"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind," says John Donne.
But why stop there? Any man's (or woman's) fatigue or writer's block diminishes me as well.
Is anyone sparing any thought for the people furiously writing conspiracy theories about the federal prosecution of accused Boston Marathon terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Does anyone even care about the quality of home life of the people laboring to misinform their readers about federal criminal procedure and the contours of constitutional rights?
I care. I worry about whether Pat Dollard is spending enough time with his real and/or imagined family. I kvetch about whether Daniel Greenfield makes time to go to the dry cleaners and buy fresh tinfoil. I'm concerned that the folks at Jihad Watch haven't had time to pick up their prescriptions at RiteAid. I'm concerned that Megyn Kelly has had much less time to spend sneering incredulously at her loved ones. Is Paul Mirengoff eating right? And is John Yoo working out? You're only one person, John, and you can't applaud all the torture in the world all by yourself.
I can help.
I've made up some conspiracy theories and ominous observations about federal criminal procedure for you. Go home early! Catch a movie. Mow the lawn. Throw the ol' pigskin around with the kids. I've got this.
The Right To Representation
Incredibly, terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been provided with lawyers — at taxpayer expense! Specifically he has the help of the Federal Public Defender. Are you suspicious yet? You should be. Convicted al-Qaida terrorist Jose Pailla was represented by a federal public defender. Attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid has represented by federal public defenders. Attempted underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was assisted by the federal public defender. The list goes on and on.
Why does the Obama Administration refuse to investigate why the federal public defenders keep defending terrorists? What's their agenda? What do they have to hide?
The Right To Discovery
As a federal criminal defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will have the right to learn about the evidence against him. Incredibly, the government will even have to disclose things that hurt their case, even though it's very important that he be convicted. He has that "right" under a United States Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland.
Brady is the result of an activist court, one that has long been suspected of having terrorist sympathies. But . . . what if more than sympathies are in play here? What if Islamic extremists have been working in our so-called "Supreme Court" — the very name of which suggests a pretense at elevation over decent Americans? What if those extremists have been setting up so-called "decisions" and "precedents" and "rights for decades, just waiting to use them to protect terrorists?
Far-fetched? Maybe with your limited imagination. But that's only because you don't use the eyes God gave you. It's right in front of you. Look at who is among the people the Supreme Court glorifies on its very walls:
Muhammad (c. 570 – 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
Why aren't you listening?
The Right To Trial
Now that the terrorist-sympathizing Obama administration has decided to charge Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in federal court, he'll be entitled to a trial, with witnesses and evidence and cross-examination and all sorts of impediments to the prompt conviction and execution that is our right.
Ask yourself, where does this "right to trial" come from?
It comes from England. England, as everybody knows, is simply overrun by Muslims. You might think that's a recent phenomenon . . . but is it? Isn't it time we start assessing how far back the Muslim influence goes, and what role it might have played in the development of the jury trial in the common law? "Magna Carta" is a very foreign sounding term. It sounds French. Moreover, the Magna Carta was accepted by King John. King John was depicted in the 1973 documentary of his life by Peter Ustinov. Peter Ustinov — oh, Peter Ustinov.
Ustinov was the President of the World Federalist Movement from 1991 to 2004, the time of his death. WFM is a global NGO that promotes the concept of global democratic institutions. WFM lobbies those in powerful positions to establish a unified human government based on democracy and civil society. The United Nations and other world agencies would become the institutions of a World Federation. The UN would be the federal government and nation states would become like provinces.
Can't you see what's happening right in front of your faces? Obama is using a Muslim-influenced "jury trial right" to impose a New World Order.
There. Take the afternoon off, folks! Glad to be of help.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- A Response To Marc: Institutions, Agendas, and the "Culture War" - January 13th, 2016
- Lawyering Is About Service, Not Self-Actualization - January 11th, 2016
- Lawsplainer: Was FAU Prof. James Tracy Fired in Violation of His First Amendment Rights? - January 7th, 2016
- Defy, Defy, Defy. - January 7th, 2016
- President Obama And The Rhetoric Of Rights - January 5th, 2016