Category Archives: Courts
The Elusive Case of Oscar Hill IV
John R. Houk
© May 16, 2013
I have been following the Oscar Hill IV story for some time. The story if accurate is repugnant for it is a huge miscarriage of Justice. The email and pdf attachment show a different spelling of Oscar’s last name than previous posts I have made on this subject. In the current email Oscar’s last name is spelled “Hill”. In previous stories the letter “s” was how I came to know the name – “Hills”. This could be the reason I have had such a difficult time researching Hill’s case – I don’t know. Below is the copy of the email I sent to Joshua Spielman relating to the email and pdf document (Only I changed the my email address because I sent him a more personal address):
Mr. Spielman I have actually tried to follow the story of Oscar Hills IV. It has always been a difficult subject to research with a search engine because the Mainstream Media seems to have not found it on their radar. The two stories I have posted are “Oscar Hills IV: Persecuted or Prosecuted?” dated 5/25/11 AND “Gayle: Oscar Hills IV” dated 6/29/12. I am really uncertain how anybody has found my blog (SlantRight 2.0) to send me these elusive updates. Perhaps you can point me to some further information available online that will make me feel good about corroboration even if it is the other side of the story? At any rate I will format the pdf file you sent me and post it.
Thanks
John R. Houk
john@slantright.com
Since I have been writing this post Mr. Spielman has responded that he will keep me up to date.
Now one thing I have noticed about the pdf attributed to Oscar Hill IV is his use the name “Ya” in parentheses following the name “God”. My concern stems from the cult spin-off House of Yahweh (HOY) was founded by another Christian cult Worldwide Church of God from Herbert W. Armstrong.
The HOY cult uses “Ya” for God and Lord. They also use the appellation of Yashua for Jesus. Both names are used like this in Mr. Hill’s pdf document. The HOY take the belief that Jesus was not preexistent to His human birth. Rather Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense he became a follower of Yahweh after arising from the water from the John the Baptist Baptism. Hence the HOY do not believe in ONE God in three unified persons as in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As a Christian I have to state these HOY beliefs are unacceptable.
AGAIN I must reiterate that I do not know if Oscar Hill IV follows the HOY theology. Indeed the First Amendment guarantees the HOY to practice their faith in Freedom. I just have to wonder if the Louisiana part of the Federal Justice system focused on Hill because of Cult-like behavior and thus fabricated evidence that ended in a conviction that had absolutely nothing to do with Hill’s faith.
I give credit to Oscar Hill IV that he is not appealing to religious persecution but utilizes religious terminology as a normal display of his faith whether he follows the basic Christian tenets or HOY-like religious tenets. Under that situation Oscar Hill IV deserves freedom from incarceration and his name must be cleared due criminal conduct from the Prosecutor and the ATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – better known as ATF) agent Joseph Gahn.
JRH 5/16/13
***********************
worldwide news network
Contact: Joshua Spielman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9 A.M. CST, MAY 14, 2013
Sent: May 16, 2012
Press Release
Another Case of Federal Prosecutorial Misconduct – Middle District of Louisiana
Conviction Unconstitutional
BATON ROUGE: Assistant U.S. Attorney Rene I. Salomon, ATFE special agent Joseph Gahn both in the Middle District of Louisiana, conspiring with State Farm Insurance Company allegedly submitted fabricated evidence subsequently wrongly convicting Oscar Hills IV. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals overturned Hills conviction and the Government conceded that Mr. Hill’s conviction was unconstitutional. Mr. Hills stated, “The Government’s fabricated evidence exonerated him and incriminated them.” Mr. Hills has served two years in federal prison for a crime he did not commit. Hills also announced that he would run for president of the United States in 2016. For more on this story read the press release in its entirety, see attached pdf file.
_________________________
Attached PDF formatted to Word Document
CONVICTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Another Case of Federal Prosecutorial Misconduct – Middle District of Louisiana
By Oscar Hills IV
May 14, 2013 9:00 AM
Name on Header:
Brad Heath
USA Today Newspaper
7950 U.S. Today Street Mc Lean, VA 22108
BATON ROUGE: First, I like to thank you for accepting my email request. Let me formally introduce myself. My name is Oscar Hills IV; currently I am federal inmate #05251-095. Since 2011, two-years now, my incarceration has been illegal. On May 23, 2011, I literally drove myself to Texarkana FCI in Texas and self surrendered. After sixteen months there, I was transferred (unsupervised Greyhound Bus furlough) to the federal comp in Pollock, Louisiana. Currently, I am at the halfway house in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mr. Heath, after reading your article, “Locked Up But Innocent?” I must say, you nailed it! However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Heath, in “Criminal Law” there’s two classifications of innocence, one, “legal innocence,” and two, “actual innocence.” Legal innocence, defined as the absence of one or more procedural or legal bases to support the sentence given to a defendant. You were referring in your article “Locked Up But Innocent” to this innocence. Actual innocence, on the other hand, is a state of affairs in which a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of the charges against them because they did not in fact commit the crime of which her or she have been accused.
ACTUALLY INNOCENT? What if I told you that I am “actually innocent” of the crime I’m currently incarcerated for and the U.S. Government (ATFE agent Joseph Gahn, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Rene Salomon) and State Farm Insurance Co. fabricated their evidence to get an illegal indictment which led to my illegal incarceration.
What if I told you that with the same evidence the prosecutors’ produced to the grand jury and the courts’ exonerates me and incriminates them.
Aver of evidence is factual and backed by the U.S. Government’s own fabricated evidence; this is not a conclusional assertion. Furthermore, on June 25, 2012, The Fifth Circuit of Appeals granted me a certificate of appealability (COA). Moreover, on August 20, 2012, the U.S. Attorney’s Office conceded to the fact that my conviction is unconstitutional. Yet, eight-months later, I am still illegally being detained. The prosecutors’ asked the Appeals Court to dismiss my appeal, and remand the case back to the district court for a limited view. Rebutting the prosecutor’s request, petitioning the Appeals Court not to dismiss my appeal, I pleaded that the conviction be completely overturned. One, because I was actually innocent, and two, according to United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S., a denial of counsel during trial proceedings requires automatic reversal of conviction because prejudice presumed. The Appeals Court, denied my request, and totally went against Supreme Court caselaw, subsequently, remanding my case back to the District Court, where just several months prior presiding judge James Brady denied my motion to vacate citing I had no merits. Clearly, I recognized the subterfuge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
April 22, 2013, the deception came full circle when I went for a status conference in the District Court. Out the gate, Judge Brady ridiculed me, stating he was not “going to play this game” with me, he pretty much eluded my actual innocence plea. I reference to the judge that I have done 95% of the time, and my main concern is clearing my name and bringing justice for the outrageous conduct of assistant U.S. Attorney Rene Salomon and ATFE agent Joseph Gahn. Under the Color of Law–these two men, along with others, abused and misused their authority. The court eluded addressing my actual innocence claim. It did not surprise me, I was informed a week before the status conference that my case was the first of its kind. I was also informed that normally the Fed’s are the aggressor, and being that you have substantial evidence of their malfeasance they’re in a peculiar situation. It was explained to me, even though you have the “up’s on them,” the presiding judge was going to still save face for the prosecutor, “it is what it is, especially in the Fed’s,” explained the source. The way the status conference played out, he was right. I being actually innocent of the crime should mean something if not everything, but from the looks of it, it means nothing to the court. Judge Brady scheduled an evidentiary hearing for May 21, 2013, and for the fifth time I will submit to the court the government’s own evidence that exculpates me and inculpates the prosecutor. After 2 years of hell, will I finally see justice, or will this injustice continue? Proverbs 17:15 states: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord (Ya).”
Prior to going to prison, I presented this overwhelming evidence (certified mail) to the Inspector General, Daniel Levinson, our so-called ombudsman. Following up on my complaint a representative in the civil rights department claimed she forwarded the information to the appropriate people including the ATFE agency. I personally sent the same information (certified mail) to Kenneth Melson, former head of the ATFE agency, to no avail. Mr. Melson has now been demoted, for his mishandling and non-actions in the infamous “Fast & Furious” gun-trafficking sting operation, in which illegal guns from the operation appeared at many crime scenes across the United States and Mexico. One of the stolen guns killed a U.S. border patrol officer. A whistleblower within their own agency brought to light these unlawful acts of the ATFE agency in Arizona. I even reached out to “every member” in congress (Washington DC) prior to coming to prison but my pleas were ignored’.
My situation is not an isolated one by far; there is a reason why 97% of the federal cases result into a guilty plea. Trust me the U.S. Attorneys’ is not that good. Counsel for the defendants’; especially court-appointed counsel, are an extension of the prosecution. Almost immediately in their initial attorney-client meeting, the appointed counsel is pushing a plea deal in the face of the accused. It is all about “VOLUME!” Court-appointed attorneys’ are paid the same amount if they argue the case or get you to take the plea. There is no incentive to exonerate their client, so it’s all based on volume. Picture an assembly line of rubber-stamping plea deals that is all you got going on here. The prosecutors’ get their man and defense attorneys’ are compensated for sending their clients’ up the river without a paddle. All at the expense of the indigent clients’ and taxpayers. There is nothing new up under the sun this is a modern day Sanhedrin Counsel. Yashua (Jesus Christ) called them hypocrites and usurpers.
OLIGARCHY FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: National media coverage as your article illuminates what is going on in this “privileged only” federal judicial system. You see, once the tables turn on the “Oligarchs’” they only get reprimanded or excoriated. The “Oligarchs’” do not discriminate though; look at Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska case for example. The malicious prosecutorial misconduct was so great; U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stepped in and asked the judge to dismiss the case after the conviction of the Senator. Stevens’s attorney, Brendan Sullivan spoke out saying: “the illegal verdict of guilty in Stevens’s case had cost the veteran Alaska Republican his seat in the Senate and shifted control of the Senate to the Democrats.” Let us take it even further, if this illegal ordeal had not taken place, Stevens probably would have won his seat back, and would have been in Washington DC, instead of on the plane that crashed and took his life? After the malicious misconduct of the prosecutors’ scheme came to light, one of the prosecutors committed suicide. The others two prosecutors involved in this malevolent act just got an insignificant punishment, losing 40 and 15 days without pay. Then it was back to work as usual.
Recently, just down the road in the Eastern District of Louisiana, specifically, New Orleans, Louisiana, another case of prosecutorial misconduct was revealed. U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s second in command, Jan Mann literally lied to a federal judge. Ms. Mann, in writing, told the court she was not involved with the blogging on several federal cases in litigation. Which was indeed, not true, Jan Mann, was ousted by retired FBI agents that were hired by the defendant Fred Heebe to investigate the U.S. Attorney’s office outrageous conduct, among other things. Subsequently, Jim Letten resigned, claiming he had no idea that his second in command was participating in theses egregious acts. No one in the U.S. Attorneys’ office has been indicted, sorry to say that I suspect no one will be. Yet, there are people in jail for perjury, as I write this letter. Apparently, this does not apply to the prosecutors, just everyone else.
IMMUNITY + IMPUNITY = CORRUPTION: When it comes to federal prosecutors, and agents they “enjoy qualified immunity.” Federal judicial employees have “free will” to do whatever they please and do not suffer any punishment for their mischievous actions, they are practically untouchable. My life my home was invaded because of one agent’s abuse of power, ultimately losing over two years of my freedom. To add insult to injury, at the status conference, there sit the special agent Joseph Gahn. Observing, making sure the court carry out his subterfuge. Will district judge James J. Brady continue to go along with the government’s modus operandi? Will he finally render true justice and overturn my wrongful conviction? Only time will tell, May 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. cst.
BANKING ON BONDAGE: Incarcerating folks is a multibillion dollar a year business. Make no mistake about it. The Prison industry creates and maintain jobs–forfeitures of property and assets–which federal employees’ get first dibs–$25k plus annually of taxpayers’ money for housing each inmate–commissary–outrages phone and email rates for inmates produces millions of dollars a month–”their” selected vendors’ get paid top dollars for expired or close to expired food to feed the inmates. Rural towns are surviving off prisons; the prisons have more people in them then the actual town. The United States imprison more people both per-capital and in-absolute term than any other nation in the world. Reading an article by Cindy Chang in the New Orleans Times Picayune newspaper–the state [Louisiana] I am from is the prison capital of the world.
Infer; this is just a compendium of what is taking place in the land of the free and our so-called justice system. I have acquired a wealth of knowledge that I will share with the American people. In the name of justice, they are (the Oligarchs’) acquiring wealth and power through bondage. It is my obligation to God (Ya) and the American people (99%ers’) to fight this injustice and promote peace. I am formally announcing that I will run for the presidency of the United States in the year 2016.
“The energy, faith, the devotion which ‘I’ will bring to this endeavor will light our country and will serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.” (paraphrasing President John F. Kennedy)
Peace be with you!
Oscar Hill IV
33.3
________________
The Elusive Case of Oscar Hill IV
John R. Houk
© May 16, 2013
_______________
Another Case of Federal Prosecutorial Misconduct – Middle District of Louisiana
SlantRight Editor: Notice in small text there is a name “worldwide news network”. The only thing I could find close to that is this link: https://worldnewsnetwork7.com/. I suspect there is no relationship between this info and the news organization of the similar name.
Then on the pdf header is this organization: USA Today Newspaper. Google brings me to this link: http://www.usatoday.com/. Again I sense there is no relationship to who put out the email or the pdf document. Perhaps those of you that have the investigative knack can let us know.
The shocking video the Supreme Court doesn’t want you to see
Abortion is murder. I’m not going to get into argument abortion in cases of rape, incest or the threat to a mother’s life. Those three pro-abortion arguments are a mere diversion to distract Pro-Life and uninformed people on the fence about abortion about the overwhelming reason abortions happen. THAT REASON is birth control! DEFINITELY birth control abortion is murder and must be stopped!
Below is a message from Senator Rand Paul which is followed by the words of a petition. To sign the petition as you should click the link at the end and to page I cross posted from then engage signature information.
Thank you
John R. Houk
3/1/13
*************************
The shocking video the Supreme Court doesn’t want you to see
By Sen. Rand Paul
Sent: 2/28/2013 4:20 PM
Sent from: National Pro-Life Alliance
Dear Concerned American,
I’ve prepared a brief but urgent video regarding breaking news in the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade in our nation.
Please take a moment to listen to my urgent message by clicking here.
After you listen, please sign the petition to finally end abortion on demand.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul,
U.S. Senator (R-KY)
________________________
Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act
56 MILLION BABIES CONDEMNED TO PAINFUL DEATHS …
“A Bold Aggressive Campaign
The Life at Conception Act, a simple piece of legislation to bring “LEGAL” definition of life inline the biological, in effect, bypassing Roe v Wade.
__________________________
NPLA Mission
Because every human life is precious in the eyes of God, and science and common sense dictate that life begins at conception, it is clear that abortion is the wanton taking of human life and no truly great nation can allow this practice to take place.
Ever since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 55 million precious unborn babies have lost their lives.
The National Pro-Life Alliance’s members, staff and volunteers are dedicated to halting this slaughter once and for all. And despite the many remaining obstacles, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
National Pro-Life Alliance’s Focus Is Passing Substantive Pro-Life Legislation
The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life organizations is research, publications or counseling.
These are all important and worthy activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception onward.
We believe that it is not sufficient to merely support minor regulations on abortion in a few outrageous cases.
Instead, members of the National Pro-Life Alliance lobby both incumbents and candidates for office to come out clearly for measure like a Life at Conception Act to legislatively define constitutionally-protected “personhood” as beginning at the moment of conception.
Grass-Roots Pressure Has Built Record Support in Congress for Ending, Not Merely Regulating, Abortion-on-Demand
The grass-roots lobbying efforts of our 650,000 members have garnered a record level of support and cosponsors for such substantive measures.
The fact is, even with pro-abortion politicians still in leadership positions in the Senate and a radical President in the White House, pro-lifers have record support in Congress. More than 80 new members of Congress were elected on pro-life platforms. Now pro-lifers must hold the feet of each and every self-proclaimed “pro-life” member of Congress to the fire and demand meaningful legislation to limit, and ultimately end, abortion-on-demand.
Yet pro-abortion politicians from both parties will use every trick available to stop pro-life legislation. Nevertheless … READ THE REST
Fed Judge Blasts CAIR in “Muslim Mafia” Case
The CAIR/Muslim Mafia litigation is a classic example of Lawfare/Legal Jihad utilized by Muslims in an attempt to silence those exposing the dark side of Islam. The book “Muslim Mafia – Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America” exposes the nefarious agenda of CAIR with its connection to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. Since CAIR attempts to bill itself as Muslim human rights organization in America the truth tarnishes their reputation and credibility.
Here we are in 2013 and this litigation initiated by CAIR circa 2009 is still going on. Finally though there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel for the authors of the Muslim Mafia because the Federal Judge adjudicating the lawsuit has delivered a legal defeat to CAIR by ruling against an extension on the ludicrous continuation of needless discovery by the CAIR legal team. Creeping Sharia has the story.
JRH 2/14/13
Video – ALAC in the GOP platform
Yes I am aware that I am posting GOP information at the end the end of the hullabaloo of the Democratic National Convention. The Dems don’t care about this issue so I don’t care about the timing.
Thanks to ACT for America I discovered a momentous thing about the Republican Party Platform. The GOP has included American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) into the Platform for this election cycle. THAT IS AWESOME!
JRH 9/7/12
*****************************
Video – ALAC in the GOP platform
Sent from ACT for America
Sent: 09/04/2012 12:38 PM
Our friends at the Center for Security Policy captured the 58 second segment below, showing the adoption of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) concept into the national Republican Party platform.
When you watch it, note the reference to the passage of ALAC in Kansas. This effort was led by State Rep. Peggy Mast, a valued friend of ACT! for America whom we honored with our “Patriot” award at this year’s National Conference & Legislative Briefing.
Rep. Mast’s leadership, coupled with over 30,000 phone calls and emails generated by ACT! for America chapter leaders and members, led to the passage of ALAC into law in Kansas.
When the Republican Party was fielding ideas and “seconds” for its platform, ACT! for America generated hundreds of “seconds” in support of adding the ALAC concept to the platform.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, attempted to prevent the pro-ALAC resolution from being included in the GOP platform.
They failed.
That’s good news for freedom—and bad news for the Muslim Brotherhood.
VIDEO: American Laws for American Courts in GOP Platform
___________________________
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
John Roberts – I’m Not Down on John Roberts
Erick Erickson of RedState.com defends Chief Justice John Roberts voting siding with the Leftist Justices as part of a greater political/Constitutional chess match concerning the future of Obamacare. Then Erickson qualifies his reasoning.
This is how I am going to present Erickson’s thoughts. I am posting the email then the post that is linked to within the email. Both the emails are a near match but the minor differences deserve to be read. I would not be surprised if the RedState.com post is edited to bring some clarity to Erickson’s thoughts.
JRH 6/28/12
*******************************
John Roberts
By Erick Erickson
Sent: June 28, 2012 11:14 AM
Sent by RedState.com
Dear RedState Reader,
As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, I will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
________________________
I’m Not Down on John Roberts
By Erick Erickson (Diary)
June 28th at 11:35AM EDT
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, I will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now. Snowe gave it bipartisan cover coming out of committee, but she actually wasn’t the deciding vote.
_____________________________
© 2012 Redstate, Inc., 2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.
About
On July 11, 2004, Josh Trevino, Ben Domenech, and Mike Krempasky turned on the lights at RedState, then RedState.org.
Shortly thereafter, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar signed on to help out and the site took off as the singular hub of conservative grassroots collaboration on the right.
Today, RedState is the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill, is the most often cited right of center blog in the media, and is widely considered one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right.
RedState was the first national political site to tout and endorse Marco Rubio for his Senate bid in Florida. We put Doug Hoffman on the national conservative radar in New York. Across the country we find grassroots candidates and work hard to get them elected.
At RedState, we are conservatives in primaries and Republican in general elections and we aim to win.
RedState’s day to day efforts are … READ THE REST
Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional
#ooid=p1OGE5NTrByW5XzMH2EjQpAW5iQfkVrQ
I am sure I’ll be posting more on the Supreme Court’s astounding decision to uphold the individual mandates of Obamacare later. Until then the best Conservative viewpoint I have found in the early hours of the decision is on The Blaze.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Chief Justice Roberts usually considered an Original Intent Constitutional Justice voted with the Leftist Justices to uphold the 5-4 decision!
JRH 6/28/12
********************************
Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional
June 28, 2012 at 10:16am
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, including the controversial “individual mandate,” is constitutional by a 5-4 majority.
“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,” SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.
However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?
“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power. But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.
Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in upholding the mandate.
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” Roberts writes in his opinion (page six).
“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices [emphasis added],” he adds.
Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.
“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.
In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:
1) Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional
2) Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect
3) If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?
4) Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional
Of the four points discussed, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, as a tax, the individual mandate is constitutional. Under the Commerce Clause, it doesn’t work, but as a tax, it’s legitimate.
Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.
It doesn’t seem that way now.
Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.
The BlazeVIDEO OF SCOTUS ANNOUNCEMENT
______________________________
All information © 2012 TheBlaze LLC
Obama Openly Moving to Dark Side?
John R. Houk
© April 4, 2012
President Barack Hussein Obama has shown his true colors when he informed the Supreme Court they did not have the authority to overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional. The Left and this President in particular has been shredding the Constitution for nearly a half-a-century. We Conservative have cried foul for about the same time and labeled the Court system that justifies the Leftist agenda as judicial activism. We Conservatives have put with Leftist judicial activism realizing that the courts have been politicized by Democratic Party Presidents and Democratic Party majority rule in the Senate.
It has became clear that the only way to counter Leftist judicial activist constitutional shredding is for GOP Presidents to balance America’s courts with Conservative Original Intent Judges. Thanks to President Reagan and President Bush the Supreme Court has a relatively 5 majority Conservative Original Intent Justices versus to 4 Leftist Living Constitution Justices.
Now that judicial activism might counter a Leftist agenda on a huge scale for the first time in about 50 years BHO is crying foul trying to paint the Supreme Court as a bunch of activist Justices. The reality is that SCOTUS has that thin one vote lead with one of those Justices siding with the Conservative side sometimes and with the Leftist side sometimes.
We Americans have to ask ourselves: What will President Barack Hussein Obama do if Obamacare is struck down by a 5-4 vote? The President certainly sounded like he was providing a veiled threat, right?
FOX Video: Firestorm over Obama’s comments about Supreme Court
Now since the original Obama threat, the President has backtracked somewhat by clarifying his anti-SCOTUS remarks. BHO says he will of course abide with whatever SCOTUS rules. YET BHO claims Obamacare is a commerce issue and as such believes SCOTUS has never overruled the Federal Government when the Executive and Legislative Branches have legislated laws according to the Commerce Clause.
Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:
(Clause 1) The Congress shall have power ,,,
(Clause 3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
This FindLaw article on the Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court demonstrates that Obama is outright lying in public because SCOTUS indeed has struck down Federal Laws that were wrongly based on the Commerce Clause. And I am not talking about ancient judicial decisions but as short a relative time as 1995. Now I am saying “outright lying” because as a lawyer Obama was trained on Constitutional Law. This means he was lying in public to convince voters that Obamacare is legislation on the high road that should be untouchable.
Further Obama lied that Obamacare was passed with broad Congressional support. Here Obama must be hoping Americans must have a short memory that there were backdoor sweet deals for various Senators’ States to get a vote to pass Obamacare. THAT IS NOT BROAD CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT!
The three Judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court has issued an order to:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. (CBS via Red State 4/4/12)
I suspect Obama will blink first in a turf war with the Judicial Branch, but if not – What would a Socialist (bordering really close on Marxism) do to fight the Judicial Branch?
VIDEO: Jenna Lee Interviewing about SCOTUS-Obama dispute
JRH 4/4/12
***************************
Let’s Help Geller Beat Lawfare
John R. Houk
© July 22, 2011
Remember how Rifqa Bary’s purist Muslim (i.e. Radical Islamic) parents tried to force their 16 year old daughter home after she fled for her life to Florida? Rifqa had converted to Christianity in Ohio and was found out by the family. In essence apostacizing in Islam according to the Quran and Hadith is reason enough for a death sentence. Rifqa feared she would be the victim of an honor killing so she departed with the help of a charismatic Church in Florida.
This is where things got a little thorny in the legal realm.
Once Mo Bary found out where her daughter was he proceeded with legal measures to extradite her from Florida back to Ohio proclaiming all the time that his precious baby-girl, (by now) 17 year old Rifqa had nothing to fear from her crazy – err – doting parents.
Pamela Geller continuously kept Rifqa in the news with her blogging efforts. Geller is a renowned anti-jihadist and anti-Islamist blogger. Geller receives vitriol from Leftists and Muslim apologists much like Ann Coulter does with her anti-Left Conservative humor. Geller is a hero by showing no fear to the violence and legal jihad that flows toward people who take a stand against the evil portions of the Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sharia Law.
Rifqa stuck to her guns and claimed her father had accosted her prior to fleeing to Florida. One thing Rifqa feared was if she was returned to her parents that they would ship off to Sri Lanka. The Bary’s were legal resident aliens. If Rifqa was sent back to Sri Lanka she felt the honor killing would be carried out there.
Rifqa managed to stay free from her Parents in Ohio by being remanded to juvenile detention until a Judge could decide her fate. The stall tactic worked for as soon as Rifqa turned 18 she applied for her own resident status which was granted. Wisely Rifqa Bary has drifted from the public eye to continue to evade the threat of an honor killing.
So why do I rehash this legal victory for Rifqa Bary?
Bary’s lawyer in Ohio sued Pamela Geller for her part in keeping Rifqa free. Attorney Omar Tarazi is claiming defamation. Tarazi is taking the stand that his connections with CAIR does not he has a connection with Islamic terrorists. The suit against Geller is for 10 MILLION bucks.
Here is a PayPal method via email to aid Pamela Geller
Pamela Geller and is becoming a victim of Legal Jihad or what call Lawfare. The lawyer(s) handling the Bary’s side has had connections to CAIR. CAIR is the certified unindicted co-defendant from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case in which key HLF people were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas the Islamic terrorist organization representing the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (Gazastan-Hamastan).
As pointed out by Julia Gorin writing for Political Mavens: Are we going to allow Geller to fight this legal battle alone? Dear God in Heaven I pray not! Geller has a pro-bono lawyer; nonetheless legal costs arise and the money has to come from somewhere. If you are one wishing to take a stand against Islamic Lawfare you have to truly consider donating some dough to Geller’s Defense to overcome her being buried by moneyed lawyers that will keep legal motions going to bankrupt Geller and her lawyer with legal fees perhaps without even losing the case to the Bary family.
JRH 7/22/11 (Hat Tip: Grendel Report)
Makes Schools Better or Allow Transfers for those Who CARE
John R. Houk
© February 2011
In most States across the nation it is the law that your children must go to Public School within the system in the School District in which you and your family reside. If you reside in a School District in which a partial amount of the schools or the entire District sucks academically, you have few options for your children.
If you are a person of means or a working Joe American willing to make sacrifices to provide your child or children with a better education you can shop for a private school. In a lot of cases Joe American cannot afford private schooling even if the school makes an effort to be affordable for working class Americans like some religious affiliated schools attempt to do.
Another option is for a Charter School which is a Private School that takes Public School vouchers for tuition. If a Charter School exists within driving distance your child has to cross the hurdle of being qualified. If the qualification hurdle is achieved then your child/children get placed on ye old waiting list.
Another option is you can root up your family and leave a house you possibly own and move to a better School District where a house payment may be unaffordable or the rent is too high.
There are probably other legal options to pursue, but the above options came to me off hand. One option that many parents take is to fudge on their residence in registering their child/children in a better school within their School District or in a nearby School District.
Oops! What happens if you get caught fudging on your residence requirements to get your kids in a better school?
This is what happened to Kelley Williams-Bolar for getting caught trying to better her children’s education:
She was convicted of falsifying records by claiming that she lived in her father’s home. Her father lives and pays taxes in the district of the better school. Williams-Bolar spend ten days in jail, received three years probation, ordered to perform community service and was fined $30,000. (WAPC - February 1st, 2011)
I can you believe this was the penalty for a victimless crime of – GASP! – extricating her children from a School District providing a derelict education to another School District that would educate her children?
I find it unbelievable that the MSM has not jumped on this as a story that everyone should know about! I mean a $30, 000 fine sounds a bit exorbitant to me, how about you?
JRH 2/2/11
Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law
John R. Houk
© November 7, 2010
On November 2, 2010 the State of Oklahoma passed anti-Sharia Law State Question 755 with an overwhelming 70% approval rating. SQ 755 prohibits State Courts to utilize Islamic Sharia Law as a precedent for any legal decisions in Oklahoma. This may seem frivolous as in the myth of Separation of Church and State; however the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided make this an infringement of Religious Freedom issue.
Frankly there are aspects of Islam which need to be infringed upon. Really the religious aspect of Islam is absolutely a religion that should be protected by Constitutional Law; however there is a Political Islamic part of the religion that must be prohibited at all costs not only in Oklahoma but in ALL of America. You see, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam’s religious theology and political ideology are interwoven in that religion. Religion and politics are so interwoven in Islam that the legal affairs of a Muslims life are as intrinsic to worship as are the religious practice of worship. In Muslim dominated nations Sharia Law is more than the basis for the rule of law it is encoded into the frame work defining rights and punishment theo-politically in political society and the affairs of government. If I should hazard a guess, the intrinsic nature of both theology and politics in Islam is a major reason that medieval restrictions on civil rights and in adjudicating criminal punish for crimes is harsh beyond the comprehension of possibility of Westerners.
A classic example of theo-politics in Islam is marriage. Islam validates the right of a husband to punish his wife (or wives) for disobedience in affairs of the household and in the marriage bed. In the latter that means a horny husband may force (i.e. rape) his wife to have sex with him. In Christianity the husband is the head of the household much to the chagrin of Secular Humanists and feminists. Although history has shown that Christian males have abused this Biblical headship to excuse wife beating and probable the rape of their wife, both are DEFINITLEY contrary to Biblical Scripture:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[a] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[b] (Emphasis added. Ephesians 5: 22-31 NKJV)
Check out the official ruling of Muslim Clerics (in Christianity this would be Ministers, Priests and theologians with Doctor of Theology credentials) on husbands raping their wife.
Samir Abu Hamza, who runs an Islamic centre in Melbourne, ridiculed Australian laws banning forced sex within marriage.
Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: ‘Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?’
He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands’ sexual demands.
The firebrand preacher also said a man was entitled to use ‘limited force’ as a last resort to punish a disobedient wife. (Daily Mail 1/22/09)
And here:
“In Islamic Sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape,” The Independent quoted cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed as saying.
Men accused of raping their wives should not be prosecuted as “sex is part of marriage”, said Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. He made the comments to the blog The Samosa — and reiterated them to the The Independent.
Sayeed told the website: “Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage.
“Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.”
British law makes rape within marriage illegal.
Sayeed also suggested that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police.
“Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives… have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.”
Asked how men found to have raped their wives were to be punished, he said: “He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.” (Deccan Herald 10/14/10)
North American and European Clerics have decided that marital rape is not rape because there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. My fellow Oklahomans and Americans these Islamic Clerics are representative of what Muslim apologists would deem the leaders of Moderate Islam in the West:
Islamic Cleric residing in the UK – Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed – representing Britain’s Islamic Sharia Council:
Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”
In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.
Sayeed asserts the Islamic Sharia Council bona fides:
No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.
The point being made by Sayeed is that the Islamic Sharia Council ruling does not represent Radical Islam (aka Salafi, Wahhabi and/or Deobandi). Rather the Islamic Schools of thought are diverse and therefore is representative of mainstream (Moderate) Islam.
The representative of Moderate Islam in North America made sure that their moderate brethren in Europe were superior to North American Moderate Muslims. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America also assert that there is no such thing as marital rape by the mere virtue of Allah establishing the superiority males over females; hence husbands over wives. It is the duty of a wife to provide sex at any time the male requires it; thus there is no rape in Islam:
In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:
For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable. (Emphasis is mine, ibid.)
Marital rape is just one of a multitude of Islamic permitted violence encoded in theo-political Islam. You would think in America that jurisprudence would be wise enough to recognize that the political intrinsic nature of Islam is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the evolving validity of human civil rights which are distributed equally to both male and female genders in the United States. Oklahoma’s SQ 755 passed by over 70% of Oklahoma voters who recognized that Sharia Law CANNOT allow its tentacles of repression to begin wrapping itself within the American rule of law as many European nations have allowed to happen.
If you think that a Judge in America would not fall for Sharia Law being utilized as a precedent in American criminal or civil law need to examine a recent ruling by a New Jersey Judge:
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).
And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time. (Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch 7/24/10)
Since the political aspects of Islam as encoded in Sharia Law are as intrinsic as Islam’s theological worship, it is not surprising that Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR has filed a law suit against the State of Oklahoma. SQ 755 thus is indeed a restriction of the religious practice of Islam because Oklahoma Law now has made it the rule of law that the medieval barbarism of Sharia cannot be accepted as legal precedence in Oklahoma State Courts. BUT I say if any religion’s intrinsic faith is to overturn the Rights of U.S. Constitution, that religion’s political aspects should be made illegal to uphold the Constitution. The irony is CAIR Oklahoma will attempt to shoot down SQ 755 by using the very Constitution that Sharia Law abrogates.
Check out this email sent by ACT for America bringing public notification of CAIR’s intentions against the U.S. Constitution.
JRH 11/7/10
*******************************
CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban
Sent by: ACT for America
Sent: 11/5/2010 1:21 PM
CAIR’s real agenda revealed:
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”
Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998
As the National Journal story reports below, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed suit to block implementation of State Question 755, known as the “Save Our State” amendment.
SQ 755 prohibits Oklahoma courts from using sharia law when judging cases. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters, garnering over 70% support.
ACT! for America played a key role in educating the voters about SQ 755, including two weeks of statewide radio advertising, 600,000 automated phone calls with a message recorded by former CIA director James Woolsey, editorials and letters to the editor, and radio interviews.
Prior to the vote CAIR’s Oklahoma director had argued SQ 755 was unnecessary because there was no chance sharia was coming to Oklahoma.
The CAIR lawsuit now confirms what CAIR leaders have said in the past—CAIR’s real agenda is the importation of sharia law to America.
Consider Omar Ahmad’s quote above. What is he actually saying? That sharia law should govern America.
Consider this 1993 quote from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
What is Hooper saying? That sharia law should govern America.
Not surprisingly, in recent years CAIR has been quiet about this agenda, but now that agenda has been smoked out by SQ 755, a measure which is not discriminatory nor inhibits the practice of religious Islam, but protects non-Muslims and Muslims alike from the tyranny of sharia law.
++++++++++++++++++++
Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma Over Sharia Amendment
By Althea Fung
November 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.
A Muslim advocacy group is suing to stop a measure approved by Oklahoma voters on Tuesday that would ban judges in the state from considering Islamic law in court proceedings.
About 70 percent of voters approved State Question 755, which says “the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”
Muneer Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Oklahoma chapter, filed the suit in U.S. District Court to block officials from certifying the measure. Awad told the Wall Street Journal the measure violates the First Amendment right to practice religion without government intervention.
CAIR legal adviser Gadeir Abbas said SQ755 was “designed to stigmatize Muslims, to turn the Constitution of Oklahoma into a vehicle for oppressing a minority that is currently unpopular.”
The “Save Our State Amendment” was proposed by Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who said the amendment isn’t about persecuting Muslims but keeping the Oklahoma judiciary system from “sliding down a slippery slope.”
Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who worked to get the amendment passed, said on Fox and Friends this morning that it’s about not allowing criminals to use religious code to circumvent the system when they’re “prosecuted for beating or assaulting their wives or daughters.”
“What we really need to do is make sure people can’t void the impact of criminal law by citing their religious beliefs,” he said.
In New Jersey, a judge declined to place a restraining order on a Moroccan man who forced his wife to have sex. The ruling was later overturned.
A hearing is set for Monday.
_____________________________
Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law
John R. Houk
© November 7, 2010
_____________________________
CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
