Child Welfare Takes Back Seat to Judicial Activism

Arkansas recently passed a measure prohibiting unmarried adoptions by a healthy margin: 56.9%. The measured banned adoptions by both homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples. The measure is a good step in placing the well-being of children ahead of the selfishness of grownups who don't know how to act grown-up (i.e. put the needs of others--specifically children--ahead of themselves).

Florida, on the other hand, is taking a step backwards. Their Supreme Court wants to reward those who even refuse to engage in natural sex with custody of developing, impressionable children.

Judicial activism has once again put the self-centered desires of homosexual activists ahead of the welfare of children, with the activist court finding "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting."

Homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and promiscuity--even among homosexual couples who make the claim of "monogamy." Such environments are not suitable for children.

What's more, placing a child in a homosexual home automatically deprives the child of either a mother or a father. Children need both a mother and father to have a good chance of growing up health and well-adjusted. Homosexual homes by default rob them of this. It also sends the detrimental message to the child that one or the other sex is unnecessary or undesirable.

The needs of children and the priority placed on their healthy upbringing and development used to come first. Today's demented society, however, places politically correct affirmation of adults ahead of the child's needs.

In addition to protecting human life, protecting children is one of the most important duties of any government. No other segment of society is more vulnerable to multiple avenues of harm, and no other segment of society is less able to defend themselves from harm.

Such hostility toward healthy families and toward children--especially on the part of the government charged with their protection--is reprehensible.

eHarmony Caves to Homosexual Intimidation

How sad that yet another company has caved in to the intimidation of homosexual activists.

What's worse, the founder of this one--eHarmony.com--claims to be a Christian. Incidentally, I have no reason to believe Neil Clark Warren isn't a Christian...other than this compromise with evil. Anyone can make a mistake and compromise; I've unfortunately done so, and so have many others. But such a BIG compromise on such a BIG issue...

WorldNetDaily reports that homosexual activists filed a lawsuit against eHarmony.com for "discrimination" because the company wouldn't attempt to partner a homosexual with another homosexual.

If homosexual activists had a fraction of the "tolerance" they demand from others, they would leave this private business alone to operate as it chooses. But, as usual, that is totally insufficient for homosexual activists. The entire world must bend and bow to their will and totally accommodate their immoral and unhealthy lifestyle.

And rather than fight this immoral and unreasonable demand, eHarmony.com has caved in. In capitulating, they have agreed to match homosexuals (facilitating an immoral relationship), cough up $55,000, provide the suing homosexual with one year of free service, and provide free 6-month memberships to the first 10,000 homosexuals who register.

And since eHarmony admits up front that their goal is to help create relationships that culminate in marriage, then they must by default be participating in the ongoing attack on marriage by homosexual activists who seek to counterfeit marriage.

How low this once-honorable company has fallen. It has surrendered its principles and embraced an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice. And as an avowed Christian, Warren has brought dishonor and discredit on Christ himself.

What's more, I'm certain that homosexual activists are rejoicing at having intimidated yet another business into subservience to their agenda.

Consequences of Bad Judicial Appointments

Barack Obama has made it clear he would ignore qualifications and go for judges who would support his liberal agenda, regardless of whether they go against the Constitution. In fact, almost all liberal agenda items go against the Constitution.

We need judges who will interpret law--not make law--and who will respect and uphold our Constitution as the highest law of the land...the standard to which all other laws must be held.

The Despotism of the Judiciary

American Minute from William J. Federer

The U.S. Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas as a Justice on the Supreme Court on OCTOBER 15, 1991.

When questioned by Senator Thurmond on judicial activism during the hearings, Clarence Thomas stated: "The role of a judge is a limited one. It is to...interpret the Constitution, where called upon, but at no point to impose his or her will or...opinion in that process."

On OCTOBER 15, 1788, James Madison warned: "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper."

Jefferson wrote September 11, 1804: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional...not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive...would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Abraham Lincoln stated March 4, 1861: "If the policy of the Government upon vital questions...is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

Brides and Grooms Make a Comeback in California

We recently learned that in addition to California's efforts to rewrite nature, marriage and family, they were also banishing brides and grooms from the official documents of that state.

The terms "bride" and "groom" were sanitized from marriage forms by the social revisionists who overrode the will of the people of California and magically declared the "right" for homosexual couples to call themselves "married."

However, OneNewsNow reports state officials are relenting and bringing back "bride" and "groom" to state forms.

In a notice posted on its Web site, the California Department of Public Health says it is making the change because many couples still wanted the option of identifying themselves in traditional terms.

When same-sex marriage became legal in the state on June 16, the health department issued new gender-neutral marriage forms with the words "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.

Hopefully the people of California will be able to override the revisionist judges who declared themselves a legislative body, and restore marriage to it's sacred status in California.

If voters approve next month, they will go beyond the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) they passed in 2000 and enshrine the definition of marriage in the state constitution, theoretically putting marriage beyond the reach of activist judges.

Missouri: Where Stealing Babies Seems to be the Trend

by Carrie K. Hutchens

One would think that the Stocklaufer case would put the system on notice that people are actually taking note of what the Missouri courts and DFS (Division of Family Services) are doing with regard to the children of, and within, their state. Apparently not though! If there was ever a MEMO -- it must have gotten lost within the system. After all, it certainly didn't get to some case workers that went above and beyond wrong in the actions taken against still another Missouri family.

A foster child was involved in inappropriate behavior. The foster parent made notification to the proper authorities (as is the rule) only to then become the one blamed. Excuse me?

It didn't end there...

The DFS, didn't just take away the one child, they came into the home and took away other babies that were also supposed to be adopted by this family. Their excuse? That the family -- not they -- were neglectful. After all, the family should have somehow known the inappropriate incident was a possibility, and because they didn't (from lack of information provided by DFS) they were neglectful and therefore not worthy to foster or adopt the babies, right?

What is wrong with this picture? Too much, I would think!

The foster parent makes the call, yet is thereafter treated as though someone called in on them? Where is the ability to process logic? Isn't that a requirement with these state jobs, especially the ones involving the well-being of children? If not -- it should be!

Maybe Missouri needs to review it's social workers and it's rules, prior to wrongfully destroying families! Just a thought!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Related article:

Missouri's "Too Fat to Adopt Man" Faces Losing More Than Weight

Calif. Court Okays Homeschooling...For Now

The 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles California today ruled today that homeschooling is permissible in California, laying to rest a question that was opened back in February when a California court declared it a crime for parents without credentials to teach their children.

The juvenile court case that spawned the homeschooling decision was dismissed last month, but the larger issue of the legality of homeschooling wasn't dealt with until the ruling today.

WorldNetDaily indicates the judges left a back door for opponents of homeschooling to threaten homeschooling families, but for now the matter has been decided.

The opinion said the judges were not deciding whether homeschool should be allowed. "That job is for the Legislature," they said.

"Homeschooling was initially expressly permitted in California, when the compulsory education law was enacted in 1903," the court said. "In 1929, however, homeschool was amended out of the law, and children who were not educated in public or private schools could be taught privately only by a credentialed tutor."

However, since then, "subsequent developments in the law call this conclusion into question. Although the Legislature did not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit homeschooling, more recent enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition that homeschooling is taking place in California, with homeschools allowed as private schools," the court ruling said.

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools. Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of homeschooling, by exempting homeschools from requirements otherwise applicable to private schools."

The court said, "it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature's apparent acceptance of the proposition that homeschools are permissible in California when conducted as a private school."

Many in the education establishment oppose homeschooling for a number of reasons, and are eager to see it eliminated.

Homeschooling diminishes the number of students enrolled in public schools, which in turn diminishes the amount of taxpayer funds schools receive.

Homeschoolers usually out-perform their public school counterparts, which makes the education establishment look bad. After all, the public education system spends several times as much per student than the homeschooler, yet usually under-performs homeschoolers.

And in California, especially, where the education establishment has a radical social engineering re-education agenda that includes undermining the family and promotion of homosexuality, homeschooled children are falling outside their sphere of indoctrination.

This is good news for today. But unless the California legislature acts definitively to protect homeschoolers, the "Brave New Worlders" will be back another day.

Judge: Mt. Soledad Cross Can Remain

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 31 2008 09:03 PM EDT

A giant cross on top of San Diego's Mount Soledad that memorializes war veterans does not violate the separation of Church and State, a federal judge has ruled.

The 29-foot cross was erected by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s sought to remove the cross. The plaintiff was atheist war veteran Philip Paulson, who argued that the cross was a religious symbol and that its display on public land was unconstitutional.

The decision handed down Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns resolved the 20-year legal controversy, which has been visited by both the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress.

In his 36-page opinion, Burns ruled that the memorial cross held more secular value in its message to honor war veterans than religious significance.

"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice," Burns wrote in his decision. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."

The original cross was erected in 1913 but replaced over the years when damaged. The current concrete cross is the centerpiece of Mt. Soledad Veteran Memorial, surrounded by six concentric walls of granite plaques honoring war veterans.

Supporters of the monument had fought for the famed cross to be recognized for its historic significance. But in May 2006 a federal judge ruled in favor of the cross's removal and imposed a $5,000 fine for each day the monument remained standing after a 90-day deadline. The Supreme Court blocked the ruling, however, allowing Congress time to transfer the cross to Federal ownership under a law signed by President Bush in August.

In his decision Tuesday, Burns noted that the cross is also displayed "along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message."

William Kellogg, president of the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, told the Union-Tribune of San Diego he was pleased with the judge's ruling.

“That makes me feel terrific because that truly is what it's all about, honoring veterans,” Kellogg said. “Our mission has been to communicate that to the public for so many years, so I think the language there is very appropriate.”

The ACLU said they may appeal the decision.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

A Return to Enumerated Powers

The Founders of the United States saw the danger of unrestrained government and worked very hard to limit the power and scope of government.

For instance, they divided the authority and responsibility of different functions of government into three main areas: executive, legislative and judicial. They established the doctrine of separation of powers, which meant that these three branches of government would not only have different scopes of operation, but that they would overlap as little as possible. The founders also established a system of federalism in which the central or federal government would have specific powers, with everything else retained by the individual states.

Perhaps the key thread which wove together this tapestry of limited government was the doctrine of enumerated powers which is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

The enumerated powers of the federal government are a list of things the federal government can do...and no more. In other words, by the Constitution, our federal government can only exercise powers which are explicitly granted to it by the Constitution--the governing document of our government.

For most of our history, these doctrines and constitutional limitations served us well. They kept the federal government small and in check, limiting the amount of control it could have over people and private enterprise, thus maintaining the greatest amount of freedom possible.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, had a vision of central authority for the United States government--and those enumerated powers of the Constitution stood in his way. But during his long tenure as president, during the Great Depression and World War II, he had the opportunity to appoint eight Supreme Court judges--judges who saw things FDR’s way, whether that was the Constitution's way or not.

The result was a massive expansion of federal power. Programs that had no constitutional authority (in fact, many were contrary to the limits of the Constitution) were passed through congress, signed into law by FDR, and when the constitutional challenges came, FDR's court thwarted them.

Since then, to greater and lesser degrees, many presidents promoted and pretty much every congress has passed the laws it saw fit, sometimes without any regard whatsoever to their constitutionality, and complicit judges have continued to hold a boot on the neck of the Constitution.

From the amount of legislation that comes out of congress today, it seems clear that most congressmen don't give the slightest thought as to whether a given bill fits within the enumerated powers.

This reckless doctrine of legislation by whim has produced a bloated government with a $3 trillion budget, an incomprehensible tax code, an impossible regulatory maze, and an egregious loss of economic and personal freedom.

If we are to remain a free people and retain a strong economy for much longer, this contemptuous attitude from Congress must stop.

Fortunately, there are some in Congress who understand their duty under the Constitution, and are working to uphold it.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Representative John Shadegg (R–AZ) has introduced and re-introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) since 1995. He was recently joined in sponsorship of this legislation by Senator Tom Coburn (R–OK) with S 3159.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require all legislation introduced in Congress to "contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority" empowering Congress to enact it.

Knowing some congressmen’s determination to bribe the voters with their own money, it is likely that many would find a way to get around the Enumerated Powers Act. But it would provide certain things which could mitigate the unconstitutional bills introduced and supported by many in congress.

First, it would provide the opportunity for an opponent to raise a point of order if constitutional muster was in question.

It would also resurrect the United States Constitution as a consideration in the legislative process, something that never enters the mind of too many congressmen today. Who knows—maybe actually thinking about the Constitution when considering hundreds of bills each year might actually cause the importance of our governing document to eventually sink in a little.

If they still chose to ignore or override constitutional considerations, this would provide “fodder”—as the Heritage piece calls it—for others to talk about constitutional authority, and perhaps to hold over the heads of elected officials who run roughshod over the Constitution.

Some will certainly try to use one of the most common current abuses of constitutional limitations—the Commerce Clause—but the Enumerated Powers Act could shed light on the process to expose this abuse.

The Founders were pretty clear, not only in the Constitution they created but in their personal writings and statements, that ours was to be a limited government.

One constitutional clause the Founders feared might be abused was the “General Welfare Clause.” But they made it plain that this clause was not to be used as a blank check to introduce what the Constitution otherwise contained no authority for.

For instance:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

Logically, the same caution and intent should apply to the Commerce Clause as applies to the General Welfare Clause.

As things stand right now, there is almost no constitutional light shed on the legislative process in Congress. The Enumerated Powers Act would shine a fresh light on the dirty deeds done in the dark, and would send some of the cockroaches scurrying for political cover. It would reduce the constitutional disdain of our congress, even if it didn’t stop it completely.

The Constitution is the governing document of our government, and it is the highest law of our land; all other laws are measured by it. It helps guard and defends the freedom of our society and us as individuals.

If we care about our freedom and the freedom of our posterity, we will consider it our duty to support Rep. Shadegg and Senator Coburn, and the Enumerated Powers Act.

If we fail to do so, we will have ourselves first to blame as we watch our freedom and prosperity exponentially wither away.

Hyperion Refinery Opposition Dealt Legal Setback

From KELO, more sanity from the court system (will wonders never cease?).

Circuit Judge Steven Jensen has ruled that the group "Save Union County" has no legal standing in the court effort against the proposed Hyperion refinery near Elk Point.

Circuit Judge Steven Jensen said Save Union County cannot stay in the fray because it owns no land that would be affected by the proposed $10 billion Hyperion Resources refinery.

Ed Cable, who owns land about three miles away, was allowed to proceed with his opposition to a zoning change from agricultural to an industrial use.

I disagree with Cable, but at least he, unlike the radical environmentalist groups themselves, has justification to fight the effort legally. Even his concerns, however, must be grounded in the real world and not just "I don't like that."

Environmental extremist groups have gotten away with this kind of thing for too long. They interfere with projects that will benefit the entire country while hiding behind a do-gooder shield of environmental protection. In the end, their agenda has more to do with opposition to "Big Oil" and capitalism in general than it does concern over the plants and animals.

This Save Union County group is a local group, but they have the backing (or are the puppet of?) of the San Francisco National Refinery Reform Campaign.

Notice that everywhere Save Union County shows, up, The National Refinery Reform Campaign shows up to act as their mouthpiece. Coverage from Omaha.com, KELO, the Sioux City Journal, the Argus Leader and others illustrate this hand-in-hand "cooperation." This piece from the Global Community Monitor also lists the extremist Sierra Club is involved, as well.

If you check out the Refinery Reform Campaign website, apparently there isn't a good or acceptable refinery out there. The name of their group should more appropriately be "National Refinery Opposition Campaign.

From KELO, Denny Larson with the Refinery Reform Campaign claims they would support a "green" refinery, which is what Hyperion says the Elk Point facility will be.

Larson says, "A green refinery is great, we would support that, but it starts with the proper location, and this doesn't appear to be the proper location for this type of project."

Yet you see at Omaha.com that in the eyes of this extremist group, there is no such animal:

"A refinery that processes crude oil cannot be green. It can be greener," he said. "They emit millions of pounds of air pollutants that can pose a serious risk to human health and the environment, and impair the quality of life of nearby communities."

He's talking out of one side of his mouth over here, and the other side over there. A reasonable person would be for a facility that is as clean as possible, so Larson wants to appear "reasonable." Yet he slipped in the Omaha.com quote and revealed that there is no refinery he would support.

They also claim, "Oh, it's just the wrong location." What would be the right location? If we tried to put it in a more industrial area, the objection would surely be: "Oh, that would be too much concentration in an already over-industrialized area."

Nothing will please environmental extremists except successfully impeding progress.

Society's luxury of entertaining these extremists is over. Our $4.00 a gallon gasoline is finally starting to make energy the priority it always should have been.

It's time to push these anti-capitalist extremists out of the way and get about the business of bringing America's energy policy into the 21st Century.

California High Court Dismissed Marriage Vote Challenge

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 17 2008 09:25 AM EDT

The California Supreme Court unanimously dismissed efforts to throw the California Marriage Protection Act off of the November ballot Wednesday, giving Californians the chance to consider a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

The court did not give a reason for deciding not to accept the case, which gay “marriage” supporters placed before them last month in a bid to prohibit the public from having the opportunity to vote on the issue this fall.

The “huge victory” in the fight to protect marriage was lauded by conservatives and pro-family activists in California and throughout the nation.

"This was a frivolous lawsuit. It was a desperate attempt to try to keep the voter initiative off the ballot in November," said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the measure's sponsors, according to The Associated Press.

"The Court’s dismissal sends a strong message that Proposition 8 continues to have the law on its side,” expressed Ron Prentice, chairman of the Protect Marriage initiative, in a released statement. “Time and time again, the opponents have attempted to circumvent the democratic process, but the fact remains that the people of California have a right to vote on this issue."

In 2000, more than 61 percent of California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 22, which upheld the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. This past May, however, the California Supreme Court overthrew the vote of the people, ruling 4-3 to strike down Proposition 22 and related California laws and to allow same-sex couples to “marry.”

In response, pro-family activists have been mobilizing California voters to support Proposition 22, which qualified for the November ballot two weeks after the California High Court’s infamous decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” in the state.

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the California Supreme Court ruling, leaving Massachusetts once again as the only state that legalizes same-sex “marriage.”

Since 2004, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court made its ruling to recognize gay “marriage,” 26 states have passed a constitutional ban on the practice, while over a dozen others have passed laws limiting or outlawing it.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

South Dakota Informed Consent Injunction Lifted

A victory for pro-lifers today as word comes from KOTA that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision to

block enforcement of a South Dakota law that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life.

The case now goes back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City for further hearing.

The law was actually passed in 2005 and required abortionists to inform women seeking an abortion that "abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Planned Parenthood argues that the law, intended to provide more medical information to women seeking abortions, violates the free speech rights of abortionists by forcing them to tell patients about this.

Today's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds can be read here.

The decision lifts the injunction from enforcement of the law:

We conclude that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based on Planned Parenthood’s claim that the Act violates physicians’ First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) allied attorney Harold Cassidy represented state crisis pregnancy centers in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law.

In a press release from the ADF today, ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said, “A woman’s life is worth more than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies. We’re pleased the court’s decision today will make sure women have access to the information they need and deserve.”

Stacy Wollman, executive director for Black Hills Crisis Pregnancy Center, was pleased with the decision. "Women deserve to be told the truth. The South Dakota legislature recognized this fact three years ago, and today, so did the court. It is a great day for women throughout South Dakota, including the women we see in Rapid City."

Kimberly Martinez of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls said, "Thanks to today's decision by the court, women are now going to be given the truth by abortion providers, who have been fighting to avoid doing so for years."

Medical authorities are already required to tell patients all sorts of things for all sorts of procedures; why is this any different? Could it be because the woman might come face to face with the reality that she is considering ending the life of her child?

In almost every medical case, more information is seen as positive. Why would more information about the ramifications of a woman's abortion be a bad thing? Could it be that she might realize she'd be ending the life of her unborn child--an irrevocable act--and that would mean less abortion revenue for Planned Parenthood?

What an upside-down world we live in where some medical authorities promote ignorance over information, and some judges help them promote ignorance.

Fortunately common sense has carried the day over political agenda this time. We'll see if it continues as this case goes back to court in Rapid City.

Contrasting McCain and Obama on the Courts

CNS News has an insightful article which clearly points out the difference in judicial philosophy between John McCain and Barack Obama.

Here is McCain's approach:

McCain wants to appoint judges who hold a constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, according to his campaign's Web site.

"When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law," McCain said. "The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility."

Here is Obama's view:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

We are a nation of laws, not feeling or empathy. Feelings are fleeting; they can change from one day to the next, and even from one moment to the next. They can be utterly irrational, and we often end up with terrible regret after acting on our feelings. Emotions are usually self-centered with little regard for the welfare of others, and even less for the health of a society.

Law provides a solid foundation. It can be changed through the republican process when necessary, but that process takes time and is sifted through many hands and many minds. Our process of representative democracy provides more stability and helps weed out the fleeting passions which can lead us down the wrong path.

Any sane, intelligent person understands that you don't build a civilization on feelings and empathy, but on principle and law.

The Bible says the human heart is deceitful and wicked above all things. I don't think we want to base justice on something deceitful and wicked.

This emotionalism approach is where Obama, and liberalism in general, goes horribly wrong.

Pro-Family Groups: Judge Should Be Removed From Obscenity Trial

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 13 2008 02:37 PM ET

In one of the nation’s most high profile cases involving the prosecution of obscenity, pro-family groups and other commentators believed that they had a solid case against a Los Angeles advertizing agency owner who produced and sold thousands of what one attorney described as “the most extreme [pornographic videos] ever been put on trial.”

That is, until the case was temporarily suspended this week after the presiding judge was revealed to have a mountain of obscene pornographic videos on his personal web page.

Although state prosecutors spoke of a significant “conflict of interest” as they requested a 48-hour stay, pro-family groups have called for nothing less than the removal of Ninth Circuit Court Chief Justice Alex Kozinski from the case.

“As of this morning, he [has] yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

“[Americans], like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation,” the group added.

But perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the recent case, according to pro-family groups, is Kozinki’s apparent indifference to the controversy of having a web page containing obscene pornographic images.

"Is it prurient?" Kozinski asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, which revealed the existence of the images and videos on the judge’s Web site. "I don't know what to tell you... It's part of life. This is a funny joke.”

A joke, however, that few Americans find funny, the FRC said.

The case, which involves Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination, could prove challenging for prosecutors to effectively put on trial.

Kozinski called Thursday for an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct and said he would fully cooperate in any investigation, according to The Associated Press . He has acknowledged the sexual content on his personal Web site and claimed the images were not obscene. The California judge, however, also told the legal Web site abovethelaw.com that he doesn’t remember “putting some of that stuff” there.

"The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is. It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, as reported by AP.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that work cannot be considered obscene if it is deemed to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The case will be relegated to a temporary pause until prosecutors decide how to further proceed.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

'Persons' Can Overturn Roe v Wade

OneNewsNow says bills defining unborn human beings as "persons" have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate.

The "Life at Conception Act" declares the unborn to be persons under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, addressing the question that Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) says the Supreme Court left unresolved in 1973 -- and that only Congress can use to meet the conditions under which the high court said its conclusions supporting legal abortion can be reversed.

"Roe versus Wade itself said that if personhood is established, then Ms. Roe's position collapsed," Wicker points out. "In other words, if the fetus is a human life, then that is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment."

Ms. Roe her self (Norma McCorvey) actually collapsed her own position...yet abortion remains the law of the land by judicial fiat.

McCorvey, who has become a Christian since the 1973 decision, has admitted she lied about being raped, and never even had the abortion that Roe v. Wade petitioned for; she gave her daughter up for adoption.

She has also since petitioned to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, but was denied.

The new bills have been cosponsored by such notable figures as Rep. Duncan "Should Have Been the GOP Presidential Nominee" Hunter and Senator Sam "Wouldn't Have Been a Bad Choice Either" Brownback.

Since the unborn child has from conception DNA unique from the mother's (meaning the child is not a part of the mother, but is a separate, distinct person) and already has a beating heart by the time many women know they're pregnant, it's no leap to conclude that the unborn child is indeed a person--entitled to the most basic of all rights: the right to life.

Homosexuals Unfettered by Law

Apparently the trend of not allowing silly things like law and Constitution to stop liberal agendas is growing.

From WorldNetDaily, not only did the mayor of Seattle (ostensibly sworn to uphold the law) break the law in granting benefits to homosexual couples, the Washington Supreme Court is apparently okay with that since they declined to review a lower court's decision allowing the mayor to break the law.

The state's Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court, requires that the state not recognize same-sex marriages from outside the state.

However, the mayor of Seattle issued an executive order in direct contradiction of the state law, instructing all city departments to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions now, including California, for the purposes of employee benefits.

WorldNetDaily also reports that Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick has appointed a lesbian activist as associate justice of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court--without legal authority to do so. In addition to bad judgment (as a lesbian, Maureen Monks has turned her back on the creation and maintenance of the family as nature and nature's God intended--and she will now have authority over family court?), Governor Patrick has broken the law.

As the WND article points out, the law requires that judicial nominees receive 5 votes from the Massachusetts Governor's Council. Monks only received four--and it's not even clear whether those four are legal, since the law does not indicate that verbal votes may be counted.

The California Supreme Court recently decided to ignore the DOMA law of that state and create a "right" for homosexuals to get "married."

We were once a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you know where you stand. In a nation where laws are not only disregarded by the common people but by those in charge of UPHOLDING the law, there is really no way to tell from day to day whether you will retain your freedoms.

In this particular case, the disregard for the law is recognizing something as legitimate which will never truly be legitimate. However, the same disregard for law may result in serious damage to our freedoms and even the security of our persons and property.

Today you may be fine, tomorrow you're a criminal for doing the same thing. Today you were protected from mistreatment by another person, tomorrow they can harm you with impunity.

Legal Questions Abound Regarding Calif. Marriage Amendment

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jun. 09 2008 06:57 PM ET

As pro-family groups throughout California prepare and gather support for a state amendment to protect marriage, legal experts find themselves confronted with a series of complex legal questions.

“If the amendment passes, what will become of the thousands of gay couples throughout the state that were ‘married’ just months before?”

According to pro-family groups, nothing short of absolute chaos would ensue.

“The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of legal chaos,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, in a statement last week after the court refused to consider staying its gay “marriage” ruling until after the results of the November ballot.

“The court has ignored the will of the people and demonstrated no concern for the legal turmoil it is likely imposing upon the entire country,” he explained.

The belief that “legal chaos” would strike throughout California is not a view isolated among only pro-family lobbyists and gay “marriage” opponents. Most legal experts have admitted to being unsure about what the marriage amendment – which would nullify and overturn the state’s high court ruling on gay “marriage” – would really mean for the state’s legal system.

"If the November measure were to pass, we would be entering unprecedented territory," said David B. Cruz, constitutional law expert at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, according to The Washington Post.

"We have never seen a constitutional amendment like this in California that would take away rights that people had already exercised,” he added.

Legal experts say that the state’s legal system could undergo an immense burden if it were suddenly required to dissolve thousands of previously legal same-sex “marriages.” Couples with joint-insurance policies, signed contracts, or assets could become a legal nightmare for state officials to untangle, they argue.

But others say that the language of the measure doesn’t make clear whether gay couples who get “married” before the amendment is passed would have their “marriage” licenses revoked.

“It just means that people who didn't take advantage of that window can't get married until or unless that amendment was repealed down the road," explained law professor Vikram Amar of the University of California at Davis to the Washington Post.

Regardless of the legal implications of the amendment, however, pro-family groups are adamant that state residents will come out in droves this November to protect the sanctity of marriage.

“The people will decide in November,” explained. Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s School of Law, in a statement. “If any same-sex marriage licenses are issued before November, the passage of the constitutional amendment will make them invalid and invisible.”

Nationally, support for gay “marriage” has been mixed.

Although a Gallup Poll released last month revealed that only 40 percent of Americans “currently say marriage between same-sex couples should be legal,” a more recent, combined USA Today/Gallup poll released this week said that nearly 60 percent of Americans also “believed government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose.”

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Housing Crisis: Vacant and Wasted

by Carrie K. Hutchens

A few years back, I saw an enormous amount of upscale housing being built. My question was, "Where are all these people working?" Then I heard about the new fangled loans where one merely pays on the interest for so many years and I knew what was going on. I predicted then that there was going to be a major problem and it wasn't long before I was proven right.

And now?

I think we are headed towards still another major mistake that will merely complicate the original blunder and serve no good purpose.

Holding people accountable can get very complex when considering the housing mess and like crisis. After all, who is the most guilty? The consumer that came to believe the sales pitch (given by a professional) that he or she or they could afford the dream house or the professional who should have known better? Top that off with a bank or mortgage company willing to enter into the loan agreement and a consumer is given even more confidence that the deal is safe and their financial abilities and the economy is up to the challenge. What a shock it must have been when reality came rushing home a few years down the road and many found themselves without the original options and no alternative plans or finances to turn to.

One question is...

If experts didn't see the foreclosure epidemic on the horizon, how can average consumers be expected to have seen it?

There are people that carelessly enter into financial agreements, but there are also people who, in good faith, enter into agreements that turn out to be flawed. Agreements that rely upon outside sources and events that the person has no true control over, like job security, promotions and bonuses. Though perhaps due, the consumer cannot readily MAKE the right thing happen just because it was promised and earned. Life is funny that way.

Now, people are being foreclosed upon and here are all these houses that have no immediate buyers. Houses that are easy targets for vandalism and prone to early decay that seems to travel frequently with vacant homes. So what is the point? What is the benefit to any or all? Is there a benefit?

It is one thing to foreclose upon people who had no intent of honoring the agreement(s) set forth, however, what about those who were deceived by the professionals or hard hit because of the crisis they didn't create? How about the people who most likely would have been able to refinance as planned, if the housing boom hadn't imploded, which, I might add, was through no personal fault of their own? What about those people?

It seems to me that rather than leave those houses sitting idle to punish those who innocently got caught up in the housing movement (that appears to have been little more than a legalized scam), it would make more sense to figure out a plan to keep as many people in their homes as possible. It would make more sense for financial institutions to be bringing in some money, rather than no money on foreclosed houses. After all, how does the latter help the mortgage holders, people or the public (who will most likely pay indirectly)?

Get courts and lawyers involved and up goes the amount due. Put a judgment against people and what are the chances they will be able to borrow and if they can't borrow how are they supposed to pay back the amount in question? And while they are unable to borrow to pay the required amount, the interest and penalties keep growing and growing, and as the vicious circle goes -- because they can't pay -- they can't borrow -- so the penalties keep mounting and so does the hopelessness of the situation. Who, then, really benefits beyond lawyers, collection agencies and the like?

One additional irony to this crazy mess is that mortgage companies may get stuck with receiving pennies on the dollar, especially after paying court fees, collection fees, lawyers and collection agencies. Why are some of these companies so willing to pay such people and the collection costs involved, but often not as willing to work diligently to give the consumer the benefit of those same amounts? Why are they not willing, especially when doing so would give everyone a fresh slate to work on and chance for both to come out with a fair and honest result?

There may have been a day and time, between the depression and now, when the majority of people who failed to live up to their agreements did so through their own fault, but I don't believe that is the case today. Today, I think there are situations where the majority of fault in failed outcomes rests with big business and a system that fails to face it, muchless deal with it. A system that often fails to hold the big business as accountable as the individual. If the system is going to be involved at all, then it should be involved with "true" fairness to all.

It is one thing for people to mis-spend their money, or be otherwise careless in their financial dealings. It is quite another for them to be sold a bill of goods by experts and professionals that should have known better even before this whole housing fantasy (crisis) became a twinkle in someone's eye. And maybe... just maybe... those people that had the twinkle in the eye that turned out to be so blindingly wrong, ought to think about a better fix to the mess they created, than foreclosure that punishes the consumer (regardless of their degree of personal fault), and leaves so many houses vacant and wasted.

Vacant and wasted -- can our economy afford the price tag hanging on the housing crisis?


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Calif. Supreme Court Rejects Stay of Homosexual 'Marriage' Ruling

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 05 2008 04:52 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO – Pro-family groups and their case for the sanctity of marriage were dealt a blow Wednesday after the California Supreme Court declined to stay its May 15 ruling, which legalized gay “marriage.”

The court’s latest decision will allow same-sex couples to begin receiving “marriage” licenses as early as June 17.

Pro-family groups had hoped that the state’s high court would postpone handing out same-sex “marriage” licenses until after the results of a November voter referendum on the issue that would nullify the court’s ruling if it draws a majority vote.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), said it was “arrogant” for the court to allow county offices to hand out same-sex “marriage” licenses before allowing voters to decide on the issue.

"The voters are witnessing unprecedented judicial arrogance," said Thomasson in a statement.

But the most compelling argument made by pro-family groups was that allowing same sex couples to receive “marriage” licenses – only to see them nullified with a majority vote months later – would throw the state into chaos.

“The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of legal chaos,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com in a statement.

“The court has ignored the will of the people and demonstrated no concern for the legal turmoil it is likely imposing upon the entire country. The court’s decision is perhaps the worst case of American judicial activism in modern times. The refusal to wait for the people to decide by the constitutional process confirms that,” he added.

Although disappointed by the court’s refusal to stay its ruling, pro-family groups believe that support for an amendment to protect traditional marriage – which drew over 1 million signatures – continues to be strong.

“The battle over marriage is far from over and will not be decided by four judges,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s School of Law, in a statement.

“The people will decide in November. If any same-sex marriage licenses are issued before November, the passage of the constitutional amendment will make them invalid and invisible,” added Staver, who was among those who helped argue the case against gay “marriage.”

Nationally, support for gay “marriage” has been mixed.

Although a Gallup Poll released last month revealed that only 40 percent of Americans “currently say marriage between same-sex couples should be legal,” a more recent, combined USA Today/Gallup poll released this week said that nearly 60 percent of Americans also “believed government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose.”

Since 2004, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court made its ruling to recognize gay “marriage,” 27 states have passed a constitutional ban on the practice, while over a dozen others have passed laws limiting or outlawing it.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Calif. Supreme Court Refuses 4-3 to Stay Homosexual 'Marriage' Decision

By one vote, California Supreme Court ignores pleas of California voters and state attorneys general to prevent needless legal turmoil nationwide

Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 12:08 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations 480-444-0020

SAN FRANCISCO — The decision of the California Supreme Court Wednesday refusing to wait until after a vote in November on a proposed state marriage amendment to implement its May 15 marriage decision ignored the pleas of millions of California voters and attorneys general from 10 other states to prevent legal chaos, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund.

“The court has not only ignored the will of the people of California, it has imposed years of legal chaos quite possibly on the entire nation. Without exaggeration, this decision is the most egregious case of judicial activism in modern American history. By one vote, the court deafened its ears to millions of California voters and pleas from state attorneys general nationwide to avoid the potential of nationwide legal turmoil,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who argued before the court March 4.

Three of the justices wanted to grant the motion for rehearing filed by ADF attorneys May 22. Though the majority of the justices refused to prevent potential legal chaos, the court did agree to the portion of the motion requesting that the court officially note the status of the marriage amendment, which the California secretary of state certified for the November ballot Monday.

“Voters should take note now: same-sex couples who plan on obtaining ‘marriage’ licenses between now and November do so fully knowing that the amendment vote is going to happen; therefore, activists are simply attempting to play upon voter sympathy. These couples already have every right the state can provide, and those rights are unaffected by the decision. A desire to manipulate the democratic process and a total lack of concern for the ramifications are the only reasons a couple would not wait a few months for a vote on the amendment,” Lavy explained.

“The people of California will vote in November,” Lavy added. “The courts report to the people, not the other way around.”

A copy of the order from the California Supreme Court refusing to grant a stay of its marriage decision and granting the request for notice filed by ADF attorneys in the consolidated marriage cases, In re: Marriage Cases, which includes the lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, is available here.

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is available here.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.