Geller: The American Bar Association’s Jihad

In “The ABA’s Jihad” in The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller reveals that the American Bar Association has started a Task Force to resist anti-Sharia legal initiatives in various states:

The American Bar Association (ABA) has decided to undertake the fight for Sharia law. The ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming — in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”

The goal of the ABA’s Task Force is to fight against these legislative initiatives by free people, and to develop “an informal set of “˜talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”

Here’s the relevant extract from the ABA’s International Policies 2010:

Oklahoma referendum related Rule of Law initiatives.

The Section’s Executive Counsel has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced. The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of “talking points” that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states. We received a lot of interest from members and have forwarded your interest. At this point, the task force is in the planning and organizing stage. We will keep you updated as to the progress and we may call upon some of you who expressed their interest in this matter to volunteer.

In reality, Islamic law is the most radical and intolerant system of governance on the face of the earth. It denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and legal equality for women and non-Muslims. That’s why so many states are trying to ban it. The ABA should be on the forefront of this battle. The Oklahoma ban was brilliant but poorly worded (which is why a liberal judge found it so easy to overrule the will of the people) and had 70% of voters approving of it — it is clear that American people understand the Islamic threat to our constitutional republic.

Instead, our cultural warlords in the mainstream media, academia and entertainment strictly enforce the blasphemy laws of Islam, which command that one must not insult or slander Islam. In Muslim countries, blasphemy is punishable by death; in the West, it is your character that is assassinated if you dare to speak out against the Islamic supremacist agenda. Our last line of defense was always the rule of law. So it is particularly jarring and deeply disturbing to come upon this latest initiative from the ABA, the last line of defense against sharia creep….

Read it all.

Tulsa police officer files lawsuit over being transferred after refusing to attend mosque event
Tulsa police captain transferred for refusing to order officers' attendance at mosque events
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    It’s all a game of “I’m more accommodating and tolerant than thou”. Throw out the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment and the post-Civil War Amendments to the Constitution simply to accommodate a noisy, extreme, supremacist, and violent minority simply because it’s a minority! This all leads me to believe that the legal profession in the USA is about as corrupt as it gets.

  2. says

    This just demonstrate once more that legal concepts are not founded neither on ethics or rationality. Without such a foundation it becomes a tool to promote ideologically motivated political agendas. What is right or just is primarily a political decision made by the people through their representatives and should not be decided by the judicial body. In fact lawyers cannot even argue in a consistent way why a representative democratic order and the rule of law is better than a theocratic regime based upon the sharia law.

    Juridical positivism is not only inconsistent and a dead end, it is also suicidal for a democratic order.

  3. says

    … our cultural warlords in the mainstream media, academia and entertainment…

    Cultural warlords. That’s great naming right there.

    To name is to know, to know is to control. To name incorrectly is to lose control. Cultural warlords is a good name.

    Because it’s accurate.

  4. says

    Is the ABA a tax exempt (IRS 501C3) charitable body?
    The informal set of “talking points’ sounds to me awfully like a political lobbying or political campaigning.

  5. says

    I have been an attorney for about 20 years and I haven’t been a member of the ABA for the last 19 years because it is corrupted with anti-american policies like this. Whether it is pro-late term abortion, pro-crime, or pro-sharia, the ABA like any other liberal organization will usually side with the bad guys when given the choice. This is not to say that don’t do good work on some things in legal education and other such things, as there are still a lot of good attorneys who are members, but it’s time for good men and women in that organization to say “enough is enough”. They should leave and start another organization that is truely “American” and dedicated to the Constitution and legal pricipals we all took oaths to defend.

  6. says

    The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of “talking points” that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.

    But what if the due diligence of the Task Force uncovers the truth of the Islamic imperialistic imperative? It appears the Task Force has a priori mandate to suppress such truth. I’ll bet Congressman Allen West (FL-22) would take issue with such a prejudicial conclusion about a movement that explicitly threatens the life of the Republic if they were to attempt to lobby him.

  7. says

    No offence to Naram-Sin, but it is my opinion that 90% of lawyers are corrupt, morally loose and would sell their own mothers for a nickel? Is there some truth to this? Is there a reason why people joke about Hell being populated with lawyers?

    I think the problem is that that the law schools are churning out these militant leftist lawyers who basically hate the military, hate anything that is Western, Christian, American, or Conservative, and seek to overthrow Western society and hand it on a silver platter to welcome our new Insect, I mean (Islamist) overlords, as it were.

    Fortunately, the law itself is not liberal, the law is conservative. Liberals and leftist academics don’t like free speech, they don’t like the First Amendment. They don’t like people such as conservatives who can articulately and civilly respond to their liberal agenda and challenge them. Liberals prefer one-sided indoctrination, and do not believe in the Freedom of Conscience.

    This is why the traitors of the Anti-American Left, many of whom are these liberal lawyers, side with Islam, and thus show their true colours. When the Insect/Islamist overlords do invade, the Anti-American Left will be the first to be betrayed, and then and only then will they know the stupidity of their treachery, and the true nature of their deceit at the hands of the media, the communist professors, and all other subversive leftists who are out to destroy this great country.

  8. says

    It’s no accident that the ‘Trial Lawyers of America’ are the largest single donors to the Democratic Party. It’s also no accident that – if you look at cause and effect – litigation and the fear of litigation has been as debilitating to the socio-economic health and well-being of the USA as any other factor. And now this….the ABA has become an overt enabler of Sharia.

    I used to hate lawyers. Now, I despise them.

  9. says

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/proposed-charter-of-muslim-understanding/

    Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

    The Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding is an initiative intended to offer peaceful and moderate Muslims the opportunity to stand up and be counted as believers in those values that bind people together rather than separate them.

    The threat posed by Islamic terrorism is one common to most, if not all,European countries.Islamic fundamentalists have however made great gains in the propaganda war by convincing many non-Muslims that they are the true representatives of Islam, whereas they are not.

    The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in every-daylife are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing firm against the extremists.A great step forward in this process is Sam Solomon’s Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding.

    The Charter allows Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world. It affirms that they want to enjoy the freedoms of the West and live as law-abiding andpeace-loving people.

    I very much hope that those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace it.

    ****************PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY*********************

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/proposed-charter-of-muslim-understanding/

  10. says

    I am blissfully (or more likely tragically) ignorant of anything relating to the legal proffession. I hope those more familiar with this subject can enlighten me and other non lawyers.

    “organized a Task Force to review the (shariah banning) legislation”

    ” to develop “an informal set of “talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”

    That is not exactly objective.

    If a lawyer has a client then they should advocate for that clients point of view. But there is no client here. And this is the main proffesional organizatiom of american laweyers- isn’t it? And not a practicing law firm or political activist group like the Southern Poverty Law Center is, right?

    I would think a proffessional ogranization would only show interest in subjects that directly relate to the practitioners of its specific proffesion. Is it in their remit to advocate for a specific point of view or to work for the implementation of international or religious law? I would think that sort of thing would be for an advocacy group dedicated to specific issues.

    Wouldn’t the normal thing for a proffesional organization of Lawyers in this case be to study the merits of islamic or international jurisprudence rather then assume it is valid in America a priori and then defend it? It is the AMERICAN Bar Association. Not the INTERNATIONAL Bar Association.

    Did they do such a study already and conclude Shariah was a valid legal system according to American laws?

    But this is the main question I wanted answered most: Has the ABA done such a thing before? I have never heard of them doing so.

  11. says

    While the ABA is a private association most states require as a precondition for the grant of a license to practice law that the prospective lawyer obtain their education from an ABA approved law school. It is thus simultaneously a private association and a public body, or neither, depending on their arbitrary self-characterization to suit their whims. It is a role like that played by Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood regarding the training and licensing of Sharia lawyers and judges.

    To isolate out the sole issue of capital punishment for apostasy, for any private voluntary association, one need only posit one notion: Shall the ABA adopt a rule that declares that anyone who has ever been a member of the ABA and thereafter ceases to be a member, or openly criticizes the ABA or its leading figures, is subject to death at the hands of any member of the ABA, provided that the ABA is eventually granted the same supremacist legal authority over all other legal institutions as now enjoyed by Sharia judges in all OIC member countries?

    If the ABA can exact capital punishment can any other private group, or none at all, including Islam?

    The US treats treason is a capital offense, as discussed in this DOJ link, 18 U.S.C. section 3591 (b). Only the “government” has the power to prosecute and carry out any sentence.

    The Sharia law is not just some quaint analytical formula like that of algebra or logical reasoning but is, by reason of the capital punishment for apostasy (treason), an exercise of exclusive governmental authority, with some Sharia adherent (with whatever title) at the top of a review/appeal authority hierarchy, who applies Sharia law over all other notions of any kind. Sharia law — a claim to exclusive governmental jurisdiction — is at odds with any lowly lawyers’ duty, as an officer of the court, to uphold our secular laws. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange is not exempt.

    If there is any reasoning that can be found in the entirety of Sharia law then such reasoning, as with any reasoning from any inspirational source, can be presented to a legislature or a court — on its own and without reference to the source of inspiration — for consideration. The source of the inspiration is wholly irrelevant. The folks at the ABA or Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange seem to apply a reasoning consistent with porn, where the hunt is on for any single tidbit of something good, however small, to meet the Miller test that the product is not “utterly without redeeming social value[.]” If there is a hint of goodness then we must swallow the whole, the bad with the tolerable. Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s factual conclusion, necessary for her ruling, was that there was a complete absence of anything evil within Sharia or in conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of a sovereign US state — it was preposterous, or even treason itself.

    The question should be whether the ABA should be stripped of any function as an accrediting body. Any single state could end the requirement that a lawyer or a law school have any affiliation with the ABA. Deem the ABA to be an enemy here, and respond accordingly by making them irrelevant through state level legislation.

  12. says

    Good flippin’ grief!!! Has the ABA been completely hijacked by Islamic supremacists and Islamosympathizing “liberals”???

    This must be stopped.

    A letter-writing campaign, perhaps? Appropriate contacts and contact information would be appreciated.

  13. says

    They are trying to put them selves out of business!

    Their business, as law-salesmen, only exists because citizens can complain about crimes!

    When you try to make HATE a CRIME, you only make it “illegal” to HATE CRIMES (like islam)!

    Sharia “law” only comes from the Qur’an, it’s a symptom, not a cause in itself.

    And everything in islam is already a crime!

    Islam itself is ONLY a crime!

    the Golden Rule of ALL Civilization (notably missing in islam) is that, where we crazy-monkey humans meet ‘The Others,’ we all kinda mostly generally sorta agree – TO NOT ATTACK FIRST! (i.e: Don’t “murder”).

    (Attacking second, in defense, is always OK).

    Islam ALWAYS breaks this Golden Rule, and has stated clearly many many times, right in their ‘holy’ Qur’an, that they “WILL ALWAYS ATTACK FIRST, SO THERE; NYAH!”

    Thus, Islam is only a CRIME.

    Muhammad took only the very worst, sickest most genocidal parts of the Old Testament and called them “good!” Then he re-wrote them into his Qur’an, BUT he took those merely temporary and geographically-limited bits of genocide and made them ETERNAL and GLOBAL!

    He also said that all non-muslims WEREN’T HUMAN! They were: “Corrupt and Perverse, pigs & monkeys, worth less than Demons and braying animals!” and so “should be killed for allah! (who hates them!)”

    ALL so-called “Arabic” and “islamic” countries were originally GREEK and Christian (AND Jewish)! Until they were violently invaded and enslaved by the RACIST (“Master Race”) Arabs after Muhammad had encouraged them to leave their ONE COUNTRY of Arabia and go kill ALL the non-muslims and non-Arabs for him!

    Muslim Arabs are imperialist colonialist racists!

    The REAL PROBLEM is that ISLAM condones the killing of all non-muslims (“infidels”) in the first place!

    Here’s the most basic difference between islam and Judeo-Christianity:

    Bibles: “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!”
    The Qur’an: “THOU SHALT KILL!”

    islam itself is ONLY a crime:

    The Qu’ran is a permanent THREAT, because it reserves for its GROUP, islam, the “right” to: convert, or, if the conversion is declined, to enslave, and, if the slavery is resisted, to KILL all non-members!

    All Threats are psychological ATTACKS (aka: “Terrorism”) and all Attacks ARE already CRIMES!

    Thus, all self-determined members of this criminal group (‘muslims’) ARE already criminals.

    FURTHER, ISLAM IS INHERENTLY SEDITIOUS TO ALL NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY:

    Since Islam’s Foundational Document, the Qur’an never agreed with the entirely Christian notion of the Separation of the Religious and Secular States, (“Render Unto Caesar”) and instead went with: “Render The World Unto Muhammad!” the islamic creed inherently contains and eternally advocates for SEDITION.

    EVERYTHING ABOUT ISLAM IS ALREADY A CRIME!

    What’s “holy” or religious about islam, anyway?!

    Is it the “holy” human sacrifices (murders of all resisting non-members)?

    😉

    The “holy” raping?
    The “holy” slavery?
    The “holy” slave-raping?
    The “holy” extortion racket?
    The “holy” robbery of non-muslims?
    The “holy” lying to everyone, all the time?!

    (The ‘holy’ pedophilia?)!

    Only Islam stones women to death. Only Islam, and Muslim perverts, torture little girls by practicing Female Genital Mutilation. Only Islam allows old pig pervert Muslim scumbags to kidnap little girls as young as six years old, then go through a sham marriage that the child doesn’t want, and then “legally” rape these children!

    Islam is ONLY a crime syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

    “God told us to commit these crimes!”

    So, if islam is a “religion” then it’s only “the religion of thieves” – it is the only religion that says it is entitled to take your stuff, and to use force to do so (and obviously, that includes taking your life)!

    Right now, the American Constitution’s First Amendment only UN-Democratically PROTECTS all the unelected, self-proclaimed “religious” groups’ “rights” to freely speak & criminally threaten (terrorize) all non-members.

    Even simply commenting in public about how very BAD islam really is, for all American politicians, is “Un-Constitutional” and so, “illegal” right now.

    SO: Right now, America’s Foundational Dhimmi-Document, the Constitution, SUBMITS to the muslim’s Foundational Document, the Qur’an!

    Only individuals should have ‘Rights,’ and any and all groups should ONLY be assigned temporary, revokable privileges.

    SO:

    The First Amendment must itself now BE amended, by adding a simple
    Definition of what constitutes a valid religion, that:

    a) precludes rivarly in the secular (road-paving, voting, taxation) realm,

    …and:

    b) does not attack others first!

    Thus, ONLY islam would instantly disqualify its SELF!

    Amend the First Amendment NOW!

    BAN ISLAM!

    😉

  14. says

    The ABA responds here.

    In part:

    “The actions of a few interested members within one section are not and cannot be interpreted to be those of the entire American Bar Association. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.”

    People are free to “interpret” it any way they like. This “correction” does not state that the ABA rejects the posture of this little piece of a little group. It is at best, a weak claim of harmless ambivalence.

    Is there a committee to address special needs of the abused female (or male) partners of Muslim men, or apostates from Islam? The First Amendment is of course recognized as the authoritative source for an individual’s fundamental right not to associate, or to abandon a previous association.

  15. says

    Everything about sharia law is already a crime.

    If the ABA pursues this present stance, it will have gone form defending criminals, to defending their rights to commit crimes!

    They will be advocates FOR things which are completely illegal!

    Islam itself is a CRIME; sharia law is not unifying, it is dualistic (a doube standard) and therefore attacks all “the others” first! It pretends that all muslims are superior to all non-muslims, and that a muslim can murder a non-muslim and not be charged for it. Same goes for slavery, rape, robbery and extortion (everything Muhammad did and condoned)!

    Further, it says that all men are superior to all women. When you say that one group is legally superior to the others, you ALSO say – at the same time – that the other group is inferior, by definition; thus, you are attacking ‘the other’ groups first! It’s bias and prejudice; illegal!

    Everything Muhammad did was a crime.

    There is only ONE real Rule of Law, the Golden Rule, and that is:

    TO NOT ATTACK FIRST!

    Muhammad attacked everyone else first!

    And he did it – as he confessed in his Qur’an – in order to enrich himself at others expense; he was a liar, a thief, a robber, a child-raper, and a murderer – and his only excuse was:

    “God told me to commit these crimes in his name!”

    Worse, muslims pretend that if they pretend to believe him, then they, too, are somehow “allowed” to commit all of these crimes in the name of Muhammad and his version of “allah!”

    SO: All muslims are self-deluded criminals.

    Attempted crimes and proclaiming that “crimes are good!” are almost as bad as successful crimes, because they are still threats against everyone else(they are still crimes)!

    So screw them all for even trying it!

    ;-(

  16. says

    If and when the ABA officially adopts this stance, they will have gone from merely being advocates for criminals, to being advocates for CRIMES!

    They will be arguing for the criminals “rights” to commit their crimes in the first place!

    This is similar to the UN’s current “anti-blasphemy” stance where (by pretending that ‘religion’ like ‘race,’ is an unalterable human condition) they advocate for the victims of these enforced superstitions’ “rights” to be victimized by these ongoing mental frauds!

    Islam itself is a CRIME; sharia law is not unifying, it is dualistic (a doube standard) and therefore attacks all “the others” first! It pretends that all muslims are superior to all non-muslims, and that a muslim can murder a non-muslim and not be charged for it. Same goes for slavery, rape, robbery and extortion (everything Muhammad did and condoned)!

    Further, it says that all men are superior to all women. When you say that one group is legally superior to the others, you ALSO say – at the same time – that the other group is inferior, by definition; thus, you are attacking ‘the other’ groups first! It’s bias and prejudice; illegal!

    Everything Muhammad did was a crime.

    There is only ONE real Rule of Law, the Golden Rule, and that is:

    TO NOT ATTACK FIRST!

    Muhammad attacked everyone else first!

    And he did it – as he confessed in his Qur’an – in order to enrich himself at others expense; he was a liar, thief, robber, extortionist/terrorist, child-raper, and murderer – and his only excuse was:

    “God told me to commit these crimes in his name!”

    AND MUSLIMS PRETEND TO BELIEVE HIM!

    Worse, they pretend that if they pretend to believe him, then they, too, are somehow “allowed” to commit all of these crimes in the name of Muhammad and his version of “allah!” In fact, they pretend that, if they DON’T commit these “holy” crimes, then they will be sent by allah to burn in Hell forever, so, like Muhammad, they’re really only doing it to “protect themselves” and for their victim’s own good, too!

    SO: All muslims are self-deluded criminals.

    Attempted crimes and proclaiming that “crimes are good!” are almost as bad as successful crimes, because they are still threats (attacks) against everyone else (they are still crimes)!

    Advocating in public for, and condoning crimes is itself a crime; if they proceed in this direction, the American Bar Association will be, in effect, openly proclaiming themselves to be criminals!

    So screw (and arrest, indict, try and convict) them all, for even trying it!

    😉

  17. says

    It’s obvious what the ABA is up to, by their own confession:

    “These individuals are examining whether the proposed changes to the law impact important constitutional questions. They are also considering implications for international commerce.”

    This really only means that the corporate-owned sales-puppets (‘politicians’) and their pet media, have assessed the situation like this:

    “If we criticize islam, and we call it like it is, then we won’t be able to sell our stuff to the muslim criminals for the oil any more.

    So we’ll just pretend that, if we haven’t *personally* read the Qur’an, then it *isn’t* really only a permanent death-threat to everyone! Whee!”

    As for these allegedly “important constitutional questions:” they hope that, because the First Amendment protects “religion” without providing a definition of same, that crime syndicates like islam, which self-proclaim them SELVES to be religions, will also continue to be protected from the American Government’s passing any laws against them.

    So, we must all simply ask ourselves: “Do crimes which proclaim them selves to be somehow “religious” in nature, thereby get a free pass from our human laws against ALL crimes against humanity – or not?”

    😉

  18. says

    The problem is that attorney’s get lazy and consider their job to be that of very good liars. They start to believe that they just have to convince people (e.g., the judge, the jury, the media, etc.) of something and, even if it is NOT true, reality will be how they say it is. They are too lazy to argue the law or the facts are indefensible, and so they just decide to rationalize to get the end result their clients’ desire (especially if the case pays well). So, and especially with liberal/progressive, elitist attorneys, attorneys lazily decide, even without knowing one single true tidbit about Islam, that arguing for Muslim causes is just like defending any other cause, any other religion, any other case. They ignorantly argue that Islam is just like Christianity or the Jewish Faith or any other faith and that Muslims have the same rights to their faith as anyone else. What they fail to understand (or perhaps care about) is that very faith (Islam) demands supremacy and to conquer and plunder and oppress women and those of other faiths. And, if juries and judges do not know any better, they may be fooled or lulled into agreement.

  19. says

    I am sure the only reason for the American Bar association is doing this is to CREATE WORK FOR THEMSELVES!There are too many lawyers in the USA and only so many legitimate lawsuits at any one time to make money on so what’s the solution? Manufacture work by creating this legal crisis, that whay lawyers will be employed on BOTH sides of the argument. The end result the lawyers win and everyone else pays!

  20. says

    I think you may be on to something…Otherwise I don’t understand their reasoning…This just means that the lawyers for the states have to write the bills so that the lawyers from out of state can’t find any holes in them…But that is what you hire lawyers for…to protect you from other lawyers…Lawyers replicate…it takes whole graduating classes, and buildings full of them, to determine what another lawyer was talking about…

  21. says

    John,

    You are correct in your assertion that the Lawyers’ lobby wants to make “fuzzy law”. “Fuzzy law” is like “Fuzzy Math”, it confuses everyone. When everyone gets confused about the law, guess what, they go to a lawyer. That is what the lawyers’ lobby wants. They do it all the time in our state.

  22. says

    Yes it does, Tom, sound like political lobbying. It is interesting that on his show last night Glenn Beck talked about just this kind of thing, Leftists developing organized and unified responses to Conservatives – including specifically a PR response that included talking points. Beck was referring to the response of the Democrats, the Unions, and the White House to the Wisconsin governor’s threat balance the state budget, but the concept, actors and response are the same.

    The various states that have adopted anti-Shariah legislation, or are contemplating doing so, should band together in this effort.

  23. says

    I’m not a US citizen, but if I were I’d be rushing to enter a complaint to the IRS that the ABA actions were far beyond their remit (? do they have articles of association in the US) and in breach of the restrictions on lobbying and campaigning by tax emempt charitable bodies. Or am I being naive as to whether that would have an effect?

  24. says

    I agree with much of what you say but it is simply not true to assert, as you did, that 90% of American lawyers are corrupt. It’s pretty much the exact opposite—about 90% of lawyers are not corrupt. Of course, about 10% are and that’s still a lot of lawyers and certainly enough to give the impression that much more than 10% are regularly on the take. Far more lawyers, however, hold to liberal ideas which are antithetical to the Founding Fathers’ ideals of such things as limited government, the importance of religion in public life and the right to own firearms. This isn’t evidence of corruption but “merely” foolishness, that special brand of foolishness that modern liberalism has forged all on its own.

    I might add that I am a lawyer and left the ABA years ago because of my increasing realization that it was nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party, which itself has gone more and more left with each passing decade. The ABA should ideally be non-partisan and equally honor different points of views on even the most controversial of subjects, for instance, the entire abortion issue. But it doesn’t. And shame on it for this.

  25. says

    Anti-Islamist, don’t confuse attorneys with the clients we get stuck with, sometimes against our will. An attorney is required to represent his client to the best of his ability. To do other wise would itself be corrupt. Also, check out Wellington’s reply.

    However since you asked about attorney jokes (most of which i’ve heard from other attorneys), here’s one that answers the question.

    How may attorney jokes are there? Ans: Just two, the rest are true stories.

  26. says

    Wellington,

    You are defending your position correctly. Perception and reality do not agree on the percentage of lawyers, car salesmen, insurance agents, and others that are crooks. The reality is likely higher than 90% that are honest and would more likely be closer to 95%. Most trade groups are somewhat the same. (Sorry to mention car salesmen and insurance agents in the same sentence with lawyers but I needed to use other classic examples.)

  27. says

    Thanks for that exemption, Cornelius. Actually, I rather like lawyers being ribbed and made fun of. They are very powerful citizens in this republic of ours and thus need to not become too comfortable, too uppity. Lawyer jokes are one way of letting lawyers know that they shouldn’t let themselves get too high and mighty, though I can’t say for sure just how effective this approach has been.

    Nonetheless, I like the jokes, including the standard ones such as: What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?—a good start; and, why did New Jersey get the toxic waste dumps and New York the corporate lawyers?—New Jersey got to pick first; and, a passenger liner goes down in the middle of the ocean and everyone goes into the sea and are eaten by sharks except for the lawyers, well, how come?—professional courtesy. And so on and so on.

    But there is one lawyer joke I heard long ago which remains for me to this day the best one I ever heard because it goes to the heart of how law school and practicing law makes one look at the world very differently, sometimes in an interesting way but also many times in a twisted way. And here it is: A lawyer had a chance to go fishing with the Pope and, of course, he availed himself of this opportunity. Hey, why not? Well, a few days later, sure enough, he and the Pope were fishing, just the two of them, in the middle of a pretty big lake they had rowed out to. Both were having a fine time, talking and catching some fish when, all of a sudden, one of the oars dislodged and started floating away. They had no motor on the boat and the lawyer started getting worried about how exactly they were going to be able to row back to shore with just one oar. Besides it was starting to get dark and this made things all the more disconcerting. The Pope looked at the lawyer and said, “Don’t worry, my son.” After that the Pope stood up, stepped out onto the water and walked to where the oar had drifted, picked it up and walked back on the water and got into the boat. Needless to say, the two got back successfully to shore that evening. Next day, someone asked the lawyer how was fishing with the Pope? And the lawyer replied, “Oh, it was fine. We had a good time, but, say, did you know that the Pope can’t swim.”

    Take care, my good friend.

  28. says

    Interesting argument. My compliments. I would make a few observations. Since there are at least some features of Sharia which don’t contradict American constitutional and statutory law, is this not enough (in a court of law but not in the courts of public opinion and common sense) to disallow its entire restriction? After all, Marxism calls for violent revolution to overthrow capitalistic governments (like America’s, thus arguably very treasonous) and, as well, for the extermination of the upper and middle classes, yet it is legal in America to be a Marxist. In short, belief is virtually completely protected but action upon many beliefs is not.

    Now, I understand that Sharia is a legal system and thus this does arguably change things, but Roman Catholic canon law is also a legal system and no one but loons would want its restriction in America. Of course, Sharia is, I believe, the only religious legal system that is meant to apply to everyone, believer and non-believer alike, and perhaps this is the “legal entrance” that could be used to disallow it completely in the United States.

    As for the ABA, what if they did have death for apostasy for leaving the ABA? Until they would attempt to enforce this provision, could you just make the whole organization illegal? Goofy Satan worshipers might call for a human sacrifice once a year, but until they attempted this, being a Satanist is legal in this country.

    Just wondering about options and arguments here. Any further thoughts? Again, my compliments on your take of things .

  29. says

    Actually, I get along rather well with lawyers. I moonlight as a freelance document translator (Chinese-English), and I find that lawyers often pay me the most and get their bills in on time. Besides, it’s kind of gratifying to deal with a lawyer and refer to him as “my client”.

  30. says

    ((( “This must be stopped.
    A letter-writing campaign, perhaps? Appropriate contacts and contact information would be appreciated.” )))

    Or… I suppose its equally productive to spend time exchanging opinions, theories, analyses and hypotheticals… and complimenting each other on the brilliant commentaries.

  31. says

    The threat of death for any former Muslim is real if they venture to any OIC member state. Sharia advocates claim worldwide jurisdiction. Our long arm statutes, abroad, are like a joke in comparison.

    Such an apostasy provision should be sufficient to deny recognition by any state of any application for incorporation for any Islam-based or Muslim-membership-based organization. It must not reference Islam or Muslim (so as to be sufficiently neutral to pass constitutional muster), but can just note that capital punishment for apostasy, even if only potentially enforceable outside the US, is sufficient grounds for disqualification of recognition for any proposed entity as a charity or religion or any other label for a proposed corporation. It is a privilege issue; incorporation is not a right that can be compelled. The folks that seem compelled to insert the word Sharia into legislation have apparently not obtained an education from the best minds available, or even from the mediocre ones. They are fools.

    Marx was clearly correct about the tendency of business to become more centralized and concentrated over time, with legislative distortion as an inevitable consequence, as the last frontier. I can find inspiration in Marx to support vigorous enforcement of anti-trust legislation. The Crony Capitalists, who are the norm today, as expected and predicted and explained, might object. If they framed their objection based on the name of the person who offered the written critique it would be complete nonsense, but might still be an effective political tool against a genuine advocate of economic liberty. (CATO, for example, routinely gets their respect for individual rights all muddled with corporate rights, even with multinational corporation rights when they play a simple game of labor and regulation arbitrage under the guise of mislabeled “fair” trade. The US Supreme Court did too in Citizens United, where foreign owners got a big voice that they are not entitled to.)

    Transform a generic anti all-things-Sharia law into a constitutionally survivable anti capital-punishment-for-leaving-any-group law. The court recognizes that it is problematic to base the legality of legislation upon the utterances in support of, or against, legislation and thus rely on the words of legislation itself. If the word Sharia is not found in the legislation then an objector cannot insert it constructively into the legislation, for purposes of legal review, for the very purpose of asking a court to have the word stricken from the legislation so as to make it survivably neutral.

    Neutral is good enough to put Sharia into the hot seat as the evil that it is. We should not allow recognition of any Islam-based entity as a non-profit/charity/and the like anywhere until such time as death for apostasy from Islam ceases to be a legal remedy by any governmental or quasi-governmental entity anywhere in the world. Then we can address the next issue/feature, perhaps as early as 60 years from today.

    Try to draft the legislation as a template to be followed by the UN or any country, as ubiquitously as our First Amendment.

  32. says

    Pdxnag’s recommendation is excellent. An added thought : A person can be a longterm member of the Communist Party and then quit the Party and they won’t kill him. As long as the person just quits and goes into private life the Communists never killed former members. However, the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, might be a different story. But I only know about them from the movies. Treason translates to Islamic “hypocrisy”. Islamic apostasy translates to simply quitting an organization, or moving to another country and applying for citizenship there. These are the parallels. It really is the essence of Islam as a political organization in a nutshell: the Islamic apostasy laws.

  33. says

    I see. Mention anything but the word “Sharia” and you have a fighting chance. Maybe.

    I find no inspiration from Marx whatsoever, whose ideas were, as Joseph Conrad said, “pernicious nonsense.” He got almost everything wrong, tragically and lethally so, be it the pseudo-science of determinism, the piling on of one German absurdity, Hegelianism, upon another, Marxian dialectical materialism, the sheer stupidity of the labor value theory, the inherent evil in the class struggle theory and, oh yes, the idea that business tends to become more concentrated over time. No it doesn’t. That remains the exception and not the rule. In a capitalistic system most new businesses are small businesses, the majority of which are never concentrated into larger businesses, all the while even more new small businesses are being formed. By now, Marx should be as intellectually dead as Mohammed. The fact that neither are is testimony to the continued stupidity of man.

  34. says

    Sorry, Bhobby. You’re just wrong. In one Communist country after another, leaving the party wasn’t an option if you became disaffected with it. At best, you and your family would be ostracized to a penurious and drastic degree. At worst, you’d be dead. Do you really think, as examples, that under Stalin or Mao someone could simply announce he was leaving the Communist Party and he’d thereafter be left alone?