moonbattery logo

Feb 24 2012

Sharia in Pennsylvania

Obviously savages still living in the Dark Ages won’t conquer the USA from the outside. They’ll exploit moonbattery to do it from within:

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case.

But then the defendant presented an ingenious defense:

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The defense worked beautifully — thanks to the judge being a convert to Islam. Here’s what the Less Than Honorable Mark Martin announced to the court:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

The victim of the crime can count himself lucky Martin didn’t order him beheaded. Martin then meandered further into the nether realms of moonbattery, gibbering about “ugly Americans” and grousing that “we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights” — presumably including the right of Muslims to physically assault anyone who won’t revere their barbaric cult. As for the First Amendment, Judge Martin proclaimed that it does not allow anyone “to piss off other people and other cultures.”

The judge then dismissed the case due to absence of evidence, after refusing to admit video of the crime and scoffing at the testimony of a police witness.

The longer Barack Hussein Obama is in a position to appoint judges, the more common this sort of travesty of justice is likely to become.

This time atheists are the good guys.

On tips from Robert S. Pierre, Smorfia48, and GoY.

EmailFacebookGoogle+PinterestStumbleUponTwitter



  • Garpin

    At the very least, this judge should have recused himself. If I were in a position to impeach this sob, not only would I do it, but I would try to figure in some applicable charges for not upholding the laws on the books instead of sputtering about what other countries would do. Who gives a flying fu&k what other countries would do. We live in the United States, and you do NOT have a right to not be offended.

    The defendant was clearly guilty. Period. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Just Damn.

  • RKae

    The story fails to mention what happened to the lunatic Christian who attacked the Zomie Pope who was walking along with Mr. Perce.

    …Oh, there WASN’T a lunatic Christian? Just a lunatic Muslim? Gee, that’s interesting.

  • Dupree

    I don’t get it. This judge, like the judge three stories prior, just makes things up as they go. Don’t these judges have to follow the letter of the law? How do we hold these ass-clowns accountable to the law?

  • Beef

    Outrageous. Too bad for him he messed with an atheist.

  • IslandLifer

    Another black robe abusing his power. Another black robe who needs tar and feathers.

  • Joe

    Any lawyer worth his salt (I know, there aren’t many) would appeal this to a higher court in a new york minute. Then I would push to have this judge reprimanded for dereliction of duty. His day is coming.

  • Harold

    If you are outraged by the judges conduct, great, but spouting off in the comments here is just that- spouting off.

    http://www.facebook.com/RepAdolph

    For out of staters, this the first PA REP in alphabetical order. Spout off on his facebook page. A few hundred facebook comments, he’s going to sit up and take notice. A few hundred comments here, he doesn’t give a crap.

    If you’re from PA, rfind youe rep hers: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/#address

    Express your outrage where it will do some good. I have.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    When free speech ends at “pissing off” Muslims, only Muslims will have free speech
    This scumbag judge has just set a dangerous precedent where not only assault is tolerated, but MURDER as well.
    Hey Atheists.
    You have spent decades accusing Christians of turning this country into a “theocracy”
    Yet here it is in all it’s glory.
    But don’t let that stop you from tearing down the roadside crosses and erasing the ten commandments from courthouse walls.
    Or banning Christians from adopting
    http://britatheist.blogspot.com/2011/12/uk-court-christians-banned-from.html
    Or trying to ban bibles at Walter Reed
    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Whoops-Walter-Reed-Temporarily-Bans-Bibles-135853463.html
    Or Wisconsin Atheists worried about a statue in Montana
    http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/11/american-legion-we-wish-wisconsin-atheists-would-leave-us-alone.php
    Or banning them from proclaiming “god can heal”
    http://religiousragings.tumblr.com/post/17269956187/christian-groups-god-can-heal-ads-banned

  • http://nobarack08.wordpress.com nobarack08

    lest we forget the separation of church and state, but now this judge has committed judicial treason;

    1. failing to uphold the United States Constitution
    2. Placing his personal beliefs in above that of The United States Constitution
    3. Placing MOOSELIMISM in a protected state, over the ‘Right of Free Speech’ as protected under the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights

    The United States Constitution does not guarantee any rights, it protects your inalienable rights endowed by GOD that the government can not deny, take away, or infringe upon. PERIOD.

  • DavidD

    The judge made it sound like it was a case of he said/he said, but there was video? WTH?!?!?

  • http://nobarack08.wordpress.com nobarack08

    The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • RSVP

    The Court of Judicial Discipline of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    Judicial Conduct Board
    601 Commonwealth Ave
    Suite 3500
    PO Box 62525
    Harrisburg, PA 17106-2525

  • Sweep the leg

    But this is the only outcome we could have had.

    When “hard core conservatives” brand anyone who is tired of blacks dragging down the country, year after year, a “rayciss”; when they work SO hard to find the “other side of the story”, so as to dismiss every wrong as an “isolated instance”; when they scold everyone who knows better that “not ALL muslims are…”, the other side wins.

    There IS good and evil; right and wrong. There ARE differences in peoples, races, and “religions”, that make some NOT deserving of an American life.

    For too long, too many on “our” side, trashed good people who could see on all issues (none of the issues facing our country are hard to grasp. All are correctable for those who can see) including race, religion, and morality, in a vane effort to garner favor with “them”

    Great fucking job. You got what you asked for. Remember this the next time a black rapes or enjoys his AA benefits, a muslim murders, or some queer NAMBLA’s a little boy…

  • KHarn

    “Harold says:February 24, 2012 at 3:32 pm”

    No Harold, a few hundred posts and the son of a bitch will scream “RACISM” and get protection. Then the feds will pass a law, crack down on more of our freedom and force thousands into “sensitivity training”.

    What will REALLY get him and the rest of the anti-civilization bunch (Including regressives) is to TAR AND FEATHER him!

    Our ancestors had the right attitude for handling traitors.

  • Agnostic Conservative

    Kick that judge out of his position.

    Relaunch the case in another court.

    This sort of behavior is ridiculous!

  • Jimbo

    Ship this so called “judge” to Iran. How the HELL do these people get their jobs? What a worthless piece of shit.

  • Pingback: Sharia in Pennsylvania « Evil of indifference

  • Stephan the Original

    Let me get this straight:

    The judge ruled the case as if it was in another country, not the United States?

    Not a perfect analogy, but imagine if someone worked for a company, but acted in the course of their job with due deference to the interests of a competitor?

    That judge simply should not keep his job.

  • whotothewhat

    The next POS whether it will be Santorum or Romney or Ron Paul, or even Palin or Christi. Will not be able to restore this country to sanity till. 1 pink slip 99 percent of the Federal government.2 Claw and dig out all left wing scum Professors out of our Universities. 3 fire remove and sanction these whackadoo Commie Islamofascism loving judges. 4 Call out Hollywood for what it really is, a left wing nob sucking palace guard. 5 find George Soros and send him to Gitmo and 6 crush and marginalized the left wing media as well

  • Agnostic Conservative

    ^
    There is a simpler solution. Declare bankruptcy and restart from scratch.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    When “hard core conservatives” brand anyone who is tired of blacks dragging down the country, year after year, a “rayciss
    Sweep the brain cells
    ——–
    So tell us, what is YOUR “final solution” ?
    C’mon out with it.
    Only a coward would sit anonymously, prodding the next guy to tie a cinch noose on the rope

  • Pingback: Sharia in Pennsylvania | I'm a Man! I'm 41!

  • 762×51

    What a shame the Atheist wasn’t armed so he could just blow the Muslims head off. That would have rehabilitated the scumbag.

    Piss on Muhammad, feces be upon him.

    Censor that.

  • TED

    I really don’t care who won in this case, that is because one of the bastards lost! Either way – well deserved! Piss on both of them (and the leftist judge).

  • RICH

    Awe.. the muslims and atheists cant play nice…what a shame.

  • White_Polluter

    I dug a little deeper on this one, and checked out the original news story on this. Couple points I think we should consider:

    1. Video of the attack? OK, where is it? Let’s see it. The original news story describes it as “grainy.” Perhaps the reason we don’t see it here on Moonbattery is because it doesn’t exist, or it is inconclusive. “Grainy” sounds to me like crappy quality which could actually look like your neighbor taking his garbage out.

    2. View the atheist in the original news story. He is a jerk wad. He was marching in the parade purposely trying to be a dick, and guess what? He succeeded. To all of you who say its your right to be a dick, you know that wasn’t necessarily the case when I was growing up, and maybe the country is worse off for it. Upon reflection, some bad situations could be avoided with a little forethought and intelligence. The atheist has neither.

    3. Again from the original newscast, its clear that this was much more of a scuffle than a beat down. The Muslim tried to rip the sign off the atheists neck. I’d give you 10-1 odds that the “choking” that the atheist was reported to have suffered was actually just the Muslim trying to pull the sign off. It meets my “choking” definition about the same as “water boarding” meets my torture definition.

    Do I believe the Muslim? Not entirely. Do I believe the jerk wad atheist. Even less than the Muslim. Do I respect the judge? He’s lawyer, don’t make me laugh, but didn’t see a whole lot of bias because he’s a Muslim and the defendant was a Muslim. Do I appreciate his lecturing about other cultures, no, that’s a load of hooey and he’d have been better off just keeping his yap shut, but I don’t think my level of outrage rises to the level it initially did when I first read this story.

    I kind of feel about this story like I did about the BCS Championship Game this year…….it’s too bad they all can’t lose.

  • chuck in st paul

    It’s not much worse than a Supreme Clown bringing in foreign law to make a decision on Constitutional issues.

    If this guy is not up for judicial review within 30 days, it will be the canary in the mine.

  • Sgt Stadenko

    Perhaps the reason we don’t see it here on Moonbattery is because it doesn’t exist…

    No one here is trying to hide anything. The video does exist, it’s on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=yP-X3hpCfR8

    Unfortunately, you can’t see sh!t, but the defendant did, in fact, admit in court that he attacked the “zombie mohammed”. The Magistrate (aka “junior judge”) didn’t care, and even ruled the video evidence inadmissible without ever viewing it.

    Don’t be a jackass. Telling the plaintiff if he were in a muslim country he’d be executed is an outrage. Magistrate Mark Martin is an embarrassment to the American judicial system.

  • Sgt Stadenko

    One more thing: our First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is intended to protect political speech first and foremost, especially if it might offend – which is exactly what these atheists were doing, even if they were being jerks. It’s their right.

  • Harold

    When I first read anything about this, I thought there’s a piece missing. I found it. And amazingly, no one else has brought it up. I knew what I was going to find when I googled Halloween sharia fatwa, but I googled it anyway.

    Why was Talaag Elbayomy at a Halloween parade? Sharia forbids muslims to celebrate Halloween, or any other pagan, or non-muslim holiday or celebration. See http://jihadology.net/2010/10/31/halloween-special-recent-article-from-umar-bakri-mu%e1%b8%a5ammad-halloween-trick-or-shirk/ for confirmation, or google it yourself. Lots of info out there.

    If Talaag Elbayomyhad not been violating sharia, he would not have been in a position to be offended by a zombie Mohammed. He further compounded his sharia violation by having his child there, helping him to learn how to celebrate pagan holidays. For this, Allah will not forgive him, according to the above reference.
    What else might offend a good muslim who accidently chanced upon a Halloween parade, for no good Muslim would be at one on purpose? My personal favorite, and the only reason I would watch one- scantily clad females in provocative costumes! How dare Talaag Elbayomy expose his child to such views! And then, there would be humans in animal costumes, perhaps even as pigs, Porky or the Three Little. Humans dressed as PIGS! OMG! The horror!

    Judge Martin, who has violated his oath of allegiance to support and defend the U.S. Constitution in his ruling and tirade, who presented himself as an expert on Islamic Law and Justice in his tirade, apparently missed this important item- that Halloween is forbidden to Muslims, and Talaag Elbayomyhad should not have been there.

    Remember to visit webpages of PA legislators and call for the impeachment of Judge Mark Martin, violator of his sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/#address

  • Sgt Stadenko

    As noted on another blog, Magistrate Mark Martin could be removed from the bench for misconduct:

    In the State of Pennsylvania, Magistrate Judges have certain rules to follow and Mark Martin either is unfamiliar with these rules or blatantly ignored them as demonstrated below with Rules 2, 4, & 8

    Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges

    http://judicialconductboardofpa.org/legislation/rules-governing-standards-of-conduct-of-magisterial-district-jud/

    2. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
    4. Magisterial district judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. They shall be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism… Magisterial district judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity,…
    8. Magisterial district judges shall disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned… (1) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;(c) is known by the magisterial district judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

    His behavior was unprofessional, and unbecoming of an officer of the court, at the very least.

  • Sgt Stadenko

    …in his ruling and tirade, who presented himself as an expert on Islamic Law and Justice in his tirade, apparently missed this important item- that Halloween is forbidden to Muslims, and Talaag Elbayomyhad should not have been there.

    Good point, Harold. Hypocrisy abounds…

  • White_polluter

    Sgt. Thanks for the vid feed. I came cross this earlier but couldn’t believe it was the video reported in the story because it is less than worthless as far as evidence, but I think it does show even more than the original newscast what a dickhead the atheist is.

    Your right, political speech was intended to be protected by the founders, but dressing up intentionally to insult someone’s religion isn’t political speech. It’s infantile and, frankly more worthy of Cracked magazine. I don’t think this is what Washington, Jefferson, and Madison had in mind for political speech. In fact, I think a case could be made for disorderly conduct or public drunkenness.

    But put that aside. The only evidence I see of assault is the atheist yelling he was being choked. Must have been some WWE worthy choke BECAUSE HE’S CLEARLY YELLING WITH HIS AIR PASSAGE UNOBSTRUCTED while undergoing the “choke”. In fact, atheists use this kind of media-hype all the time to get attention.

    This isn’t a constitutional issue, or a Sharia issue, it’s a atheist panty-waist crying for attention trying to classify some guy laying hands on him (IMHO probably pretty gently as I don’t think anyone even it the ground???) as an assault. That’s an assault? No, sorry. Lack of evidence.

    Maybe vid of interrogation by officer wold change my mind, but so far, story as it has been presented by Conservative blogs just doesn’t check out.

    And before we get carried away with the freedom to say what you want again, we’re conservatives. We’re happier than libs, we give more to charity, our kids behave better, we have better lives, let’s use some social skills and generally make our cities more enjoyable places to live and for people like Mr. Atheist, don’t fall for his crap. Look, you could point out that I’m ugly, but you wouldn’t do it because you realize it wouldn’t help the situation. Mr. Atheist doesn’t get that, so when he goes out of his way to be a jerk, I just don’t think he deserves any encouragement.

  • White_Polluter

    Just listened to the tape again, more closely this time. Something just doesn’t smell right. I’m afraid I’ll just have to call bu!!sh!t on this one. How do we know the judge is a muslim? Unless I missed it, that’s not on the tape. He dismisses the video as evidence? Yeah, because it doesn’t show anything. I think it hurts the prosecution’s case. As far as his lecture, portions of it sound like he’s answering questions or points in the case. I’m no audio expert, but the recording quality is crappy at best & sounds like there has been some editing. Did you listen to the first portion of the tape about the founding fathers not founding this country on Christian principles? Standard atheist crap. I’m afraid this entire episode is an atheist plant which stinks to high heaven.

    Sorry, I’m with the judge on this one. I think what probably happened is Mr. atheist was being a bad neighbor for really, no purpose. The Muslim guy came up to him and tried to take his sign off, and the atheist decided to press charges. Assault for touching his crappy sign? I just don’t think that rises to the level of assault.

    Watch the first part of the atheist video. They try to make the case that the judge based his ruling on Sharia law which is not the case at all. Sure he should have just STFU about ugly americans and praying 5 times and all the other BS, but he’s not basing his ruling on Sharia law. He says Mr. atheist just doesn’t prove his case based on a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. To me a big part of this is the fact that Mr. atheist is a jerk and that certainly hurts his credibility.

    The officer’s credibility is a different matter, but we don’t see his testimony and he is not really that worked up in his statement on the original newscast, although he does say that in his opinion, it was an open and shut case.

  • KHarn

    “White_Polluter says:February 25, 2012 at 12:08 am”

    The fact that the sob ruled ACCORDING TO SHARIA damns him eternaly. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

  • White_Polluter

    You know, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t hear the judge say anything about Sharia. Not sure how that got into this thread, other than the title.

    ‘NOTHING ELSE MATTERS”

    Well, to me, the facts do. Otherwise, why not just be a liberal?

  • Festivus

    Definition of “assault”:

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

    I don’t know how you can conclude there was insufficient evidence of an assault. No battery, maybe, but it seems clear to me that an assault did occur.

  • Sgt Stadenko

    In White_Polluter’s world it is perfectly acceptable to attack someone because you don’t like the sign he’s carrying.

    Nice.

  • Sgt Stadenko

    In White_Polluter’s world, Ken Gladney got what he deserved…

  • Sam Adams

    White_Polluter says:…

    The issue isn’t whether the assault occured, the problem is with the judge and why he ruled the way he did.

    I could care less if the guy getting attacked was a jerkwad or not. The problem is with the ruling and the reasoning behind the ruling.

    For example is someone is being a jerkwad and has offended another person and gets punched, under the law the guy is guilty, and the judge can provide a nominal punishment, since the guy may have had it coming.

  • Sam Adams

    Ty the way, I’m sure the ACLU will be all over this case….but on which side????

  • Tim from TK

    White Pollutant says:

    “You know, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t hear the judge say anything about Sharia.”

    Why, yes, buttercup, you did miss it.

    In what appears to be an open and shut case of assault, the moslem judge found for the defendant in that it is acceptable for a Mohammedan to assault an infidel for mocking mohammed.

    In short, though I can’t use single syllable words to make it easy for you, the judge ruled using mohammedan law, which is called Sharia, not US/Pennsylvania law.

  • Sweep the leg

    @ ghost

    “…So tell us, what is YOUR “final solution” ?
    C’mon out with it.
    Only a coward would sit anonymously, prodding the next guy to tie a cinch noose on the rope…”

    Don’t know where to begin, but then, I never do when conversing with idiots…

    1) never offered or hinted at any “final solution” This is your retarded thinking being projected outward. I simply explained what happens when “we” attack our own, using “their” rules. This, obviously, was far too much for you to grasp…

    2) Only a coward would sit anonymously??? This was written by…an…anonymous writer. You can’t make this stuff up.

    3) What “cinch noose”?? Again, you are seeing things that aren’t there.

    Please don’t feel free to comment and then contradict yourself and make false accusations. You’re a fucking retard, ghost. And no doubt, part of the problem.

    BTW,
    “…When free speech ends at “pissing off” Muslims, only Muslims will have free speech
    This scumbag judge has just set a dangerous precedent where not only assault is tolerated, but MURDER as well…”

    What is YOUR “final solution” you anonymous retard?
    C’mon, out with it!!!!!!

    (This one doesn’t involve blacks, so you should feel safe and PC cozy, Jackass)

  • Dr. Dave

    I don’t know what the laws are in PA, but where I live a District Magistrate Judge is an elected officer of the court and need not even necessarily be a lawyer. They adjudicate minor shit like traffic violations and petty crimes. Even a case of shoplifting goes to the criminal court (I’ve done two 90 day stints on jury duty).

    I used to think ALL judges had to be lawyers first. Apparently not. We had a popular Magistrate Judge here who kept getting reelected. She was not a lawyer. She had attended a two year course at a community college on “how to be a magistrate judge.” In over 90% of cases there’s very little “judgment” involved. It’s more akin to following a rule book.

    After a while, however, an investigative reported discovered that a disproportionate number of DUI cases this Magistrate had adjudicated were dismissed when the accused had an Hispanic surname. It seems friends, family and donors were being given a free pass. Well, the shit hit the fan and she promptly resigned but charges were filed and she was prosecuted for judicial malfeasance. It’s not too difficult to get rid of a magistrate judge.

  • White_Polluter

    Festivus-

    Good, looked up the definition of assault. Going by that I’m probably assaulted every week by debtors. Wonder how efficiently the legal system would work if I took everyone to court? Lawyers and the legal system are ruining this country because of BS like this, and your being duped by the atheists. People still run their own affairs about 95% of the time, unfortunately its often clouded by crap like this because someone threatens to sue over a little scuffle. Where I come from, that’s just being a big pu$$y. Frankly, If I were the atheist, I’d be embarrassed, but he has a different agenda that you are unfortunately buying.

    How can I conclude that there was no evidence of assault? Well, the video sure doesn’t show any. It shows a couple of dorks yelling at each other. So what the judge said, if you listen to the clip, is that its one guys word against another and he was surprised if it was really that big a deal that there were no eyewitnesses and no one intervened. Seems pretty reasonable.

    Sgt.-

    Wow, man, total rephrasing of my words so that it means totally the opposite……Nice. You could work for Keith Olberman. Go out and cut and past the portions of my post where I say its OK to attack someone? I mean if you mean verbally attack, OK. But I don’t think there was any physical attack here.

    Ken Gladney- That video actually showed something. I could shove my iPhone down a fat man’s pants and you’d get about the same thing as the video “proof” in this thread. Apples & Oranges.

    Sam Adams & Tim-

    Sorry guys, listed to the post for the 3rd time and did not hear “Sharia” once. Did not hear the judge give any sort of justification for his ruling other than lack of evidence. I heard him pontificate about other cultures and, as I said before, it was regrettable and stupid. But that’s not why he made his decision. Just tell me where in the clip he mentions making his decision on Sharia law. give me the time from the beginning and I’ll gladly listen to it and say, “man, you were right, I was wrong.” but from what we have here, that’s not the case. In fact, where the heck are we getting that this judge is a Muslim? Is there another link?

    This is a setup job by the atheists. Listen to the tape and then tell me how you get that the judge was a Muslim and that he ruled against the atheist under Sharia law. You can’t just make this crap up out of whole cloth because the judge said some other crummy stuff about Americans and American culture. Jeez, listen to the tape.

  • Tim from TK

    White Pollutant sez:

    “In fact, where the heck are we getting that this judge is a Muslim?”

    Bless your heart, Pollutant, Reading is Fundamental ! How about his own words ?

    “Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

    “Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.”

    Hmmm…judge says, “I’m a muslim.” I don’t know, this is an impenetrable mystery.

    “Sorry guys, listed to the post for the 3rd time and did not hear “Sharia” once.”

    Are you really that obtuse ? Do you expect him to say “I shall now rule by sharia” ? Do you think “judges” in Iran do ?

    Making a ruling based on mohammedan laws/ideology = sharia. Shall we quote the judge again ? ” In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

    I am not at all sure why, unless you too are a mohammedan, you are an apologist for this clear cut abuse of position, and abrogation of state law and the Constitution, but if not, feel free to pull your head out of your fourth point of contact.

  • White_Polluter

    At 4:00 left in the clip, sounds like the judge says “I’m a Muslim, I find it very offensive.” The tape quality is horrible and I can’t be sure that is what exactly was said, but that is how The Blaze translated it, and it does sound like those were the words said. The words directly after it sound like they are in a different voice, or at least said as part of a different phrase. Very bad tape, very bad quality, but let’s accept for the time being that the judge is a Muslim. Even the Blaze doesn’t claim the case was decided by Sharia law. They correctly attribute the dismissal to the atheist not having sufficient evidence to support his case.

    Here’s the link to the network report. Network made no mention of the judge being a Muslim, in fact from their footage, it appears to me that the time spent in Muslim countries by the judge was as a U. S. Soldier.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE

    This just does not smell right.

  • White_Polluter

    Tim-

    OK, so you’ll believe the words when it says “I’m a Muslim, ” but not when it says I’m ruling this way because. Selective hearing.

    Listen to the words “I’m a Muslim.” Sound pretty convincing? IDK, just asking? Why would he say “they” when referring to Muslims every other time in the clip?

    The atheist says he was spun around & choked but the cop only says his beard and sign were pulled. Did the atheist lie about being choked? You can hear him talking clearly and plainly during the “choking.”

  • White_Polluter

    Tim-

    I just hate spin, and this thing reeks of it. I hate it on the left, I hate it on the right. Do you remember the Sharron Angle hates blacks on religious grounds crap from the last election? Well, I tracked that, and it had its genesis in a Tonopah, NV newspaper column by a local writer who was obviously biased and slated the story into something that it wasn’t. It all started because the HS football team’s coach wanted the team to wear black jerseys to remember a loss to another team the prior year. Angle opposed it. the newspaper hack had not one shred of evidence that she opposed it because she hated blacks or that she thought blacks were inferior on religious grounds, but that’s what the story morphed into.

    There’s a lot of problems with judges, but then again there’s a lot of problems with A$$holes who happen to be atheists. Sometimes you gotta do a little research, but if you really think that’s a legit tape and the atheist is really not lying about being attacked, OK. That’s your judgement. But when I hear news reports of the vicious attack, and how the Muslim stormed out of the crowd, and then I see the shadow of the Muslim walking up to the guy and no punches thrown, nobody hitting the ground, nobody having any evidence of the attack, and then they show you a crappy video that shows nothing I would consider an attack I just have to question the motives of these people.

    And then you want to say he ruled based on Sharia law but, of course, he’s not gonna say it. Well, here come the black helicopters my friend.

  • bobdog

    And what would happen if we started killing them back?

    Sure, it’s stupid, it’s barbaric, and it’s ignorant, but it might get the point across. They kill a Christan, we kill a couple Muslims. They defile a graveyard, we defile a graveyard. They behead one of ours, we behead one of them. Even 7th Century throwbacks would get the message.

    See, all we need is a little understanding.

  • Tim from TK

    White Pollutant sez:

    “Tim-

    I just hate spin…”

    That is restaurant grade comedy from an apologist whose own RPMs rival that of a runaway gyroscope on crack.

    “Sometimes you gotta do a little research, but if you really think that’s a legit tape and the atheist is really not lying about being attacked, OK. That’s your judgement.”

    Your fear of reading is becoming pathological. The clown who went postal admitted it.

    “Well, here come the black helicopters my friend.”

    Nuclear grade comedy from someone trying to parse a tape.

    ‘Fess up now, Polluter, are you really Ibrahaim Hooper, ignorant and apathetic, or a Moby ?

  • Sgt Stadenko

    Go out and cut and past the portions of my post where I say its OK to attack someone? I mean if you mean verbally attack, OK. <b?But I don’t think there was any physical attack here.

    Apparently our new friend White_Polluter has not bothered to read Dave’s post, or the link, but only the headline. Try again:

    The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

    The defendant f*ckng admitted he physically attacked the plaintiff, and the magistrate judge made excuses for him. That is what his ridiculous lecture on understanding muslim culture was about.

    Damn. Some people are dense as lead…

  • Tim from TK

    Sgt Stadenko says:

    “Damn. Some people are dense as lead.”

    Yeah, but White Polluted makes depleted uranium look like Kleenex.

  • White_polluter

    Tim-

    Not sure I follow your post at all? Keep up the attempted jokefest. practice may improve your witticisms. Otherwise your post really adds nothing to the discussion.

    Sarge-

    Like I said, show me in my post where I said that, not in someone else’s post or story. There was no assault here. Another case of someone blowing stuff out of proportion. You fall for the atheists setup, dare I say it, like a doofus.

    Where’s the choking video? Show me on the video where the attack is? I think that you even stated earlier that the video doesn’t show jack.

    “new friend”. I’ve been following this blog for quite sometime, not as Ibrahhim Hooper, and generally agree with it and have had many hours of useful news and entertainment from it. But when I see conservatives getting duped, I frankly am a bit embarrassed for ya’.

    Like I said before, here’s to a little more research and a little less name calling.

  • White_Polluter

    Tim-

    On second thought, after re-reading the kleenex/uranium comment, that was pretty good. Got a chuckle out of that. Post above that would have been better with a re-write.

  • Tim from TK

    White Pollutant sez”

    “Tim-

    Not sure I follow your post at all?”

    I am not at all surprised, as I said, you are denser than depleted uranium, or just lying. So, for your edification as you try to tap dance your way out the corner you have painted yourself into:

    “Where’s the choking video? Show me on the video where the attack is? I think that you even stated earlier that the video doesn’t show jack.”

    Who gives a damn what the video shows, the attacker admitted to committing the attack. End of story – you can sit there like an idiot – correction – being an idiot, squinting at the video till you go blind, but the perp admitted it.

    Why are you apologizing for the judge and the mohammedan who admitted to attacking the guy ?

    “Like I said before, here’s to a little more research…”

    Confessions do not require “research”, Moby.

  • white_Polluter

    Tim-

    Why do I bother? Because, unlike an earlier poster, the truth matters. The cop, who I trust, if you watch some of the other coverage, not just the clip here, says the Muslim pulled the guys beard and sign. Way different from an attack? Wouldn’t you agree?

    Here’s the second post saying the video doesn’t matter. Yes, it does. If the story is reported as having video evidence, wouldn’t you think that’s pretty strong evidence? But if the evidence doesn’t mean squat, that’s kind of misleading, no? Who are you going to believe? Your eyes or a “sarcasm on” totally unbiased atheist and/or political blogger “sarcasm off.”

    There was a time in the country I lived in where men called a spade a spade and the truth mattered more than legal doublespeak and gobble-d-gook. So what the judge is trying to find, whether he’s a Muslim or not, is the truth, what you should also be trying to find. The way this story is reported, it pissed me off and I wanted to call the judge and get him fired. That was my first reaction. I was wrong. I let my emotions get the best of me, like a liberal would. When I actually looked at the facts and the credibility of who said what, I was a lot closer to the judge than the atheist, and I was embarrassed that this site would post something so shoddy without vetting it first.

    I’ve said all along if I’m missing something, point it out, but you’ve pointed out nothing on the original source documents other than the crappy tape of the judge saying he’s a Muslim which I conceded sounds like that is the case, but when I point out that there is also nothing to base saying that he made the decision under Sharia law, you fire back with blanks and then start insulting me and cracking jokes of lesser quality.

    BTW- No idea what a restaurant grade vs. nuclear grade joke is. Must be something you young people say. Would appreciate a definition. Also, Moby? Who? You mean the bald musician? Isn’t he a pinko? Or are you saying that because of my avatar? I hope not, because I think your better than calling names based on personal appearances.

    If you tried a little less joking and a little more facts, you might get a few more moderates or liberals on here, which, I assume is the purpose of your posting, to change minds? Or at least open some other avenues for discussion? If not, is it just mental masturbation for you?

    The title of this post was “Sharia in Pennsylvania.” You really want to imply by that that portions of Pennsylvania are under Sharia law? Because that’s what it sounds like to me. I just think you might want to think that over before you hop on that bandwagon.

  • white_Polluter

    Confessions do not require “research.” Now that’s something they’d say in Iran.

  • Tim from TK

    White Polluter obfuscates:

    “Why do I bother?” You bother because you are an apologist for the judge, his ruling, the actions of the attacker, and, it appears, all things moslem of this kind.

    “Way different from an attack? Wouldn’t you agree?”

    Actually, no I don’t, it meets the legal definition of assault and battery.

    ” So what the judge is trying to find, whether he’s a Muslim or not, is the truth…” That is horsecrap, and you know it.

    Here is the truth you are trying to cover up:

    1. 2 bozos, 1 dressed as Zombie mohammed, 1 dressed as Zombie Pope. Whether they are atheists, or Baptists, Zoroastrians, or Jains, is irrelevant.

    2. Zombie mo is attacked by a moslem, whereas the Zombie Pope is mysteriously unharmed by any Catholics.

    3. In court, the guy who assaulted Zombie mo admits he assaulted Zombie mo.

    4. Self admitted moslem judge throws out case along with the First Amendment, on principles outlined in sharia law, going so far as to cite what would have happened in some Arabic countries. That you are so pig ignorant of the tenets of islam to see this is sad, but not surprising, given your overall demonstrated lack of intellectual curiosity.

    “I let my emotions get the best of me, like a liberal would.” As you evidently are one, again, not surprising.

    “Also, Moby? Who? You mean the bald musician? Isn’t he a pinko?”

    Not even a good try even for one of limited abilities as yourself, you know damn well what is meant, you are pretending at being “conservative”, and “searching for truth”.

    “You really want to imply by that that portions of Pennsylvania are under Sharia law? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.”

    That is because you are the butter knife in the scalpel tray.

    “If you tried a little less joking and a little more facts, you might get a few more moderates or liberals on here, which, I assume is the purpose of your posting, to change minds?”

    A bad assumption. The problem is that a casual reader might take you seriously, so your asininity needs to be refuted. I know I can’t change your mind as that would presume you had one capable of rational though which you persist in demonstrating is not the case.

  • fred schwartz

    THIS ARTICLE IS A FARCE !!! I live in PA and never heard of this and believe me it would have been broadcast all over. This would have been reversed immediatly upon appeal, and I cant imagine ANY judge doing it. Rule (1) Ignorance of the law does not forgive the criminal act. they even convict 5 year olds of crime in this state..

  • Tim from TK

    Now Fred chimes in.

    Rather curious that two guys show up out of nowhere, only post on one thread, both claiming, albeit in slightly different ways, that the facts are not not as reported.

  • Festivus

    It was probably dismissed with prejudice and, thus, cannot be appealed.

    While not much can be discerned by the videotape, it is clear that the defendant left the spectator crowd and confronted the victim. The victim was clearly in fear for his safety – this much the videotape clearly shows through the audio aspect of the tape.

    The basis for an assault charge is clear. The defendant essentially admits that he committed an assault.

  • white_Polluter

    Tim-

    As I stated before, I did not show up out of nowhere, I’ve been watching this blog for quite some time. Better effort this time, but you still suck at rational thought or argument. You sound like Ron Paul whining about how I’m not a conservative and again, not really having much in your arsenal outside of ad hominem attacks and name calling.

    What you fail to see and what indicates you are just a pimple on the arse of conservatism, and rather than try and whine about how you are not a conservative, Tim, I recognize you are trying to be a conservative, but really don’t get the part due to the angry, knee-jerk reaction to some poorly-selected story which you want to rush ahead and demonstrate your outrage instead really recognizing the problem and solving it, is your failure to grasp what a nutberger you look like to moderate America when you rant about how the Muslims are ruining this country. We have big problems, Tim, getting Mr. 57 States re-elected is the largest, most pressing one at this time, so rather directing your anger at my questioning of the facts, you should concentrate more on that.

    Rather than try to be a conservative, snot-nosed, version of John Stewart, here’s an example of how you could have responded to my questions had you any tact, intellectual honesty, or wisdom:

    Trusting the source who stated the attack was vicious beating is certainly suspect and the atheists credibility is legitimately called into question, but the officer at the scene, although he did not see the altercation, seemed pretty clear that this was an open and shut case. In addition, past problems with Islam as the religion of peace indicate that Muslims have a propensity toward violence when they feel Islam has been dishonored. There also were reports that the Muslim admitted attacking the man which seem to be backed up by the officer and for me, this overwhelms the sensationalist bias of the news media (right or left) and I tend to believe that the Muslim should have been found guilty, not had the case dismissed.

    There you go. Much more effective than calling me an idiot, a butter knife, a CAIR representative, a Muslim or a rock musician that was popular (I guess) 15 years ago. And it doesn’t have to insult anyone, but it probably won’t be as popular with 16 year olds.

    As far as continuing to insist that the ruling was made in accordance with Sharia law, sorry, can’t help you from the facts and evidence presented so far. You’ll have to hang from the crazy tree your own branch on that

    You’ll just have to keep insisting that it’s just a hidden deal because the judge is Muslim and, of course, those people stick together and you’ll have to read between the lines. Hmmm, that argument kind of bears a resemblance to the liberals who keep screaming racism for people who didn’t vote for 57 States.

    A bad assumption that you don’t want to change minds? OK, sorry, I guess I’ll just let you sit in the corner and pull your mental pud. I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that there’s a great big world out there not named Tim.

    And I really don’t know WTH the Moby reference is. An acronym? Nor do I get the grades of comedy. Maybe I need to watch more John Stewart.

  • white_Polluter

    Festivus-

    While I can see your point about the Muslim leaving the curb to confront the atheist, I just don’t share your conclusion about him being in fear. Please think about who your dealing with as far as the atheists using crap like this to try an paint all religion as a problem. Look at the first 3 minutes of the tape and listen to them talk the same crap about how the founders fought strenuously to keep the country secular.

    Look,we can’t be rushing to the courts every time somebody yells at us. Lawyers would have you think that, but people have to work some of their problems out. Some guy trying to snatch a sign away does not an assault make. Why is the tape such crap quality? That’s all they have except for puffing themselves up to generate some rage on behalf of atheists.

    I guess we’ll see if the story gets some legs. Maybe O’Reilly will pick it up and if he gets the judge booted, well, I guess you can say I was wrong.

  • Tim from TK

    White Pollutant sez:

    “As I stated before, I did not show up out of nowhere, I’ve been watching this blog for quite some time.”

    Even if that were true, though there are no facts in evidence to support it, why is it that you chose this, of all threads, to start your vigorous defense of this Judge and the assailant ?

    That which cannot be denied by any sane individual, is that the alleged perpetrator admitted doing that of which he was accused, and the judge, by his own words, is a Moslem, and that his decision to throw the case out was colored, again using his own words, by his belief in Islam, and not state/Federal law. Whether you care to realize it, that is the basis of all Sharia.

    Nowhere, except in you tiny warped mind, is that conflated to sharia replacing current law, though you are obviously blind to attempts to insert sharia into law. Try reading.

    “And I really don’t know WTH the Moby reference is. An acronym? Nor do I get the grades of comedy. Maybe I need to watch more John Stewart.”

    Seriously ? That is the second time you brought up Stewart, you claim to have been following this site for some time, and have never heard of a Moby, nor of “nuclear” grade comedy. You are as poor a fabulist as you are a logician.

    As to your claims of being a conservative, you resemble a conservative as much as Jimmy Carter resembles the MGM lion.

    Now tell us, what is your overweening interest in this, of all subjects ? One of these guys your brother-in-law ?

  • Festivus

    white_Polluter says: February 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Some guy trying to snatch a sign away does not an assault make.

    You are simply wrong, here. The act clearly meets the definition of an assault.

    You may not agree with, or understand the definition of an assault, but that is indeed an assault.

    As to the protestations verbalized by the victim in the tape, it is difficult to conceive that he was staging or feigning fear for his safety. That may not have been the way you reacted, but people react differently in a given circumstance.

    Any reasonable person under those circumstances would have feared for their safety if someone came out of the crowd and tried to remove a sign that had a cord around one’s neck.

    It’s clearly an assault and the defendant admitted as much. End of story.

  • white_Polluter

    Tim-

    More blathering and name calling without addressing the main point which is the credibility of the evidence. Keep trying’ son, you’ll get better with age if you just learn to temper that temper.

    As to why I posted in this link, well, I was trying to find out some information, if you’ll look at the first posts that started this whole thing, I was asking if anyone had additional info or clarification. There’s a lot of readers of this blog that have some pretty good insight and I was mainly asking them, then you popped up with the 7th grade humor. Or nuclear grade humor, or whatever you call it, but since you can’t define it, maybe I’ll check the urban dictionary.

    Festivus-

    Appreciate the comments, but just have to disagree on the guy fearing for his safety. He’s an atheist plant. I’ve seen jacka$$es like him pull stunts like this too many times. If the defendant admitted he assaulted him, why isn’t it on the atheists tape? Wouldn’t you think they’d have recorded that tasty bit of evidence? Maybe not, but their track record of spinning just doesn’t look too good in my eyes.

  • white_Polluter

    Appears the judge may not be a Muslim. From National Review Online:

    “A member of the judge’s staff yesterday stated without equivocation that Martin is not a Muslim. ”

    And a link to the full article (if this works):

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291963/be-or-not-be-muslim-andrew-c-mccarthy

    Hmm, seems the translation of “I’m a Muslim” in the transcript released by the atheist might be wrong. Tim? Sarge? Anyone want to bet? As Andrew McCarthy of NRO explains, the audio tape is of very poor quality and he now believes that instead of saying “I’m a Muslim,” the judge said “If I’m a Muslim.” Now where have I heard something like that before………..

    And not only that, Here’s a link to the judge explaining that the charge was not assault, as was reported and argued by some posters above, but was actually harassment.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/judge-in-case-of-atheist-attacked-by-muslim-it-was-right-on-the-edge-of-being-ethnic-intimidation/

    Facts: these are stubborn things.

    Given the choice between a judge with a military record and and atheist activist, take the judge and you won’t look so foolish next time.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy