Saturday, December 15, 2007

Judge Declares Declaration Of Independence Unconstitutional

by Mario Diaz - December 13th, 2007 -

Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education, a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion. This is, of course, not only a far cry from what our founding fathers intended, including Thomas Jefferson — a staunch religious liberty advocate — but it is a far cry from what “We the people” intended when the Constitution was ratified.

The many perils of reading into the Constitution a “wall of separation between church and state” where none exists came as no surprise to many of us. Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution. Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a “living, breathing” Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate “advances,” but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny.

That is the major goal of the trial lawyers and judges in their campaign for power. Tyranny. The extortion based, revolving door system of corruption and greed that our court system has become depends on ignoring the Constitution, and creating a new Constitution that only the judges can see. In this new Constitution they find "rights" that were never considered, like the right to abortion. They simultaneously ignore rights that are clearly enumerated, like the prohibition on taking private property.

The writer here has come up with one of the funniest examples yet of where this "rule of judges" could lead. Voiding the Declaration of Independence would certainly be an interesting move allowing them to appeal to the British House of Lords for a final decision on what our laws mean. Then again that act would not be significantly more ridiculous than what the "rule of judges" has already demanded.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Justice? Strip His Records

by Mike Vaccaro - December 8th, 2007 - New York Post

Jail? Jail is for rapists and thieves and swindlers and murderers. Jail is for the blue-collar hoods who so readily swap lives for money, and for the white-collar smoothies who make old ladies' pensions disappear with a keystroke. Is that really what you want for Barry Bonds? Really?

Baseball fans, the only ones who were even remotely hurt by whatever Bonds may have done, yearn for a different kind of justice. They want an eraser taken to the record books, and to their own memory banks. They want Hank Aaron and Roger Maris restored to where they once stood.

What we have here is one more example of the tyrannical power of today's "game" of court. It is dominated by the "rule of judges", not the rule of law. As such they will allow the courts to extort money from companies that never broke a single law. Or criminalize the behavior of a sports figure who also abided by the rules at the time he competed. After the fact justice should not be permitted. We should have had a stipulation in our Constitution that the federal justice system should never be permitted. More and more we have persecutors, not prosecutors.

Since the court system is a game I guess they figure they should control the game of baseball too.

Barry Bonds does not deserve to replace Hank Aaron as the all time home run king. His records are the records of steroid enhanced performance. I have stopped caring about baseball because of the failure of baseball to maintain the integrity of the game. That said, the problem is not Barry Bonds. There are a couple of other players whose records are a blemish. The problem was the officials in charge of the game. It is their job, not the job of the criminal courts.

Our court system is an abusive and tyrannical joke. The "persecutor" in this case is no different than Mike Nifong. He too should be disbarred.
But he won't be. Too bad. Someone should change the rules and let us go after those criminals in after the fact rewriting of justice.

Monday, December 03, 2007

American Indians Given Veto
Power Over Federal Land

By William Perry Pendley - November 30th, 2007 -

This month, the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments in its reconsideration of a three-judge panel’s ruling in favor of American Indian religious practitioners. On March 12, 2007, in Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, the panel ruled that a plan by a ski resort located on federal land to make snow using reclaimed water, thus offending the religious sensitivities of American Indians who believe the resort is situated on sacred land, violated federal law.

The bizarre ruling actually takes the position that because the majority of the people who use the area for skiing, the activity the Indians oppose, happen to be Christians:
In the panel’s view, using federal land as proposed by Snowbowl and approved by the Forest Service is tantamount to a government edict that Christian “baptisms be carried out with ‘reclaimed water.’”

Yep. That is right. The tyrants of our court system have equated skiing to baptizing people, a religious practice! In truth it is merely a convenient distortion of logic to continue our court system's war against Christianity.

Welcome to the "rule of judges".