the arbitrator can now be enforced in a civil court, just like any other legal contract between parties.
Toggle Commented Mar 19, 2011 on Sharia Becomes Law in Florida at Atlas Shrugs
Any site linking to articles posted on Canada Free Press loses credibility. CFP 'writers' are notorious for stealing the work of others. For example, this article on Atlas links to a story they posted on Friday, January 14, revealing that the slogan, "Together We Thrive," which appeared on t-shirts at the Tuscon memorial at which Obama spoke a few days ago, first appeared on the then candidate's web site in 2008. But that 'discovery' had already been posted one day earlier, on Thursday, January 13, on NoQuarter. http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2011/01/13/thursday-open-thread-3/#respond
Mr. Spencer certainly de-constructs the edicts against Ms. Geller cast out in The Atlantic. How disconcerting that, in order to redress the myriad inaccuracies in such diatribe, he had to expend what must have been some time formulating this most lucid response. Did The Atlantic publish this clarification of its mischaracterization of her NYT interview?
Gloria Allred shills for the D Party. Period. She has established in the past, when the conduct at issue is arguably unlawful, she will align herself with the party - alleged victim or perpetrator - who is less likely to harm the Party. Even if this means, biting the bullet, herself, such as was the case with the D Party during the 2008 primary campaign, when Obama's minions violated CA's vote binding laws by harassing Clinton pledged delegates to switch to Obama BEFORE the nominating convention. They perpetrated such illegal conduct in all vote binding states. In GA, AG Baker (D) received complaints from citizens there, Obama was breaking the law. But evidencing his loyalty to the law and not the Party, AG Baker reminded pledged delegates they were bound by GA law to stick to the candidate voters elected them to represent, when they got to the convention. Ms. Allred appears to have been unaware she was similarly bound in CA until she arrived in Denver. There, she announced to the press that at the request of fellow Clinton pledged delegates from that state, she had researched the law and determined they were bound to vote for Clinton. She complained convention organizers were stifling her from informing these delegates, they had to carry out their legal obligations. But did she complain to AG Brown the Party was violating the laws in that state? Did his office investigate and then punish the wrongdoers? Obviously not because 1) there has been no word of this in the press; and 2) I watched Ms. Allred on FOX News recently complaining again that she was 'gagged' at the convention from discussing this issue but not revealing that she had filed a complaint with AG Brown. On the contrary, she falsely claimed, the DNC "Call" (their rulebook) even instructs pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. So she didn't understand why she was prevented from dispensing such legal advice, too. Only, DNC rules say no such thing. That's why most Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states didn't even know about these state-specific laws until they reached the convention and received the news from volunteers handing out flyers. A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1, 2, 3, and EPILOGUE)
1 reply
Jbjd is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 9, 2010