UK: Irish Pastor Faces Prison for “Grossly Offending” Islam

No, this isn’t Pakistan, or some other Muslim country. It is Northern Ireland. Think this can’t happen here? Last week’s Supreme Court ruling sets the table. Keep your eye on this one. Here we go:

An evangelical Christian pastor in Northern Ireland is being prosecuted for making “grossly offensive” remarks about Islam.

Pastor James McConnell of Belfast: “I have no regrets about what I said. I do not hate Muslims, but I denounce Islam as a doctrine and I make no apologies for that. I will be pleading ‘not guilty’ when I stand in the dock in August.”

James McConnell, 78, is facing up to six months in prison for delivering a sermon in which he described Islam as “heathen” and “satanic.” The message was streamed live on the Internet, and a Muslim group called the police to complain.

According to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS), McConnell violated the 2003 Communications Act by “sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive.”

Observers say that McConnell’s prosecution is one of a growing number of examples in which British authorities — who routinely ignore incendiary speech by Muslim extremists — are using hate speech laws to silence Christians.

McConnell, who turned down an offer to avoid a trial, says the issue of Christians being singled out for persecution in Britain must be confronted, and that he intends to turn his case into a milestone trial “in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

McConnell’s comments about Islam comprised less than ten minutes of a 35-minute sermon that focused on Christian theology.

The blowback was as swift as it was predictable. The Belfast Islamic Center, which claims to represent all of the 4,000 Muslims thought to be living in Northern Ireland, complained to police, who dutifully launched an investigation into whether there was a “hate crime motive” behind McConnell’s remarks.

McConnell later issued a public apology, but he refused to recant. He also rejected a so-called informed warning. Such warnings are not convictions, but they are recorded on a person’s criminal record for 12 months. Anyone who refuses to accept the warning can be prosecuted, and McConnell now faces six months in prison. The first hearing of his case is set for August 6.

More over at Gatestone Institute with the Pastor’s remarks.

Advertisements

Supreme Court slaps Obama down unanimously once again

Once again the entire Supreme Court knocks down the Obama administration. Funny, this didn’t seem to make the news. This adds up to over 20 unanimous decisions that went against him. His two Supreme picks apparently are not so ready to move to a totalitarian government. Sweet. Here we go:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must make “good faith” efforts to seek reconciliation before it sues a business for discrimination, under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was a strong rebuke to the commission, which had previously asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction over its reconciliation process.

The Chamber of Commerce highlighted the case in a lengthy study published last year that argued the commission under Obama was pursuing a “scorched earth” litigation strategy against employers.The opinion was authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Obama.

The justices struck that ruling down, saying the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes clear that Congress did intend for the courts to have oversight. “Congress rarely intends to prevent courts from enforcing its directives to federal agencies,” Kagan’s opinion stated.”

Congress imposed a mandatory duty on the EEOC to attempt conciliation and made that duty a precondition to filing a lawsuit. Such compulsory prerequisites are routinely enforced by courts in Title VII litigation. And though Congress gave the EEOC wide latitude to choose which ‘informal methods’ to use, it did not deprive courts of judicially manageable criteria by which to review the conciliation process,” the court ruled in the case EEOC v. Mach Mining.

Read more at the The Washington Examiner

Appeals court unfriendly to Obama’s illegal immigration move

Wins are few and far between these days. But this one would stall Obama and his latest round of illegals’ reward for stopping by. Looks like the Appeals court wasn’t so friendly. Probably going to the Supremes.

Politico reports:

A federal appeals court signaled Friday that it is unlikely to allow President Barack Obama’s request to go ahead with a new round of relief for illegal immigrants, making it likely that the White House will have to take its legal case to the Supreme Court within days.

The oral arguments before the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans were being closely watched by both sides in the heated immigration debate as a sign of whether the administration will be able to move forward with its plan to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to about 4 million illegal immigrants. Notably, one Republican-appointed judge used the president’s own comments to put the Justice Department on the defensive.

There’s more:

Judge Jennifer Elrod. a Republican appointee, suggested that Obama’s own statements about the program undermined the federal government’s claims that immigration officials retain case-by-case discretion. She referenced a televised town hall meeting in Miami in February when Obama said that there would be consequences for government employees who ignored his directives to grant deferred action to those who are eligible.

Final nail in the Obamacare coffin coming? Supremes to hear

Talk about the ultimate feel good moment for the week? Taking down Obamacare would be a super “twofer.” Knocking Obama’s socks off on Tuesday’s election, and then taking down his “signature” achievement. I am no legal wizard but this little sentence seems to make it clear to me:

The legal dispute centers on a four-word statutory phrase. The law says people qualify for tax credits when they buy insurance on an online marketplace “established by the state.”

Now if Roberts can swallow his pride and accept what a nonsensical vote he made that gave us this monstrosity, and the NSA doesn’t have a whole lot on him, we might just do it. Decision should could out in June. Here we go:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.

Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance.

A ruling blocking those credits might unravel the law, making other provisions ineffective and potentially destabilizing insurance markets in much of the country. The high court’s decision to hear the case comes days before the start of the law’s second open-enrollment season Nov. 15. A decision will come by June.

The justices will consider an appeal filed by four Virginia residents seeking to block the subsidies in 36 states. The appeal says the Obama administration is engaging in a “gross distortion” of the law’s wording by granting billions of dollars in tax credits to people in those states.

Keep reading…

Eric Holder strikes again – releases Lynne Stewart who aided first World Trade bomber

Anyone recall  Lynne Stewart? The attorney for the blind sheik who was involved in the first World Trade Tower’s bombing that maimed and killed Americans. So she doesn’t want to die in a strange and loveless place.

Should we be surprised? Recall from a post September, 2009: The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm an Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.

 Where is Eric Holder in all of this? How about THAT –

From the Law firm’s C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.

A federal judge in Manhattan has granted the “compassionate release” from prison for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart so she can die a free woman.

Stewart, 73, who is four years into a 10-year prison sentence for passing along messages from imprisoned terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman to his followers, has terminal cancer and less than 18 months to live.

The joint filing Tuesday by the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney’s office asks Judge John Koeltl to grant her a “compassionate release.” Read more: NY Daily News

Stewart  had said she didn’t want to die in “a strange and loveless place.” Huffington Post

Perhaps this quote from Adams will give pause:

Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams.

Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

While we are focused on this major healthcare fiasco, we have to know the administration will keep the minions moving the agenda. Perhaps the most dangerous time since we are so distracted. Ted Cruz snagged this action that Eric Holder and crew have before the Supreme Court. At the end of the post, a comment left at the Washington Examiner. First a refresher on our gal Ginsberg.

Update: Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution. Read more

Via Washington Examiner:

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.”

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…

Comment:

“Perhaps we can get a treaty with the allied countries who were spied upon to impeach Obama and bypass Congress if that is the case.”

Ann Coulter saw the Supreme Roberts train wreck coming

I am too weary to attempt to opine on any “bright side” of the Supreme Court ruling. I will let that for other Conservatives who choose to remain in somewhat of a denial state as to how devastating this was. I hear somehow, just like progressives, there was some sort of higher good in the decision,  Of course, yet to be determined. Four members were prepared to send the whole law into oblivion. A dream come true. 

How is it that Ginsburg got 99 votes for approval by the Senate when up for her nomination? When she was head of the ACLU? As for the GOP, getting Borked again is the fear de jour, so we settle for the unknown.

So the Bunkervites got together last night to commiserate and drown our sorrows over the fact that what is left is that the quality and quantity of our lives will be diminished.  And we did this to ourselves by the pick of John Roberts. Comrade Matrix mentioned that Ann saw this coming. Good, I said, that will be the best I can do for a post tomorrow. So here we go. Thanks Mr. Bush.

Ann Coulter prophesied the coming split between Chief Justice Roberts and conservatives back in 2005, writing that “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives.”

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Coulter titled the post “SOUTER IN ROBERTS’ CLOTHING”  Full Story at Ann Coulter

H/T:Buzz Feed

%d bloggers like this: