Posts filed under 'Justice System'
Interesting concept, from Gay Patriot West:
Some would have McCain use the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military. But, as I said in this post that would be a bad idea. It might galvanize social conservatives but would do so “at the expense of independent voters” while antagonizing many rank-and-file Republicans.
The issue, as I’ve said then and repeated ad nauseum since I first founded a Log Cabin chapter in the late 1990s, is that most Americans are neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, but they are by and large, anti-anti-gay. They may not like what we do in the bedroom, may find it “icky,” may even disapprove of my public smooch this afternoon, but they pretty much want to leave people like us alone. And would wonder at politicians who dwell on the issue.
I’m delighted that my notion of most voters being anti-anti-gay is getting some attention. It earned me a reference last month in the Washington Times‘ blogotics column.
But, I hope it’s not just conservative columnists who are paying attention to this notion. GOP Convention planners would also do well to take heed. Should they dwell on gay issues in St. Paul, they’ll drown out the reform message which resonates with the Republican base as well as independent voters.
Sage advice to the GOP. The United States is, by and large, a live and let live nation. As long as you’re not doing it in the streets and/or dragging down property values, the attitude is “whatever floats your boat”. The problem as regards homosexuality in this nation is that some gay rights activists are attempting an end-run around the constitution by getting activist judges to enforce their particular ideas about how open homosexuality shall be treated in the public square. A gay man knocking on my door and asking me to sign a petition to put gay marriage on the ballot would receive a friendly reception, a signature and, ultimately, a “no” vote on election day. A few judges telling me and the rest of my fellow Nevadans that our votes don’t count and we’ve got gay marriage whether we will or no, that is an outrageous usurpation of the rights of the people.
Now, there are some people in the United States who have been convinced - or convinced themselves - that being gay is in and of itself a bad thing and should be actively supressed and, meanwhile, that the GOP should wage unremitting war not just on judicial usurpation but on the very concept that gay people should be tolerated. To those people, I say that they are in error and as they invariably claim to be fellow Christians, I direct them to scripture and pray they’ll listen to the Word of God on the subject of sin, forgiveness, mercy and whom is allowed to cast the first stone. I will have nothing to do with any effort I perceive as being a direct affront to the basic human rights that all gay people share with all people - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being foremost in this concern. With this all said, I will lay out some things I won’t retreat on:
1. Marriage must be defined in law as being for one man and one woman.
2. State-supported schools must provide no instruction which tends to hold that homosexual acts are morally equal to heterosexual acts.
3. All laws and regulations must carve out areas exemption for religious bodies from having to employ or service any person or group held to be in morally objectionable circumstances. Additionally, a person claiming to discriminate based on religious stricture should be given the benefit of the doubt in suits at law provided it can be demonstrated that his religious dogma is something long held and/or central to his faith.
Other than that, I’m pretty much ready for compromise and a generalised settlement - even if it requires a constitutional amendment clearly spelling out just where, what, when, why and how we’ll deal with the subject in the public square. Count me, then, as anti-anti-gay. I don’t want to war on homosexuality, nor cause any discomfort to my fellow Americans who are gay, some of whom are very good friends of mine. As regards my religious belief that homosexual sex is a sin - that is my belief, but I have no authority nor desire to impose it upon my fellows. Ultimately, such judgements of acts are up to God, who is a much better judge of character than I am - he will be able to separate out the thrill-seeking hedonist from the sincere believer in an incorrect view (and, of course, “sincere believer in an incorrect view” will certainly include myself, at various times and regarding various issues).
Peace is much desired - and such peace will include an end to the continual fights over social and moral issues - we on the right can certainly afford to step back a bit, while not retreating an inch from basic principle…and we can pray that those on the left will cease trying to usurp and tyrannically impose.
Tags: Christianity, gay marriage, homosexuality, John McCain
September 2nd, 2008
There’s really no other way to put this:
A quick reading of the measure that will go before San Francisco voters in November to decriminalize prostitution easily could leave you with the misimpression that the measure is an exercise in fairness that demands that prosecutors go after men who abuse prostitutes and implement policies “to reduce institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.” A careful reading of the initiative, “Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers,” however, shows a measure that shields child prostitution and traffickers of human beings.
“If I had just heard from the proponents, I would probably vote for it myself,” said the Rev. Glenda Hope, whose San Francisco Network Ministries helped found the Tenderloin AIDS Resource, in the mistaken belief the measure is meant “to protect women.” But as the executive director of SafeHouse, a residential center that helps women get off the streets, Hope knows too much.
…the San Francisco ballot measure completely ignores the prostitution of children. The measure simply states, “Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.” Astonishingly, there’s no exemption that encourages police to enforce the law for minors.
If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors.
And where does that leave Bay Area youth? “They want new and young,” Jasmine, a former teen prostitute from Oakland who now volunteers for the nonprofit SAGE Project, which fights sexual exploitation, explained to me.
Thus the tail end of the sexual revolution - a ballot measure to allow men (and it will be almost exclusively men) to legally procure boys and girls for sexual gratification. When you de-couple sex from marriage and child-rearing, this is precisely what you get as was predicted back in the 60’s when the concepts underlying the sexual revolution first gained a mainstream foothold. This is absolutely no surprise at all - its digusting, but not a surprise. The piece goes on to note that some are expecting the ballot measure to pass rather handily as San Francisco is a “sex-positive” city - meaning, presumptively, that there is so much selfishness and demand for personal gratification that San Francisco may very well cut itself entirley off from civlization and descend to a level of depravity untouched since the worst of Nero.
You see, back when it was first seriously proposed that we de-stigmatize pre- and extra-marital sex and all manner of sexual deviation those who opposed it weren’t just a bunch of squares with sexual hang-ups who just didn’t want anyone having fun. Not, it wasn’t like that at all - the concept was opposed because it was already known what would come of it. It was known - not guessed-at, not theorised over; known. This is because, waaaay back when, Christianity was (among other things, of course) the cure for a society which had allowed sexual licentiousness to descend to such a level that child-bearing and -rearing was considered a burden and personal sexual gratification trumped all, no matter how sterile and un-fulfilling it steadily became. Christianity knew this in 60, 560, 1060, 1560, 1960 and will continue to know it in 2060 - sex is a powerful thing, and unless carefully contained within proper limits this great gift becomes a taskmaster and a means of self-destruction.
And now San Francisco proposes to legalise the worst of it - because people want it and want it now and exactly how they want it and everyone else can go to Hell as far as they are concerned, San Francisco may do this horrible thing. And then we’ll await the inevitible lawsuit, claiming that the right to privacy means that not only San Francisco, but the whole nation must turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of youth. How it will come out will remain to be seen - unless, of course, it turns out there is some remaining level of human decency in San Francisco and this terrible, anti-human initiative is defeated.
UPDATE: And the Democrats endorse.
Tags: child abuse, Christianity, Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Wor, morality, San Francisco
August 17th, 2008
Parents of home-schooling get to retain their right to educate their children, but the decision is a bit odd, in my view:
Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote in the decision: “Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools.”
Judge Croskey noted that a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees indicated “a legislative approval of homeschooling,” the San Francisco Chronicle says.
He added that the 1953 decision applying compulsory education without exceptions has been overruled by real world changes.
“Clinging to such precedent,” he said, “would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.”
The court stated that homeschooling is not an absolute right and may be revoked when children are abused or neglected.
Judge Croskey also advised that California might need to increase its oversight of those educated in home schools, given what he said is “the state’s compelling interest in educating all of its children.”
The children of America are the children of the State? The State has a compelling interest in educating children? Whence comes either of these two absurd ideas? The children of America belong to their families, not to the State - and the State’s only compelling interest is to protect the lives, liberty and property of the citizens of the State. Whether a person is a PhD or illiterate is irrelevant as far as his standing before the State is concerned.
While the ruling protects the ability of parents in California to home-school their children, I look at it as a bit of damage control by liberal judges who realise they went too far - there was probably some fear that the right to home-school would be written into the California constitution or, worse, it would wind up in the federal courts and the US Supreme Court might find that parents have a right to dictate the education choices of their children - either outcome would be anethema to liberalism in general and the government school system in particular. The whole situation here just reeks of the false idea that we must subordinate ourselves to the State and our worth is determined by how useful we are to the State. I can see why some people feel there is a compelling interest in having all the children educated up to some particular standard - we have to compete, we have to grow our GDP, we must continually advance in the sciences! Which is all well and good, but I don’t see any right of the State to command such an outcome - certainly the State has no right to decide just what a child shall learn, and when.
As G K Chesterton pointed out long ago, even the most homeless street urchin is being educated - he might be getting an advanced degree in violence and vice, but educated he is becoming. Meanwhile, all educationist talk of drawing out of children what is inside of them is nonsense - if you have an organised school it will be either trying to shove in or draw out what it wants, which may or may not be what the child needs or has a natural aptitude for. It isn’t, then, so much a question of whether or not we want to educate our children or whether or not it is right or wrong for us to teach them what we wish, but it is entirely a question of who gets to decide what goes into or is drawn out of any particular child? Our ruling elites have it that, rather conveniently, the ruling elites know what is best for kids to learn - so off they all go to the one-size-fits-all public school system to be indoctrinated in whatever it is, at the moment, that the ruling elites feel kids should learn. Anyone who is not a member of this elite understands instantly that to think that the elites know what is best is a laughably stupid idea - and only someone who is an elite could be stupid enough - and ignorant enough of real world needs - to fall for such an idea.
In human affairs there is not and never will be perfection - not in this world; its just not possible. But taking one thing with another and allowing for the fact that some parents are woefully incompetant, it still is the reasonable and commonsense position that parents are more likely than anyone else to know what their kids need and are capable of. Given this, it stands to reason that parents should rule the education roost and that the type and form of education for the children should conform - as far as possible - to the wishes of parents. Much assistance can be given by government and, indeed, by those who are currently in the edcuation system and do have a body of knowledge on the ways and means of imparting knowledge - but the final call in all education matters should always lie with the parent; and this would extend to such fundamental issues as when a child will start school, how long he’ll be at it and what general subjects are to be covered.
In this age of lies and big government, the duty of free people is clear - to tell the truth, and demand that their power be returned to them and government be curbed. Especially in matters of family it is a vital necessity that we get government out of the internal affairs of the family. A people remain free just as long as they value it and know what it is - the mis-educated results of public school system are ripe for tyrants of various stripes. Its time for fundamental change, and no place better to start than in returning authority to the parents.
Tags: home-school, public shools
August 13th, 2008
Stop. And. Think.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Dueling delegations pitting Ron Paul’s Nevada supporters against those of John McCain vow to take their fight to the Republican National Convention.
That’s just one sign that the outsider, Internet-fueled movement led by the feisty Republican congressman from Texas remains afloat in the wake of McCain’s victory in the GOP primaries.
In the libertarian-leaning West, where Paul’s message of distrust of the federal government and ardent individualism played particularly well, there is talk of Republicans straying from McCain. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has emerged as a favorite alternative for Paul activists, followed by Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Even if the numbers of such dissenters are small, in tight contests in key Western states they could spoil McCain’s chances, experts say.
"In Nevada, there’s absolutely enough to have an effect on the election," said Chuck Muth, a leading conservative activist in a state in which early polls show McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama in a statistical tie.
"I think that you will see not just Libertarians who always vote for the Libertarian candidate but conservative Republicans saying we’ve had it, we’ve had enough and they’re going to go ahead and vote Libertarian," Muth said.
Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician — ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. But this year he carved out a following as an antiestablishment Republican. His campaign won more than 1 million votes and became a catchall for anti-war, anti-government voters and disaffected Republicans.
Now I’m sure you’re thinking that 2008-2012 will be transitional years. Either Obama wins, FUBARs the nation, serves a one-term presidency, and loses in 2012; or McCain wins, FU the nation (but not beyond all recognition); gets old, and we get another shot at 2012. So, you say, either way it’s all good, right?
But there will be three reasons to vote for, and yes, even work to help elect John McCain this go-round: and those reasons are, to put it simply, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, and, oh, did I mention Supreme Court?
John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 71
Stephen Breyer, 69
David Souter, 68
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts, 53
There’s no way that Stevens is going to last til 2012, and Ruth Vader Ginsberg will no doubt follow him out the door. Hell, Scalia ain’t getting any younger, either. That leaves two or more openings before 2012. To put it simply, a Barack Obama presidency (not to mention a continuing dem majority in both Houses) will most certainly poison an already-precariously balanced Supreme Court for years to come. An Obama presidency will be the catalyst in a perfect storm that will leave this nation saddled not with liberalism, but with out-and-out socialism for the foreseeable future.
Scorched earth. Is that what you really want? In the process of "sticking it" to the Republican party, you’ll be able to kiss conservatism, and yes, libertarianism goodbye. Put those ideals into a storm shelter, and perhaps take them out in a couple of decades. If we’re still around by then.
So, Paulbots– you still want to "stick it" to the Republicans?
Think hard. Think long and hard before you answer.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism, libertarianism, Ron Paul, Supreme Court
July 31st, 2008
The ACLU is screaming that there are a million names on it and that we all must tremble in fear for our liberties due to the very existence of this list. John Stephenson at Pajamas Media notes the few good points the ACLU makes (notably that the list needs to be better managed - something, of course, the government freely acknowledges), and then goes on to indicate why the leftwing fear-mongering over this is a bit strained, to say the least:
I have given the ACLU credit on this issue; now I will give reasons to be skeptical. The claim that there are one million individuals on the terror watch list is a myth created through the exaggerated “estimations” of the ACLU. The truth is there are less than 400,000 individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list, and less than 50,000 on the no-fly and selectee lists.
Assumptions by the ACLU were probably based on a 2007 report claiming the estimate of 700,000 possible records on the watch list and growing by an average of 20,000 per month. Apparently, they didn’t take into account that the numbers do not necessarily represent actual individuals. A new “record” is created for every alias, date-of-birth, passport, spelling variations, and other identifying information for watch listed suspects. Furthermore, they did not take into account the name-by-name scrub that took place in 2007. Notably, 95 percent of those on the consolidated watch list are not American citizens and the majority are not even in the U.S. The shocking numbers the ACLU is broadcasting are simply inflated and dishonest figures.
Which conclusion anyone who thinks about it would come to - the operational word here being “think”, and thus we can see why the ACLU and the larger left is up in arms over this. The last time a lefty had a thought he was writing the Communist Manifesto at the British Museum…its been all downhill since then.
The tremors of fear the left tries to generate with this story is just part and parcel with the leftwing fairytale about President Bush - given that the left is living in an Alternate Universe where facts are subordinate to intentions, it is no surprise that each and every action of the Executive branch - no matter how routine - is cast in the darkest terms possible. Its also part of the leftist’s personal worldview - they see themselves as the pure-hearted battlers for truth, and as they are fighting for truth, anyone who opposes them must be fightig for lies…and liars, of course, will do anything to win, including spying on some obscure leftwing writer because he tells “the truth” about President Bush.
Just for fun, someone at DHS should slip into the list the names of a few liberal bloggers…so they can be found and really scare the bejabbers out of these professional hand-wringers. Heck, they believe a massive, nefarious, PNCA/Likud conspiracy is afoot, lets not disabuse them of the notion. We can have some fun with this, ya know?
Tags: ACLU, FISA, liberal lies, Signals Intelligence Program, Terrorist Watch List
July 21st, 2008
…but screaming like a frightened, little girl at the mention of God is the root of, well, groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
The state of South Carolina faces a federal lawsuit seeking to block its plans to issue license plates which feature a bright-yellow Christian cross on a multicolored stained glass window and the words “I Believe.”
The bill permitting the license plates passed the state legislature unanimously, while South Carolina governor Mark Sanford allowed the bill to become law without his signature, CNN reports.
A similar design had been considered in Florida but was rejected because of First Amendment concerns.
“I think it allows people of faith to profess that they believe in a higher calling, they believe in God,” said South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who has offered to personally pay a $4,000 deposit required for the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles to begin production of the plates.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is leading the opposition to the law. He claims Bauer’s involvement “more deeply confirms this is a government-sponsored program.”
“I don’t believe that these license plates will ever be on any car in South Carolina, because I think our constitutional claim is so strong,” Lynn said, according to CNN.
Individuals can ask the DMV to print plates for other faiths, for a $4,000 fee, but the request is allegedly subject to significant limits and rules not imposed for the Christian plate. Other tags could feature a religious symbol, but no words would be allowed.
“The state has made believers of non-Christian faiths feel that they are second-class citizens,” Lynn continued. “Under our Constitution, that’s impermissible.”
Andre Bauer responded by arguing that the provision of Christian plates was an issue of freedom of speech.
To me, its not so much a freedom of speech issue - though it is that - as its a freedom to not have presumptuous busy-bodies sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. Its a license plate, for crying out loud - if you don’t want a cross on yours, then don’t buy one. Do the people of Americans United really think that someone having a plate with a cross on it makes us all less free? Lynn claims to be a reverend - isn’t there something he could do with his time more useful to the nation and more in accordance with the convictions he claims? How many meals for the homeless could be bought with the legal fees this case will generate? And if the plates are nixed, will everyone really feel freer?
We Christians are not supposed to hate - except, of course, a healthy hatred for Hell and all its works…and I’m beginning to perceive the demonic in the absurd lengths some people go to excise all mention of God from the public square. This is just stupid, stupid, stupid - in a rational world Lynn’s case would be laughed out of court and a really wise judge would slap a fine on Lynn’s group for wasting the court’s time. Enough is enough, already.
Tags: Christianity, church and state
July 10th, 2008
The case where the SC ruled that we can’t execute someone for raping a child:
As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing.
I have to say that its not particularly disturbing to me - there is a longstanding strain of thought amongst some judges that they really know better than anyone else, so no real surprise that the Supreme Court has ruled itself smarter than the people of Louisiana in this matter. The absurdity of the decision is very clear - unless capital punishment is in and of itself unconstitutional there is no rationale for a court to interfere with the particular reasons a jurisdiction imposes the death penalty as long as the trial and sentencing are in accordance with the United States Constitution. The people of Lousiana have determined that those who rape children put their own lives a jeopardy, and everyone outside Louisiana should just shut their traps about it unless they want to move to Louisiana and, by participating in Louisiana’s politics, work to change the law. But never let it be said that the Court is shy about sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong.
That said, I’d like to remind everyone that I am an opponent of the death penalty - killing the SOB who raped a child won’t actually help the raped child and by putting the criminal at risk of death for rape we merely, in my view, increase the risk that it will be a rape/murder in order to dispose of the prime witness to the crime. Should such a proposal come up here in Nevada, I would work against it and vote against it - but its none of my particular business what the people of Louisiana decide, just at its none of theirs what we Nevadans decide. America does need a large dose of “mind your own business” education. What I am most disturbed with here is the judicial usurpation of the rights of the States, and the people. We are either free people ruling ourselves, or we are mere automatons carrying out the instructions of our judges - if this SC ruling is allowed to stand, then we will have surrendered another part of our precious right to self government.
This ruling also provides us with another strong reason for voting for John McCain in November - with McCain, we might get to a solid 5 conservative Justices, and thus start having a Court which obeys the Constitution at all times…with Obama, we’ll probably get to a solid 5 liberal Justices who will do the bidding of the kook left in matters of law. The choices in November are quite stark, and this case might end up playing a larger role than most expect at this point in time.
Tags: Death Penalty, John McCain, Supreme Court
June 26th, 2008
A Wall Street Journal editorial via Catholics in the Public Square lays it out:
Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.” Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.
Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.
Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, she paused, then said, “I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme.”
“Extreme” may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama’s autobiography have been left with. In “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama’s presidential manifesto, he calls abortion “undeniably difficult,” “a very difficult issue,” “never a good thing” and “a wrenching moral issue.”
He laments his party’s “litmus test” for “orthodoxy” on abortion and other issues, and even admits, “I do not presume to know the answer to that question.” That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has “moral weight.”
Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime “pro-choice” voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers’ abortions.
OBama is, indeed, extreme on the issue of abortion - but the real problem is that this extremism is entirely mainstream in the Democratic party. The article goes on to note that Obama has pledged to sign the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act“, a monstrous bit of pro-death legislation which would undo no only the federal ban on late-term abortions, but also the various common-sense regulations placed on abortion at the State level over the years. This is pro-abortion fanaticism in action, and Obama is hip deep in it.
I cannot take at face value anyone’s claims to care about people if they can’t care about the most helpless amongst us - there is a cold hearted indifference to suffering in the actions of those who work to protect abortion; from those who just use honey-coated words to cover up what it really is, to those who actually seek to ensure that more abortions are peformed. Obama talks a great game about helping the helpless, but when the real helpless have arrived in front of him, he’s slammed the door in their faces, more interested in garnering pro-abortion donations and pro-abortion political support for his blinding ambition to be President of the United States. Abortion is wicked; evil to the core - only the rankest sort of ignorance and cowardice can excuse any support for it; there is just never, ever a valid reason for seeking the termination of an unborn human life.
While many issues will be discussed during this campaign and while abortion won’t register with more than 5% or so as the most vital issue of the election, the central issue or our time has been, is and will be the abortion issue. As long as we permit this barbaric and inhuman practice - a veritible human sacrifice on the altar of the secular god “Selfishness” - just that long will we remain a nation divided against itself, and unsure of its place in the world. Just as we were riven by the stresses of trying to reconcile chattel slavery with our sublime Declaration of Independence so, too, are we riven by the attempts to reconcile cold blooded murder with the right to life our Founders fought and died for. This terrible poison, abortion, must end - and we will not end it by electing as President a man who will talk a lot about how sad abortion is, but who will in practical terms do all he can to advance the cause of abortion in the United States.
In the end, if one has any sense of the sanctity of human life - all life, even that unborn - then John McCain is the only possible candidate for 2008. A man of unscotchable pro-life record and a clear view of the value of life (probably built up by his inhuman treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese), who is pledged to appoint judges who understand that the US Constitution isn’t a plaything for the latest liberal fads.
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, culture of death, Culture of Life, Freedom of Choice Act, John McCain
June 15th, 2008
Since the left thinks we’re being mean to them, and the SC narrowly ruled that they can be treated as other than the war criminals they are, a reader at NRO’s The Corner comes up with a solution to the entire problem:
Let’s free all Gitmo detainees…on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start.
After all, we picked them up on the battlefields of the War on Terrorism, so no objection to putting them back on to the battlefield, and then dealing with them as one deals with any enemy who has not surrendered.
Harsh joking aside, all this SC ruling does it make it less and less worthwhile for us to even take prisoners in this struggle - we’re dealing with people who strap bombs on autistic children and send them off on suicide missions…and the ivory tower types wish to treat this as an episode of “Law and Order”! The world isn’t a theory, good people; it is a very real place where very real people do very real things - and when someone opts to become part of a terrorist outfit, one takes the risk of a horrific death and rough treatment if captured.
Tags: enemy combatants, Gitmo
June 13th, 2008
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Tags: Christianity, Conservatism, gay rights, liberal lies, liberalism, religious liberty
June 8th, 2008
Not exactly the best news for Obama the day after he unofficially cliched the Democratic nomination…
RNC Chairman Duncan released the following statement tonight regarding the Rezko verdict:
“On the day Barack Obama hoped to unite his party after wheezing over the finish line and claiming the Democrat nomination, a jury in his hometown of Chicago convicted his longtime friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko of multiple felonies. This is further proof that Obama’s high-flying rhetoric is just that and in no way represents the kind of change our nation demands. Today’s verdict and Obama’s friendship with Rezko raise serious questions about whether he has the judgment to serve as president.”
Tags: Barack Obama, Corruption, Tony Rezko
June 4th, 2008
Interesting development:
Attorneys general from ten states on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to delay until November its ruling implementing legal same-sex marriages.
The attorneys general, all Republicans, said if the ruling is implemented on schedule on June 17, the states would be subjected to lawsuits from homosexual couples married in California who seek to have their unions recognized in their home states, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
“An inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation” over whether the couple’s home state must recognize their marriage, said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who authored the brief. Shurtleff said delaying the implementation of the ruling would save other states from “premature, unnecessary, unnecessarily difficult, and therefore unduly burdensome litigation in our courts.”
The attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota joined the brief.
Each of the ten states has legally banned the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. Unlike Massachusetts, where homosexual marriages have also been legalized, California allows residents of other states to marry even if the marriage would not be legal in their home state.
California voters could overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision in the November 3 election with a constitutional amendment that would declare only opposite-sex marriages to be valid. Sponsors of the amendment have submitted petitions bearing 1.1 million signatures, about 400,000 more signatures than required to qualify for the state ballot.
Is this part of a strategy? Colorado, Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire are all set to be battleground States in the fall, and the race will probably be close enough that one or two States can decide it…making California’s judicial usurpation on the issue of gay marriage is an excellent way to nationalise the issue for the electoin; a way of letting people know just how high the stakes are in 2008, because if you like what the CA Supreme Court did, then you’ll love what Obama’s US Supreme Court nominees will do.
Time will tell, but this campaign is going to be a very interesting race.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
June 4th, 2008
This is getting absurd:
Parents’ hopes of quick reunions with more than 400 children removed from a polygamist sect’s ranch were dashed Friday after their attorneys and a judge clashed over proposed restrictions.
A decision by Texas District Judge Barbara Walther means that to regain custody, the 38 mothers whose filed the complaint that led the Texas Supreme Court to reject the state’s massive seizure must personally sign an agreement their attorneys and state child-welfare officials have proposed…
…The high court on Thursday affirmed an appeals court ruling ordering Walther to reverse her decision last month putting all children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch into foster case. The Supreme Court and the appeals court rejected the state’s argument that all the children were in immediate danger from what it said was a cycle of sexual abuse of teenage girls at the ranch…
…Under the deal CPS released, the families won’t be able to leave Texas until Aug. 31 but would be allowed to move back to the ranch. It also calls for parenting classes and visits by CPS to interview children and parents in the child abuse investigation.
Walther wanted to remove the August deadline and provide for psychological evaluations of the children. She also wanted it specified that parents can’t travel more than 60 miles from their residence without 48 hours’ notice. She also wanted CPS to have access to the ranch and the children at all times necessary for any investigation.
The judge has been ordered to reverse her decision. No indictment has been brought. No actual evidence of criminal activity - other than polygamy, which isn’t the fault of the children - has come forth. No one has been convicted…and yet an allegedly American judge wants to treat these mothers as if they were criminals in the custody of their children. Can’t leave the State? Must submit to psychological testing? Must allow CPS people to barge in at all times? Can’t travel more than 60 miles without advance notice? Is this the State of Texas, or the USSR? What the F is going on here?
This must not be allowed to stand - this is judicial tyranny at its worst; this is a threat to all families, everywhere. It is turn this back - and turn this judge out - or at the whim of a judge a family can be destroyed.
Tags: FLDS, judicial tyranny, polygamy, religious liberty
May 31st, 2008
Then you will be pleased with the result regardless of how it is achieved. Gay Patriot seems very pleased with the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning California law regarding what makes a marriage - and seems doubly pleased by this article noting that, ultimately, it has been Republicans who appointed the Justice who made it all possible. But there is this part of the article which is very disturbing for anyone who claims any sort of conservative world view, as Gay Patriot does - and so I hope I’ve misinterpreted Gay Patriot’s views, but here goes:
Schwarzenegger probably understood well the political culture of the judicial appointments when he vetoed gay-marriage bills in 2005 and 2007. “Schwarzenegger obviously sat down and thought it through,” says Darry Sragow, a Democratic political strategist. “[The vetoes] may have been a clever way to get around his party.”
Schwarzenegger has consistently stuck to one political line: He would never sign a gay-marriage bill that would overturn the voters’ will on Proposition 22, which defines marriage as a formal union between one man and one woman, and he would abide by the courts’ rulings if that ballot measure were found unconstitutional. State Democrats still attempted to force his hand, but Schwarzenegger refused to be outmaneuvered.
“I was certainly disappointed [in 2007],” says Assemblyman Mark Leno, who twice introduced the same-sex-marriage bill. “Here was a historic chance to embrace equality, and the governor failed us a second time.”
By 2007, though, it was becoming clear that gay-marriage lawsuits would almost certainly be headed for the California State Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger, who could not be reached for comment, may have waited for things to play out in the state’s highest court, as Darry Sragow suggests, knowing that at least a majority of the judges were social moderates with an old-fashioned Republican/libertarian streak — the kind of mindset that believes government should stay out of people’s pocketbooks and bedrooms.
According to Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg, this scenario isn’t all that hard to believe. “Schwarzenegger was always a closet (no pun intended) supporter of gay marriage,” writes Steinberg in an e-mail to the Weekly. “So he was probably happy to have an excuse to at least stay neutral, or, now, to actually oppose the November ballot measure.”
On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
What respect I had for Schwarzenegger is completely gone, if this is the actual scenario (and it does ring true). If you think that gay marriage should be legal, you should just come right out and say that - to do a political dance about it with a mind towards allowing un-elected judges to get you off the political hook is cowardice…and, also, destructive of our form of government. And that is what is so disturbing about someone as smart as Gay Patriot being pleased here…I can understand a person being happy his side won, but it should be kept in mind that what the Courth hath given, the Court may taketh away…meaning that if one Justice is later replaced by someone of a different view, then a new case on this issue could result in an exactly opposite ruling. No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.
This now will go before the people, and the gay marriage advocates are quite certain of defeating the ballot initiative to overturn this judicial usurpation - and they may be right. California is a pretty liberal State…on the other hand, I also know plenty of otherwise liberal people who are opposed to gay marriage. Call it what you will, but there seems to be an inherent distrust amongst the people for the very concept of two people of the same sex getting married. If, as I expect, the ballot initiative wins, then where will the advocates of gay marriage in California be? Behind the 8 ball - having to not just argue their case, but also go through the very long and difficult process of first repealing this initiative before they can get anything else done. The ‘hip hip hooray’ of May is foolhardy - and I do believe that the underlying conservative impulse of the American majority - even in California - is going to smack this down quite hard.
In the end, one either believes in America and its way of life, or one doesn’t - if one believes, then one has to accept the whole kit and kaboodle, including especially those parts least liked. To me, gay marriage is an absurdity - a pure negation of what marriage is for (it isn’t for love, dear people; neither is it for tax breaks…love and tax breaks are benefits of marriage, not the reasons for having it). I’ll fight against it - but I’ll also lay down a marker: just as soon as gay marriage advocates start advocating a ban on no-fault divorce, then I’ll start considering a modification of my position towards theirs. My brief, you see, is to strengthen marriage and family…and if I can get a bit of that by graciously giving in to an odd request or two, I’ll do it. On the other hand, I know I’m quite safe here…because gay rights people, for the most part, are of the left and thus will never, ever contemplate any action which actually makes people live up to their promise.
Meanwhile, those advocates of gay marriage who care at all about America should be outraged by this judicial usurpation - they can, of course, in good conscience fight against the November initiative to overturn, but they should also be demanding that the Court reverse itself, and leave it to the people to decide when the current California laws regarding marriage should be modified, and how.
UPDATE: Apology is due - Gay Patriot let me know that his view is in opposition to the judicial usurpation:
Mark — you actually did misrepresent my view of the California decision. Both myself and my co-blogger (CA resident, Dan) oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.
I only posted the article you referenced as a way to piss off the liberal gays who constantly trash Republicans and label them as “bigots” because they oppose marriage.
I am delighted that I’m an idiot vis a vis Gay Patriot’s position - I’ve long respected him as a fellow American, blogger, thinker and conservative. I offer my heartfelt and complete apology, and my promise in future to get off the lazy duff and actually ask for clarification before I jump to conclusions.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
May 24th, 2008
The news story:
In a pastoral letter responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Bishop of Oakland Allen Vingeron said that Catholics must respond to this “profoundly significant” issue by bringing a proper understanding of marriage into public life. The failure to do so, he said, would result in a difficult situation where Christianity becomes a counter-cultural way of life.
Writing in a May 16 letter, Bishop Vingeron said the “most fundamental point” is that “marriage is a reality authored by God in his very act of creating the human race.” A marital relationship is only possible between one man and one woman for the purposes of “mutual loving support” between them and for their “loving service of life” by bringing children into the world.
All Catholics implicitly affirm this conviction when they profess to share the Church‘s faith in their baptismal promises, the bishop said.
However, he said, this conviction about marriage can be known from reason. Therefore, its position in society is not an ideological imposition but an aspect of the common good.
“This wisdom about the nature of marriage is not a form of discrimination, but undergirds our freedom to live according to God’s plan for us,” Bishop Vigneron said. “No government has the power to change the order which God has inscribed in our nature.”
Bishop Vigneron said future challenges related to same-sex unions can be divided into short term and long term categories.
In the short term, Catholics are called to bring marriage laws into conformity with their knowledge about the nature of marriage.
In Catholic teaching, a marriage is until death do they part - while modern realities have forced the Church to make some practical adjustments, it is still Church teaching that divorce is not allowed. An annullment of a marriage is something which states, in effect, that the marriage never took place - there are varied grounds for such a thing (as a for-instance: if a man pressures his intended into signing a pre-nuptial agreement, it means that he is marrying her under false pretences - a marriage must be a 100% giving of the self to the spouse, nothing held back - and thus the marriage never existed), but divorce - the breaking of a valid marriage - is against Catholic teaching. What the bishop is stating is that the first step - or, at least, one of the first steps - is to bring marriage, as an institution, back into accord with Christian teaching. And, yes, this means we must work for an end to divorce.
When the concept of divorce was first brought into the public square, it was asserted that such a thing was only for the extreme cases - the hard exceptions to the rule. After all, who could say that a woman mercilessly beaten by her husband should not be able to divorce him? The trouble was - and the Church pointed this out right at the start, and was called foolish and old fashioned for so doing - that the exception becomes the rule. Back in the day, the rare bad marriage had to stay together because nothing happening in it invalidated the marriage, itself…in the modern world, all sorts of marriages are terminated for the most trivial of reasons, even for something as meaningless as “irreconcilable differences”, which really means “we don’t want to reconcile our differences becase that might be hard and we’re moderns, and don’t like hard things”. It it way past time that we recognise divorce as a complete failure, and get rid of it.
If we were to do so, we’d probably end the entire gay marriage debate right there - and that is why the bishop brings it up now. You see, as long as society is just playing make-believe about marriage, then everyone wants a piece of it…but if marriage becomes the very real thing it used to be - a shared, life long sacrifice one to the other, and to any resultant children - then I’ll bet that most homosexuals, most of the time, will eschew the very idea. It is in the full restoration of marriage that we’ll make the institution not only strong again, but make it impervious to those who wish to use it merely as a means of advancing a particular political agenda.