By Debbie Schlussel
I’ve been following First Islamic Investment Bank a/k/a Arcapita (it’s new and sanitized name to hide its Islamic goals) ever since I wrote about its anti-American, pro-HAMAS corporate executive, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. The spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, oversaw the Sharia compliance for the company, specifically the halal nature of food products sold at the Islamic Bank’s coffee chain, Caribou Coffee.
After I wrote about Qaradawi’s oversight of the Caribou Coffee chain in the New York Post and discussed it on FOX News’ “O’Reilly Factor” and MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” Caribou had its worst sales quarter ever and fired its then-CEO Donald Dempsey.

Arcapita Imposes Sharia Racism on America
To combat the bad publicity about this sharia-led company’s coffee chain, the Islamic bank hired a Jewish CEO for Caribou, Michael Coles, who gave pay-off donations to buy off Jewish Federations in markets where it had Caribou Coffee stores (including the Detroit and Chicago Jewish Federations). That worked. Soon, rabbis like Rabbi Paul Yedwab of Michigan, and other unelected community leaders like Jay Tcath, who heads the Jewish Community Relations Council of Chicago and Don Cohen, a sleazy then-reporter for the Detroit Jewish News, were giving the “kosher” seal of approval to Caribou in newspaper stories. (Cohen even accepted free coupons from Caribou and served as a marketer for the chain by sending out the coupons in e-mails, urging Jews to patronize the chain.)
The thing is, Arcapita/First Islamic Investment Bank, is owned by Saudi and other Gulf state sheiks, some of whom are believed to have donated to homicide bomber telethons, and one of whom is from the family that owns Al-Jazeera. And Arcapita/First Islamic still employs another Islamic sharia authority with ties to Al-Qaeda.
Now, fast forward a few years, over which I’ve been following Arcapita. The company threatened to sue a friend of mine for writing about Caribou and repeating what I wrote about its extremist Islamic ties. As his attorney, I wrote a long letter back to Arcapita’s lawyer about records and individuals we’d depose if sued. Needless to say, Arcapita’s lawyers sent us a quick letter of contrition and went away.
Still, Arcapita has acquired businesses and important installations all over America for its wealthy Islamic sheikh owners. As I’ve noted, Arcapita recently acquired an energy plant in Texas. And, as I’ve noted over the years, they continue to own Church’s Fried Chicken.
And that’s where our story begins. A few months ago, Fred Taub of Boycott Watch, brought to my attention an ongoing federal lawsuit between Marcus and Denise Beasley, an entrepreneurial Black couple, and Arcapita. Their race is important to the story.
I wanted to write about it then, but the Beasleys told Fred they wanted to wait. I deferred to them. Apparently, they’ve since talked to other parties, because the story is now out.
The Beasleys owned a Church’s Fried Chicken franchise. They planned to offer breakfeast dishes, including pork and bacon. But, once Arcapita acquired Church’s, Arcapita’s strict sharia compliance requirements were foisted upon the Beasley’s and they were restricted from selling the breakfast items. They say this is the reason their business failed and that they were driven to bankruptcy. They lost everything, including their home, as a result. In their lawsuit, the Beasleys claim that Arcapita allowed White-owned franchisees to continue to sell the non-halal offerings in their stores.
If this is true–and I imagine they must have some proof of White-owned Church’s that sell non-halal meat and poultry–then it is emblematic of a part of Islam that is rarely broached in America: Islam’s racist attitude against Black people. We all know what happened in Sudan, and I’ve written many times over the last decade about how Blacks are called “Abed” (slave, in Arabic) or “Abeed” (slaves) throughout the Muslim world. This worldview is now, apparently, the basis for doing business at Arcapita/First Islamic-owned businesses.
Here are excerpts from the Beasley’s story of how Sharia put them into bankruptcy from Black Enterprise/The Baltimore Daily Record:

A Baltimore couple has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Islamic investment bank that owns the Church’s Chicken fast-food chain, alleging their franchise failed because the bank’s strict adherence to the religious code of Shari’ah prohibited the couple from selling pork.
Marcus and Denise Beasley, who are black, claimed they were treated differently by the bank, now known as Atlanta-based Arcapita Inc., than non-black franchisees who were allowed to continue serving breakfast dishes containing pork after the chain was acquired by the bank in December 2004.
The couple did not benefit from the grandfather policy allowing the sale of pork even though their contract with the chain’s former owners, AFC Enterprises Inc., to open a location in Baltimore/ Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport’s new terminal predated the takeover and policy change, according to the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
In the lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in actual damages, $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, the Beasleys contend the bank’s “stated reason” for disallowing the sale of pork in their case — they had not yet opened for business – – was “pretextual.”
“Arcapita permitted all of the other breakfast franchisees, which were approximately 30 Church’s Chicken restaurants, to do so, all of which were owned by persons who are non-African American or Caucasian,” the complaint states. “Of the Church’s Chicken breakfast franchises that existed when Arcapita acquired the chain, plaintiffs are the only ones who are African American.” . . .
Church’s Chicken, which serves American Southern comfort food, was founded in San Antonio in 1952 and has approximately 1,500 franchises worldwide, some of which trade as Texas Chicken, according to the company’s Web site.
On Dec. 26, Crescent Capital Investments Inc., the U.S. affiliate of Bahrain-based First Islamic Investment Bank BSC, bought Church’s, according to the suit. First Islamic changed its name to Arcapita in March 2005, the compliant states.
In April 2005, the Beasleys entered into a sublease with BAA Maryland Inc., the developer of retail and concession space in the airport, to operate their restaurant in the Pier A/B Core Food Court, according to the suit. The franchise’s menu, which included pork items, had to be submitted for approval and became part of the sublease, the suit states.
According to the complaint, the Beasleys had been assured they would be receiving the same letter Arcapita had sent to other existing franchisees, which said the parent company would not be collecting royalties on pork products.
But “approximately one week before” the Beasleys’ May 18 opening, the suit states, Arcapita informed them that, as new franchisees who had not yet opened, they may not serve pork, which Islam considers unclean.
The restaurant opened on schedule — but never served pork — and closed in late July 2006.
Part of the “substantial economic losses” the Beasleys suffered was the loss of their house, according to their attorney, Paul M. Vettori of Kenny & Vettori LLP in Towson.
“As the result of the failure of their business at the BWI airport, they were unable to repay the bank for the loan they took out and the [home] was sold at foreclosure,” Vettori said.

I have looked at the pleadings in this case, and based on what I’ve read, I believe the Beasley’s version of events and case against Arcapita is solid. I hope they are victorious.
But, whatever happens in this case, it is an important example of the harms that come from forced sharia imposed upon America: racism, bankruptcy, and extreme financial difficulties.
The Beasley case is only the beginning. Expect much more of this to come as more and more Muslims insert themselves and their mores upon America, because President Bush and future presidents and politicians allowed it to happen.
America, still asleep at the wheel.

By Debbie Schlussel
Giant ego with hair to match, Donald Trump, is considering giving murderer O.J. Simpson a shot on his next edition of “Celebrity Apprentice” on NBC.
Disgusting. Where is the outrage? I guarantee you that if someone murdered his daughter, Ivanka, Trump would be livid about someone mulling over giving the murderer a starring role on a (very dull) prime-time reality show.
There is just one answer to this idea: NO. (Or there might be a second answer: HELL, NO.)
And where is the “conscience” of failing NBC on all this? Oh, wait, they don’t have one at the Peacock Network. It’s all about the ratings. That’s it.

“The Donald” says “The Juice” put in a request to be on the show, and he and NBC are considering it:

“Simpson really wants to do it. Trump and NBC are thinking about it, but are being very cautious,” our source said. “There’s a certain amount of heat associated with Simpson.”

That’s putting it mildly.
On “Celebrity Apprentice,” D-List celebs try to raise money for their chosen charities. If this outrage happens–if O.J. gets his shot on this show, he should be forced to raise money for the Goldmans or for a women’s shelter.
If nothing convinced you already that Donald Trump was a blow-hard egomaniac with zero principles or conscience, this latest move should. A new low for him.
Never thought I’d say this, but I can’t wait to hear Rosie O’Donnell’s take on this one.

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s the sound of Richard Nixon and Dwight D. Eisenhower simultanously turning over in their graves:

Julie Nixon Eisenhower, a daughter of former Republican president Richard Nixon, is supporting Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential bid.
Eisenhower has donated $2,300 to the Illinois senator’s campaign, the maximum primary season donation allowed under federal campaign finance regulations.
The former first daughter isn’t the only member of the Eisenhower family supporting Obama’s White House run. In February, her sister-in-law Susan Eisenhower endorsed the Illinois senator in a Washington Post op-ed.

Nixon’s got nothin’ on Tricky Barack.

By Debbie Schlussel
Despite blind support from far too many conservatives, President Bush–as we know–went out of his way to pursue liberal policies from gazillion dollar spending on failed public schools to amnesty for illegal aliens to the bloated farm bill subsidies for big corporate farms. Throughout, despite his pandering to liberal constituencies, they never voted or supported him, which is why he now has the lowest approval rating of any American president in the last 70 years (when approval ratings were first taken).
The same goes for his liberal immediate family members–with his wife pandering to the inner city crowd (and the Islamist crowd in the Gulf) and his daughter Jenna pandering to the AIDS and UN crowd.
Now, here’s yet another story we can file under the category, “T Minus 8 Months for the Bushies”–another story we can put in the category of “Inanity From the Mouths of (Bush) Babes.”

Jenna Bush: Self-Styled “New Anne Frank” Now “Slightly Tyrone-ish”

When we last saw Jenna Bush, she was comparing herself to Holocaust victim Anne Frank and pushing a book with a teen, unwed mother with AIDS as its heroine.
Now, she and Mommy Bush–whom we last saw donning a hijab in the Saudi Arabia and again in Saudi Arabia–are pushing a book aimed at kids. The main character is a decidedly non-minority-named “Tyrone Brown.” (What–the name, “Lakisha,” wasn’t available?) Nothing objectionable there (other than the deliberate sterotype name). But then there’s this stupidity which Mommy and Daughter Bush uttered at press interviews, pushing the book:

“Jenna’s slightly Tyrone-ish,” said Laura Bush . . . . “We realized in writing that actually ‘she’ is the Tyrone.”

Yep, she looks like a Tyrone to me, too. But not very Lakisha-ish.
Jenna Bush also wants people to know that she liked Maurice Sendak’s “In the Night Kitchen,” because she wanted to be naked like the main character, Mickey, who dived naked into a milk bottle.
Yup, she sure sounds like Anne Frank to me. Or “Tyrone-ish” . . . whatever the heck that means.
It’s a good thing this administration is coming to the end. I really can’t imagine “Vote For Bush–His Daughter’s ‘Slightly Tyrone-ish'” working as a campaign slogan.
Maurice Sendak, I don’t think you have to worry about these new kids’ book “authors” stealing any market share.

By Debbie Schlussel
While Barack Hussein Obama, with his GQ visage, keeps trying to impress upon us the myth that he’s the epitome of moderation, I can think of no better spokesman for him than the Honorable John Conyers. Conyers is the more honest version of Obama.
The extremist Congressman who hates America and Israel and loves terrorists and anti-Semites is now campaigning for Obama at the behest of and enlistment by the Prez-wannabe himself and his campaign.
And while on the campaign trail for Obama in North Carolina, Conyers

discussed one of his legislative passions, a controversial bill to create a commission to study reparations programs for the descendants of slaves.

When You Elect This . . .

You Get This . . .

The bill calls upon the federal government to acknowledge the “fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery” in America between 1619 and 1865 and make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies for this treatment. . . . The bill requests $8 million to study the issue.

So, is Obama in favor of reparations, like his new spokesmodel, John Conyers? In the past, he’s only noted that he hasn’t endorsed any reparations plan. But with Conyers pimping that idea while campaigning on his behalf, it’s not hard to “do the math,” “read between the lines,” etc.
And others in the Obama campaign aren’t exactly saying Obama disagrees with Conyers:

“Senator Obama believes that the most meaningful reparations would be to fix our broken schools, and make job training available and college affordable, and build affordable housing and get investment capital into our communities so people can start businesses,” said Dan Leistikow, the North Carolina communications director for Obama.

Hmmm . . . not exactly an “I’m against reparations” statement.
Barack Hussein Obama . . . John Conyers in a younger body and a haute couture suit.

By Debbie Schlussel
I begin this by saying I am absolutely against spying on America. It’s against the law and a betrayal. We are supposed to be loyal American citizens and support our country. We do not spy on it for third parties.
But America, sadly, has a very spotty–and biased–record with regard to whom we prosecute for spying and how tough a sentence we seek in relation to the damage to America’s national security.
Jonathan Pollard–a man in very poor health–has been in prison for over two decades for spying for an ally, Israel. Much of the information he gave Israel was info America pledged to give Israel per treaties both countries signed, but which America didn’t give. He also was accused at trial of disclosing information to the then-Soviet Union, which we now know was the work of Aldrich Ames. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison.

Accused Spy Ben Ami Kadish
(Photo Tip: Carl in Jerusalem)
Contrast that with Chinese and Muslim spies–including the glaring case of Hezbollah spy Nada Nadim Al-Aouar Deladurantaye Valley Prouty. They spied for America’s enemies and, despite the irreparable national security havoc they wreaked, they received light sentences.
Prouty (who was technically not Muslim, but spied for them) will do less than six months in jail, if that, despite giving sensitive info to terrorist groups. Another man, a U.S. citizen with several aliases including Noureddine Malki and Almaliki Nour, served as a translator for our troops in Iraq and tipped off Al-Qaeda insurgents to our troop movements. This resulted in many IED explosion murders of our troops. The man was to be sentenced recently, and prosecutors were only seeking ten years in prison for him.
Now comes the case of Ben-Ami Kadish. Today, this 84-year-old man was indicted and arrested for allegedly spying for Israel . . . over 20 years ago, in 1985. Apparently, he had the same Israeli handler as Pollard, Yosef Yagur.
Kadish, it is claimed, shared nuclear secrets with Israel. (That’s strange, since by that time, Israel already had fully developed nuclear weapons.) Also alleged is that he shared info on F-15 fighter jets (which Israel has long since had) and the Patriot Missile (which America gave to Israel during the first Gulf War). In related news, Kadish has also been charged with industrial espionage for sharing Atari and BetaMax technology with Israel in the late ’70s/early ’80s.
There’s the obvious question: Why now? If authorities really believed Kadish was a spy for Israel, why didn’t America indict him then–when they went after Jonathan Pollard?
The conventional story is that America always believed there was a second Israeli mole, other than Pollard, and that the key to finding out his/her identity was the handler, Yagur. But Yagur left for Israel when Pollard was caught. If he was going to talk–which he wasn’t–he’d have talked then. I find it hard to believe that he, suddenly, went to American authorities and spilled “the goods” on Kadish.
And that’s not the case. The indictment details recent surveillance on Kadish and Yagur. So, it’s quite obvious the government knew about Kadish for years and has been watching him . . . and doing nothing until now, more than two decades later.
Frankly, I find the case very odd and absurd. If you knew a man spied in 1985, why are you suddenly indicting him now, when he’s barely alive?
I’ll tell you why.
We are, thankfully, in the last throes of the Bush Administration. After 6.5 years of failing to be the counter-terrorism President and–instead–wasting it on pressuring Israel, Bush and Condi Clueless want to give it one last, brute-force, old school try.
Making Israel look bad–and like it’s just another “enemy” that spies on America–is a brilliant PR move. It’s a great way to pressure Israel into giving up the store to the Islamic world’s favorite football, the Palestinians.
Using a doddering, ailing 84-year-old widower–not so brilliant. Just a shame.
If Ben-Ami Kadish was truly a spy against America–and perhaps he was, he should have been prosecuted . . . in 1985.
Now, it’s just ridiculous and reminds me of the FBI digging up a farm to find Jimmy Hoffa (when the oldest available suspect was 93). I can’t wait to see the forthcoming excuses about why they waited 23 years.
The government has been pursuing a trumped-up “espionage” case against two pro-Israel lobbyists who worked for the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), for several years now. The case–which has dragged on and on–even has the judge publicly doubting the case.
My view is that, since that case failed to adequately demonize Israel into capitulation, this is the next best thing that’s been waiting in the hopper.
And I believe it will go nowhere.
Much worse, the PR campaign for the “Get Israel” crowd is failing in this case on the first day. Carl in Jerusalem has a video report on the indictment. Where’s the video of this frail old man being arrested? That is must-see viewing and surely tells all about the validity of bringing this case, so many years later.
It’s embarrassing. Which is probably the word that encapsulates this entire non-sensical case.
If he is found guilty, I wonder if he will get the six-months-or-less sentence that Hezbollah spy Prouty will get.
And I’d love to see how much money and resources are being spent on this versus current cases of Muslim spying. We are in the fight of our lives against Islam, and instead, we are using our energies to fight an ally who did something wrong 23 years ago.
What a waste of firepower.
***
FYI, in case you were wondering about the photo above, Kadish fought for the U.S. and Britain in World War II and that pic is from the Jewish War Veterans, his local post of which, he was the commander. He also fought with the Haganah to help in Israel’s founding.

By Debbie Schlussel
Normally, I’m down on the travel industry for opposing post-9/11 national security constraints and for wanting to bend over backwards to help aliens come into the country, no questions asked.
But not this time.
Airlines are balking at the Department of Homeland Security’s boneheaded decision to entrust fingerprinting of aliens to the airlines. They’re upset over the cost.
I oppose it because it a ridiculous idea, fraught with national security problems for terrorists and other criminals to exploit. And it’s a law enforcement duty that should be performed with the billions of tax dollars you pay to DHS (many of which are spent on waste).

Artwork by Fred Taub/Boycott Watch
Per the US-VISIT fingerprint program, we’re supposed to be taking prints of aliens who enter and leave the country. This allows us to track who is here–when they are either arrested or leave the country (whereupon their prints are taken again and entered into the system).
Problem is, DHS wants airlines to take the prints and trusts them to transmit the prints to DHS. And it wants the airlines to spend the money for the machines, which record the prints.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this site, several airlines employ people with terrorist sympathies. Northwest Airline employs the wife of Al-Qaeda terrorist Omar Abdel-Fatah Shishani. It also employs Hussein Berry, a man whose family is involved in the Hezbollah-allied Shi’ite Amal milita, as its Director of Baggage. And, in Detroit (and other locations), it also employs many Muslims with terrorist sympathies.
Do we really want to trust people like this–who have no law enforcement background and have never gone through a strict background check–entering in fingerprints? If any one of them desired to make the government think an alien had left the country, they could have the person enter his/her prints, and we’d be none the wiser that they remained on our soil, plotting who knows what.
So, why, 6.5 years after 9/11, are we entrusting a vital national security system to companies who have profits as their goal and political correctness as their M.O. to track aliens for us? And why doesn’t Homeland Security have any of the billions from its bloated budget to shell out for this?
Airlines shouldn’t be entrusted with this function, which they are screaming they don’t want. They’ll do it on the cheap and do it poorly. It doesn’t help their bottom line, so it will only hurt our national security.
More Michael Chertoff “at work.”

By Debbie Schlussel
Every year on so-called Earth Day, it’s the same old, same old. Wealthy celebs who waste energy ad nauseam tell us not to. This year is no exception.
Later this afternoon, HOprah is bringing us Julia Roberts, Al Gore, and others to tell us not to waste energy. The thing is, all three of these people fly on private jets, wasting fuel and energy galore. And all three are in showbiz (Al Gore has that stupid cable channel no-one watches), where they waste valuable resources on lighting hairstyling, etc.

Oprah & Julia Tell You How to Live
And Oprah and Roberts pollute the water with the globs of cosmetics and hair product residue they must eventually wash off and insert into our drinking water supply. Then, there’s the fact that all three own multiple homes and use a ton of energy to heat, cool, and otherwise comfortably live in them.
With Oprah’s mansion in Hawaii, her mansion in Montecito, California (one of the state’s largest homes)–not to mention her other properties in Chicago, down South, and elsewhere–and her private plane (she won’t fly with us little people), do we really need her telling us “how to live with less” (a show she did last week) and “how to be green and conserve energy” (today’s show)?
Then, there’s the USA Weekend insert, “ThinkSmart: The Green Issue,” in all of Gannett’s newspapers, today. The cover features Ty Pennington, who along with other hypocritical celebs, gives us 47 tips on how to save energy at home. “Earth Day Starts At Home,” the cover tells us. More like, “Earth Day Should Start in the Mirror,” for these frauds.
A friend of mine used to work on Pennington’s star vehicle, “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” He tells me that Pennington has a big, gas-guzzling town car and driver to take him everywhere in each home location town. He flies First-Class (an inefficient use of space on a flight and, thus, fuel) and stays in large hotel suites (again the waste of energy and space). With Ty Pennington, “Earth Day Should Start at Home . . . and Away on Location.”
Oh, and don’t forget all the 24/7 lighting, while they film the buildilng of the new homes on “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” “Earth Day Should Start on the Set.”
If Pennington and company were truly green, they wouldn’t light and film the building of the new homes. But then, there would be no show, and they wouldn’t make gazillions. And when it’s about them and their money, it’s okay to waste energy. It’s only not okay, when it involved the little people–you.
One other Pennington fun fact: He now has his own magazine. Lots of glossy pages polluting landfills.
Then, there’s Elaine from “Seinfeld,” Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Today’s USA Today has an article about “The Eco-Adventures of Louis-Dreyfus: Actress Practices What She Preaches.” Louis-Dreyfus, who comes from the wealthy Dreyfus Fund family and went to exclusive private schools, also has gazillions from her Seinfeld days and the syndication deal for its reruns. I don’t envy her her wealth. But I do think it’s a tad hypocritical for her to be giving a plethora of “green” tips, like ordering us to us to “never guy a regular bulb again” and “adjust your thermostat by a couple of degrees.”
She can afford the expensive bulbs and never in the article is there a mention of the square-footage of her giant Santa Barbara home. Even with her thermostat adjusted, the amount of energy she wastes to make her home liveable is likely equally to half a year of your or my energy bills. When she starts living in a hut or shoebox, then she might have a leg to stand on. Until then, taking her advice is like taking advice from George Costanza.
And don’t forget the amount of energy the lighting and building of the set of her moronic show, “The New Adventure of Old Christine,” uses. Since no-one watches the show, after it’s canceled, will she promise to recycle the set into a new energy-efficient toilet for her home? Don’t bet on it.
And it’s not just celebs that define Earth Day uber-hypocrisy. Mattel’s Barbie brand is putting out a line of eco-friendly accessories for girls, with scraps left over from making Barbie clothes. Hello . . . Barbie is made out of hard, non-biodegradable plastic that pollutes the environment. How many used Barbies with gnarly tangled hair populate our landfills? This is not about being “green.” It’s about Mattel squeezing more profits from its declining and underperforming flagship brand.
And finally, there are the “eco-friendly” events that often leave behind a ton of waste. Hmmm . . . that’s “green”?
It seems to me that the only “Global Warming” is the non-stop hot air we’re receiving from “green” celebs and other “Earth Day” hypocrites.
And that’s why today is the 38th edition of Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do Day.
Hardly a cause for celebration.

By Debbie Schlussel
You’ve heard of the Twinkie Defense, the PMS Defense, and other absurd defenses which defense attorneys have successfully used to get their murderer clients acquitted of the charges.
Now, meet the Hurricane Katrina Defense. It’s the latest rage at the criminal defense bar:

If Gregory Christopher Decay is convicted of capital murder this week, his attorneys plan to argue that the former New Orleans resident pulled the trigger on a Fayetteville couple while traumatized from Hurricane Katrina.
The capital murder trial for Decay, 24, begins today in Washington County. He is accused in the April 2007 slayings of Kevin Barkley Jones and Kendall Rachell Rice, both 24.

Jones and Rice were shot in the head in a drug dispute, court records show. Their bodies were found in their Fayetteville apartment.
Deputy public defender Julie Tolleson said that if Decay is convicted, she will argue that trauma caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 will be part of mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase.
“We’ll want to tell as much of his life story as we can,” Tolleson said. “And Katrina is part of what got him here today.” Decay’s isn’t the first case where the deadly hurricane and its aftermath have been part of court strategy. The Katrina angle has been an element in other criminal cases in Arkansas and Texas – states that saw an influx of refugees when the storm slammed the Gulf Coast.
Little Rock lawyer John Wesley Hall Jr. planned to use the defense in the case of a Katrina refugee charged in Arkansas with a felony drug crime. The case, however, never went to trial because the man disappeared, and he’s believed to have committed suicide in New Orleans, Hall said.
“We planned to put on evidence showing the true horrors of what Katrina was, with bodies floating by in high water and people trapped in their homes without anything for a week,” said Hall, who is president-elect of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
“These people were uprooted and separated from family and friends and everything they knew, and we were going to show that this kind of psychological trauma can last for years,” he said.

Hmmm . . . Why hasn’t there been the 9/11 defense? We’ve already seen the Gitmo detainee defense–the “trauma” of listening to Christina Aguilera, reading Harry Potter on a LaZ Boy, and eating at the halal buffet.

By Debbie Schlussel
Washington Examiner Editor Mark Tapscott send this cartoon from Examiner editorial cartoonist Nate Beeler. He says it captures the essence of Jimmy “Jimmuh” Carter’s visit with HAMAS. I wholeheartedly agree.