Chris Christie's Curious defense of Muslim Groups against NYPD

Last year, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie turned his bombastic persona (made famous when he attacked Union defenders) on those who questioned his appointment of a Muslim judge with questionable ties to Islamist groups.

This year, he has been an outspoken critic of the NYPD for its surveillance tactics used on Muslim groups, which included ones in New Jersey. Anyone with a modicum of awareness about the allegiances of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) knows that the NYPD was more than justified in its concerns.

Nonetheless, Christie's criticism of the NYPD raises some questions, especially in light of his defense of Sohail Mohammed last year.

Via IPT:

Heated rhetoric between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York officials over the NYPD's surveillance activities on Muslim subjects in New Jersey is reviving questions about Christie's views toward radical Islam.

Christie expressed anger about the surveillance following disclosures in a series of Associated Press reports. "I don't know if this NYPD action was born out of arrogance, or out of paranoia, or out of both," he said when asked about it on his monthly radio show, "but we're taking a real good, strong hard look at it from a policy perspective at the governor's office level."

That prompted U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to tell a radio interviewer "I wish Chris Christie was more concerned about keeping people alive than he is about trying to score cheap political points."

Jonathan Tobin analyzes the situation, finding it is more than "two politicians who love to run their mouths and are intolerant of criticism." Rather, he sees Christie cynically choosing sides to cultivate Muslim political support. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported last year, Christie's appointment of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge was a troubling sign. Mohammed had represented Mohammed Qatanani, an imam suspected of Hamas ties, in a deportation case.

"Christie not only sought to prevent the deportation but spoke at the imam's mosque which had previously been the site of a $2 million fundraiser for Hamas by the now banned Holy Land Foundation," Tobin writes.

Christie, then a U.S. Attorney, took sides against the Department of Homeland Security by allowing a top lieutenant to testify as a character witness for the imam. Christie later embraced Qatanani at a Ramadan breakfast.

That puts THIS in a new context, doesn't it?



h/t Shoebat 

Breaking: Elena Kagan edited Derrick Bell's anti-Constitutional Article

This begs a very important question: Did Elena Kagan lie when she swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? If so, it would actually be perjury. In light of the latest Derrick Bell bombshell from Breitbart, it is most assuredly a legitimate question. Kagan, now a Supreme Court Justice, apparently edited an article penned by the man Barack Obama said we should open our hearts and minds to - Professor Derrick Bell.

Bell (Kagan too, perhaps?) believed that the Constitution's framers intended to implement a system that would keep the black man inferior.

Here is an excerpt from what Bell wrote and Kagan edited, via Breitbart:

At the nation's beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction.  The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all.  And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery....

Apparently and amazingly lost on Bell (and Kagan?) at the time was that the very framework of the Constitution allowed the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to be added. Respectively, each of those amendments:

1. Thirteenth Amendment: Abolished slavery
2. Fourteenth Amendment: Granted equal person status to blacks
3. Fifteenth Amendment: Granted blacks the right to vote

Then, of course, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps the most ironic aspect to this is the fact that it was the Republican Party which was created solely to abolish slavery; it was also the Republican Party which was responsible for passing those amendments when it held the majority in Congress. Let's not forget that it was the Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, led by Al Gore Sr. himself.

Yet, Bell and his racist colleagues have hitched their wagons to the Democratic Party?!

Back to Bell's piece (edited by Kagan) in 1985:

The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy -- that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks' failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.

So why is this movement alive and well when we have a black President? In fact, why does this black president still respect Derrick Bell's teachings? By becoming president, Barack Obama has blown a hole in Bell's Critical Race Theory (CRT), right?

Well, if Obama is a proponent of CRT, it could be the best evidence yet that he believes the Constitution is so racist in nature that it must be destroyed.

More here and here.

Damaging 2002 Undercover Video: Romney bragging about getting Federal Funds for Olympics

Remember when the subject of a recent Republican presidential debate turned to Mitt Romney's use of federal funds to finance the Salt Lake City olympic games? Here is video presented by ABC News that was shot secretly by Democratic operatives in 2002. I'm not predicting that this will destroy Romney because a lot of things should have already but this is definitely a step or two below unflattering.

Listen to how he boasts about getting Department of Education funds to finance those Olympics.

h/t Gregg Jackson

Video: U.W. Professor on African Studies not impressed with Kony 2012

Yesterday, I wrote about Machine Gun Preacher Sam Childers and his reaction to the Kony 2012 video. In essence, he said the effort is nice but that Joseph Kony is only a small part of the problem. If people were serious about dealing with the real problem, attention should be focused on Northern Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir.

Now, here is Daniel Hoffman, Associate Professor of African Studies at the University of Washington. He basically says that Kony is nowhere near as important as he was five to ten years ago and that he isn't even in Uganda anymore. While he tries not to be critical of Kony 2012, he clearly is when asked to compare Kony to other problems in the region, though he doesn't mention Bashir.

Pay particularly close attention at the 6:00 mark. Hoffman says that if Kony is removed from power, it could take international attention off the region. Again, this is what Childers warned about when he implied that Bashir could commit further genocide against the Christian south if attention is diverted away from it. Bashir is already getting significant pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood to implement stricter forms of Sharia law.

In short, if the Kony 2012 campaign is successful, it could leave the brand new Republic of South Sudan in even more vulnerable, which is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants.



h/t Ted Shoebat